|
Why does every thread that mentions LoL NEED to turn into a LoL vs HoN vs Dota2 thread? Seriously, cut it out.
Page 7, 00:29 KST. |
On August 16 2011 02:59 noodle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 02:40 NeoIllusions wrote:On August 16 2011 02:34 noodle wrote:On August 16 2011 00:55 Yiruru wrote:
LoL is a casual game and will probably stay more popular. Does this make it competitive? No. In fact, Riot often balances things with lower level players in mind just to make things easier for new players. No they don't. They balance around the highest tier of play, and even consult the top-ranked ladder players for their opinions on certain things regarding balance. Almost all of the champ designers (including the lead designer Morello) have said this on several different occasions on the LoL forums. Go look it up. on topic: I think that the prize pool increase is only a great thing for eSports. Even if it's not your game of choice, you have to be excited that someone's finally putting that much money on the line for a video game. To that other guy that said something about how Riot is looked upon as a joke in the eSports community: the only reason that's the case is because of the fact that the "eSports manager" that they hired has absolutely ZERO knowledge of how to run a tournament, especially after what happened going into Dreamhack Summer this year. lol, I'll just assume that you don't know who Yiruru is. But he's right. Riot does (unfortunately) balance their champions with all levels of elo in mind. For example, Xin Zhao had some random nerfs a few patches ago that no one really thought was warranted. Riot justified that at lower elos, Xin Zhao was a rampant menace. It's laughable to think about it but it is something Riot has routinely done in the past. This doesn't discredit Riot's/Morello's effort in talking with the top tier teams/players when they discuss about balance. But to say Riot looks at high tier results only and balance around that is completely inaccurate. I wish they did only look at top tier play and balance around it. 1) I'm honestly not concerned with who Yiruru is -- there, I said it. 2) There have been 3 champs that they've centered around low-elo gameplay -- Xin (and that was because they shut all of us off to the PTR and absolutely released an OP champ), Twitch (because of the broken stealth mechanic in the game), and Evelynn (same reason). They've said multiple times that they look at high elo play and see how balance changes would affect that before they look at the ramifications to low elo play -- which is often negligible at best due to lower tier mechanics not being as good and thus not creating the same types of super-farmed/super-fed situations that you'd get in higher tier play (which isn't to say that it doesn't happen). Any other MAJOR balance changes have been done because high elo players brought them to light via long, drawn out forum posts or streamed gameplay (Pantheon's first nerf into uselessness, Alistar's AP ratios, Gangplank's recent nerfs to the slow they put on his passive all come to mind off the top of my head).
Pantheon actually wasn't viable in high elo, he was a pub stomper. They nerfed Udyr recently because he's too strong in noobie games. They nerfed Kassadin because he stomped uncoordinated teams too well. They nerfed Shaco multiple times because he was too difficult for noobs to counter. They first nerfed Jax multiple times because he was too powerful for people who didn't know you shouldn't autoattack spam him. They nerfed Tryndamere ulti because it was too OP for noobs to deal with because they can't chain CC. They nerfed Vladimir multiple times because he's so good in uncoordinated games.
|
On August 16 2011 02:07 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 01:20 Novalisk wrote:On August 16 2011 01:11 Judicator wrote:On August 16 2011 01:09 Novalisk wrote:On August 16 2011 01:03 Judicator wrote:On August 16 2011 01:00 scintilliaSD wrote:On August 16 2011 00:57 Judicator wrote:On August 16 2011 00:50 Mordiford wrote:
I would certainly love it if I could purchase all the heroes in Dota 2 for a reasonable price, perhaps that would be great in addition to an unlock mechanic for people who want to play for free.
However, considering the current state of these games, micro-transactions seem to be the future. I particularly don't like the Rune system in LoL very much, I feel like it's kind of unnecessary and a distraction from the champions necessary to get people to spend money on the champions so they can buy the Runes with their IP. No, there shouldn't be any of that bullshit. One of the reasons why DotA's scene has grown like the way it did is because anyone can pick up the game and learn the game in it's entirety without worrying about access to a item/hero. This feeds the competitive scene as players are only bound by their own skill and not because they don't have access to a certain hero or item. Why is this important? Because if you have friends and they want to play, they're not stuck playing a limited set of heroes at the start due to some dumbshit unlock system that's there ONLY for the sole purpose of making money which from the community perspective is a piece of shit. TF2 does the microtransaction system well where it doesn't gimp the fuck out of the player because they didn't put (additional) money into the game. However, HoN/LoL's systems doesn't do that, rather it does the exact opposite. There is nothing you can do in LoL with money that you can't do without except make your characters prettier. Sounds like TF2 hats. Doesn't TF2 also have buyable weapons that can't be found via normal pickups? So you have access to everything straight up with LoL? TF2's weapons aren't used very often in competitive play and you can unlock or craft them yourself. The point is that TF2's system lets you be competitive with the standard unlocks or layouts. LoL/HoN's system doesn't let you do that. You can't say you're competitive when your hero pool is X% of someone with money. Regardless, you get access to a ton of content for free, which is why LoL got so popular. By the time you're level 30 you should have a lot of characters unlocked, and level 30 isn't enough experience to be considered in any way competitive. Alot isn't all, thanks for proving my point. There shouldn't be a "by the time I am 30", it's like saying hey you know that 30 levels of grinding? you weren't playing the game actually. Also thanks for proving my other point, why is the game limiting my abilities? If I am good enough to play competitive why do I need to grind 30 levels and then some to be competitive? Time invested != True skill. What game gives you full access to everything for free? If you think 30 levels is grinding then maybe the game isn't for you? And you didn't have to waste a cent while figuring that out. Fact is that in a team game, it's hard to know how good you are. Limiting ranked play to level 30 means that you can rely on the fact that your teammates won't suck in ranked. Didn't I just say that time invested doesn't means skill? What does going to level 30 have to do with anything about your teammates not sucking. All it means is that they won't be new, not that they won't suck. If you don't have an accurate assessment of yourself as a player, then there's no point in continuing any kind of discussion on this topic with you. Just because it's a team game doesn't mean it's hard to know how good you are unless you like lying to yourself. If you can't place all the metrics available to you in context as a player, then there's even less point in this discussion.
By no means does level 30 dictate your skill level, it's a system put in place partially so people don't have to deal with trolls and newbies in a team game. If you're a great player and you love the game, getting to 30 shouldn't take long.
? DotA gives you full access to everything for free. I can attempt to join a IHL to play with better people with community enforced rules if I am good enough.
Edit:
Seriously, if anyone can provide a good reason why this particular (HoN/LoL) model is good for advancing the community and doesn't solely exist to make the company money, I am all ears, because so far the only "reasons" are that it's part of the process.
Before you go lolol company needs to make money, yeah notice that the game wasn't good enough for people to buy into before F2P and that should tell you how quality of a product you were paying for in the first place. People also like to forget that LoL had a huge marketing blitz ironically at Gamescom 2 years ago and the title still went flat. Also notice that TF2's model let it go F2P after being a massive success as a pay-once.
That's an entirely different argument. Games like DotA and Brood War are prime examples of free(though they didn't start out free) E-Sports titles that had little to no developer support. Having no developer support has its shortcomings, as they are the only ones who can implement certain vital game changes and engine renovations. Do you think SC2 would be as successful if it was free to play like DotA? No, because it wouldn't exist.
|
On August 15 2011 22:37 Senx wrote:
Silly people thinking valve were actually going to outdo riot games in the esport department.. I dont think people realize how much spare money this company has to throw around.
GG no re valve.
You joking? Valve has much, much, much, much more money.
|
wow... these are the kind of money i was hoping would go into starcraft 2.
are these types of games now officially the biggest e-sport?
how about in terms of viewers? i think its hard to see whats going on when watching others play.
|
answer to the mod message : 'cause you warn some troll who'd be at least temp ban on an other thread ...
|
On August 16 2011 03:04 Novalisk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 02:07 Judicator wrote:On August 16 2011 01:20 Novalisk wrote:On August 16 2011 01:11 Judicator wrote:On August 16 2011 01:09 Novalisk wrote:On August 16 2011 01:03 Judicator wrote:On August 16 2011 01:00 scintilliaSD wrote:On August 16 2011 00:57 Judicator wrote:On August 16 2011 00:50 Mordiford wrote:
I would certainly love it if I could purchase all the heroes in Dota 2 for a reasonable price, perhaps that would be great in addition to an unlock mechanic for people who want to play for free.
However, considering the current state of these games, micro-transactions seem to be the future. I particularly don't like the Rune system in LoL very much, I feel like it's kind of unnecessary and a distraction from the champions necessary to get people to spend money on the champions so they can buy the Runes with their IP. No, there shouldn't be any of that bullshit. One of the reasons why DotA's scene has grown like the way it did is because anyone can pick up the game and learn the game in it's entirety without worrying about access to a item/hero. This feeds the competitive scene as players are only bound by their own skill and not because they don't have access to a certain hero or item. Why is this important? Because if you have friends and they want to play, they're not stuck playing a limited set of heroes at the start due to some dumbshit unlock system that's there ONLY for the sole purpose of making money which from the community perspective is a piece of shit. TF2 does the microtransaction system well where it doesn't gimp the fuck out of the player because they didn't put (additional) money into the game. However, HoN/LoL's systems doesn't do that, rather it does the exact opposite. There is nothing you can do in LoL with money that you can't do without except make your characters prettier. Sounds like TF2 hats. Doesn't TF2 also have buyable weapons that can't be found via normal pickups? So you have access to everything straight up with LoL? TF2's weapons aren't used very often in competitive play and you can unlock or craft them yourself. The point is that TF2's system lets you be competitive with the standard unlocks or layouts. LoL/HoN's system doesn't let you do that. You can't say you're competitive when your hero pool is X% of someone with money. Regardless, you get access to a ton of content for free, which is why LoL got so popular. By the time you're level 30 you should have a lot of characters unlocked, and level 30 isn't enough experience to be considered in any way competitive. Alot isn't all, thanks for proving my point. There shouldn't be a "by the time I am 30", it's like saying hey you know that 30 levels of grinding? you weren't playing the game actually. Also thanks for proving my other point, why is the game limiting my abilities? If I am good enough to play competitive why do I need to grind 30 levels and then some to be competitive? Time invested != True skill. What game gives you full access to everything for free? If you think 30 levels is grinding then maybe the game isn't for you? And you didn't have to waste a cent while figuring that out. Fact is that in a team game, it's hard to know how good you are. Limiting ranked play to level 30 means that you can rely on the fact that your teammates won't suck in ranked. Didn't I just say that time invested doesn't means skill? What does going to level 30 have to do with anything about your teammates not sucking. All it means is that they won't be new, not that they won't suck. If you don't have an accurate assessment of yourself as a player, then there's no point in continuing any kind of discussion on this topic with you. Just because it's a team game doesn't mean it's hard to know how good you are unless you like lying to yourself. If you can't place all the metrics available to you in context as a player, then there's even less point in this discussion. By no means does level 30 dictate your skill level, it's a system put in place partially so people don't have to deal with trolls and newbies in a team game. If you're a great player and you love the game, getting to 30 shouldn't take long. Show nested quote +? DotA gives you full access to everything for free. I can attempt to join a IHL to play with better people with community enforced rules if I am good enough.
Edit:
Seriously, if anyone can provide a good reason why this particular (HoN/LoL) model is good for advancing the community and doesn't solely exist to make the company money, I am all ears, because so far the only "reasons" are that it's part of the process.
Before you go lolol company needs to make money, yeah notice that the game wasn't good enough for people to buy into before F2P and that should tell you how quality of a product you were paying for in the first place. People also like to forget that LoL had a huge marketing blitz ironically at Gamescom 2 years ago and the title still went flat. Also notice that TF2's model let it go F2P after being a massive success as a pay-once. That's an entirely different argument. Games like DotA and Brood War are prime examples of free(though they didn't start out free) E-Sports titles that had little to no developer support. Having no developer support has its shortcomings, as they are the only ones who can implement certain vital game changes and engine renovations. Do you think SC2 would be as successful if it was free to play like DotA? No, because it wouldn't exist.
DotA had quite a lot of "developer support" even if icefrog couldnt change the underlying engine. many vital gameplay changes dont require engine level changes
|
On August 16 2011 03:03 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 02:59 noodle wrote:On August 16 2011 02:40 NeoIllusions wrote:On August 16 2011 02:34 noodle wrote:On August 16 2011 00:55 Yiruru wrote:
LoL is a casual game and will probably stay more popular. Does this make it competitive? No. In fact, Riot often balances things with lower level players in mind just to make things easier for new players. No they don't. They balance around the highest tier of play, and even consult the top-ranked ladder players for their opinions on certain things regarding balance. Almost all of the champ designers (including the lead designer Morello) have said this on several different occasions on the LoL forums. Go look it up. on topic: I think that the prize pool increase is only a great thing for eSports. Even if it's not your game of choice, you have to be excited that someone's finally putting that much money on the line for a video game. To that other guy that said something about how Riot is looked upon as a joke in the eSports community: the only reason that's the case is because of the fact that the "eSports manager" that they hired has absolutely ZERO knowledge of how to run a tournament, especially after what happened going into Dreamhack Summer this year. lol, I'll just assume that you don't know who Yiruru is. But he's right. Riot does (unfortunately) balance their champions with all levels of elo in mind. For example, Xin Zhao had some random nerfs a few patches ago that no one really thought was warranted. Riot justified that at lower elos, Xin Zhao was a rampant menace. It's laughable to think about it but it is something Riot has routinely done in the past. This doesn't discredit Riot's/Morello's effort in talking with the top tier teams/players when they discuss about balance. But to say Riot looks at high tier results only and balance around that is completely inaccurate. I wish they did only look at top tier play and balance around it. 1) I'm honestly not concerned with who Yiruru is -- there, I said it. 2) There have been 3 champs that they've centered around low-elo gameplay -- Xin (and that was because they shut all of us off to the PTR and absolutely released an OP champ), Twitch (because of the broken stealth mechanic in the game), and Evelynn (same reason). They've said multiple times that they look at high elo play and see how balance changes would affect that before they look at the ramifications to low elo play -- which is often negligible at best due to lower tier mechanics not being as good and thus not creating the same types of super-farmed/super-fed situations that you'd get in higher tier play (which isn't to say that it doesn't happen). Any other MAJOR balance changes have been done because high elo players brought them to light via long, drawn out forum posts or streamed gameplay (Pantheon's first nerf into uselessness, Alistar's AP ratios, Gangplank's recent nerfs to the slow they put on his passive all come to mind off the top of my head). Pantheon actually wasn't viable in high elo, he was a pub stomper. They nerfed Udyr recently because he's too strong in noobie games. They nerfed Kassadin because he stomped uncoordinated teams too well. They nerfed Shaco multiple times because he was too difficult for noobs to counter. They first nerfed Jax multiple times because he was too powerful for people who didn't know you shouldn't autoattack spam him. They nerfed Tryndamere ulti because it was too OP for noobs to deal with because they can't chain CC. They nerfed Vladimir multiple times because he's so good in uncoordinated games.
Vlad, Kassadin and Jax were used in top level tournament games until the latest nerfs.
People need to understand that Riot does not only change things for balance. They try to make the game more fun to play.
I would say currently LoL is has the highest amount of viable heroes it has ever had in highish elo.
|
On August 16 2011 03:03 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 02:59 noodle wrote:On August 16 2011 02:40 NeoIllusions wrote:On August 16 2011 02:34 noodle wrote:On August 16 2011 00:55 Yiruru wrote:
LoL is a casual game and will probably stay more popular. Does this make it competitive? No. In fact, Riot often balances things with lower level players in mind just to make things easier for new players. No they don't. They balance around the highest tier of play, and even consult the top-ranked ladder players for their opinions on certain things regarding balance. Almost all of the champ designers (including the lead designer Morello) have said this on several different occasions on the LoL forums. Go look it up. on topic: I think that the prize pool increase is only a great thing for eSports. Even if it's not your game of choice, you have to be excited that someone's finally putting that much money on the line for a video game. To that other guy that said something about how Riot is looked upon as a joke in the eSports community: the only reason that's the case is because of the fact that the "eSports manager" that they hired has absolutely ZERO knowledge of how to run a tournament, especially after what happened going into Dreamhack Summer this year. lol, I'll just assume that you don't know who Yiruru is. But he's right. Riot does (unfortunately) balance their champions with all levels of elo in mind. For example, Xin Zhao had some random nerfs a few patches ago that no one really thought was warranted. Riot justified that at lower elos, Xin Zhao was a rampant menace. It's laughable to think about it but it is something Riot has routinely done in the past. This doesn't discredit Riot's/Morello's effort in talking with the top tier teams/players when they discuss about balance. But to say Riot looks at high tier results only and balance around that is completely inaccurate. I wish they did only look at top tier play and balance around it. 1) I'm honestly not concerned with who Yiruru is -- there, I said it. 2) There have been 3 champs that they've centered around low-elo gameplay -- Xin (and that was because they shut all of us off to the PTR and absolutely released an OP champ), Twitch (because of the broken stealth mechanic in the game), and Evelynn (same reason). They've said multiple times that they look at high elo play and see how balance changes would affect that before they look at the ramifications to low elo play -- which is often negligible at best due to lower tier mechanics not being as good and thus not creating the same types of super-farmed/super-fed situations that you'd get in higher tier play (which isn't to say that it doesn't happen). Any other MAJOR balance changes have been done because high elo players brought them to light via long, drawn out forum posts or streamed gameplay (Pantheon's first nerf into uselessness, Alistar's AP ratios, Gangplank's recent nerfs to the slow they put on his passive all come to mind off the top of my head). Pantheon actually wasn't viable in high elo, he was a pub stomper. They nerfed Udyr recently because he's too strong in noobie games. They nerfed Kassadin because he stomped uncoordinated teams too well. They nerfed Shaco multiple times because he was too difficult for noobs to counter. They first nerfed Jax multiple times because he was too powerful for people who didn't know you shouldn't autoattack spam him. They nerfed Tryndamere ulti because it was too OP for noobs to deal with because they can't chain CC. They nerfed Vladimir multiple times because he's so good in uncoordinated games.
Guess how all of those things became common trends for lower level players to abuse? High level play being streamed via tournaments and personal player streams.
Pantheon was a solo queue hero -- if you were confident enough, you could do well and demoralize a team with him.
Did they actually nerf Udyr? I know they decreased the damage on his Pheonix stance, but other than that all they've done is buff Tiger stance.
They nerfed Kassadin after some EU team stomped an American team in one of the WCG grand finals games (although I don't remember who or what it was, so I'm probably going to get flamed for that).
They nerfed Shaco, Jax, and Vlad because of players like Reginald and HotshotGG absolutely DEMOLISHING people in solo queue on their personal streams and higherish elo players making forum posts about.
They haven't touch Trynd's ult. They changed him to a rage system and changed how his damage output works just slightly.
|
pretty sure valve has a ton more money to throw out. 1.6 million for a pre release tournament. imagine what they would do for a season
|
United States2822 Posts
On August 16 2011 03:04 RA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2011 22:37 Senx wrote:
Silly people thinking valve were actually going to outdo riot games in the esport department.. I dont think people realize how much spare money this company has to throw around.
GG no re valve. You joking? Valve has much, much, much, much more money.
Tencent, the company who has a majority sharehold in Riot, is the third largest web company in the world behind Google and Amazon. They've shown through the multitude of Chinese games that they sponsor that they have absolutely no problem dumping tons of money into the video game industry.
I think Tencent is quite a bit more money than Valve does.
|
United States2822 Posts
On August 16 2011 03:15 noodle wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 03:03 Shikyo wrote:On August 16 2011 02:59 noodle wrote:On August 16 2011 02:40 NeoIllusions wrote:On August 16 2011 02:34 noodle wrote:On August 16 2011 00:55 Yiruru wrote:
LoL is a casual game and will probably stay more popular. Does this make it competitive? No. In fact, Riot often balances things with lower level players in mind just to make things easier for new players. No they don't. They balance around the highest tier of play, and even consult the top-ranked ladder players for their opinions on certain things regarding balance. Almost all of the champ designers (including the lead designer Morello) have said this on several different occasions on the LoL forums. Go look it up. on topic: I think that the prize pool increase is only a great thing for eSports. Even if it's not your game of choice, you have to be excited that someone's finally putting that much money on the line for a video game. To that other guy that said something about how Riot is looked upon as a joke in the eSports community: the only reason that's the case is because of the fact that the "eSports manager" that they hired has absolutely ZERO knowledge of how to run a tournament, especially after what happened going into Dreamhack Summer this year. lol, I'll just assume that you don't know who Yiruru is. But he's right. Riot does (unfortunately) balance their champions with all levels of elo in mind. For example, Xin Zhao had some random nerfs a few patches ago that no one really thought was warranted. Riot justified that at lower elos, Xin Zhao was a rampant menace. It's laughable to think about it but it is something Riot has routinely done in the past. This doesn't discredit Riot's/Morello's effort in talking with the top tier teams/players when they discuss about balance. But to say Riot looks at high tier results only and balance around that is completely inaccurate. I wish they did only look at top tier play and balance around it. 1) I'm honestly not concerned with who Yiruru is -- there, I said it. 2) There have been 3 champs that they've centered around low-elo gameplay -- Xin (and that was because they shut all of us off to the PTR and absolutely released an OP champ), Twitch (because of the broken stealth mechanic in the game), and Evelynn (same reason). They've said multiple times that they look at high elo play and see how balance changes would affect that before they look at the ramifications to low elo play -- which is often negligible at best due to lower tier mechanics not being as good and thus not creating the same types of super-farmed/super-fed situations that you'd get in higher tier play (which isn't to say that it doesn't happen). Any other MAJOR balance changes have been done because high elo players brought them to light via long, drawn out forum posts or streamed gameplay (Pantheon's first nerf into uselessness, Alistar's AP ratios, Gangplank's recent nerfs to the slow they put on his passive all come to mind off the top of my head). Pantheon actually wasn't viable in high elo, he was a pub stomper. They nerfed Udyr recently because he's too strong in noobie games. They nerfed Kassadin because he stomped uncoordinated teams too well. They nerfed Shaco multiple times because he was too difficult for noobs to counter. They first nerfed Jax multiple times because he was too powerful for people who didn't know you shouldn't autoattack spam him. They nerfed Tryndamere ulti because it was too OP for noobs to deal with because they can't chain CC. They nerfed Vladimir multiple times because he's so good in uncoordinated games. Guess how all of those things became common trends for lower level players to abuse? High level play being streamed via tournaments and personal player streams. Pantheon was a solo queue hero -- if you were confident enough, you could do well and demoralize a team with him. Did they actually nerf Udyr? I know they decreased the damage on his Pheonix stance, but other than that all they've done is buff Tiger stance. They nerfed Kassadin after some EU team stomped an American team in one of the WCG grand finals games (although I don't remember who or what it was, so I'm probably going to get flamed for that). They nerfed Shaco, Jax, and Vlad because of players like Reginald and HotshotGG absolutely DEMOLISHING people in solo queue on their personal streams and higherish elo players making forum posts about. They haven't touch Trynd's ult. They changed him to a rage system and changed how his damage output works just slightly.
They nerfed Udyr's Phoenix Stance and buffed Tiger Stance a few patches back, which reduced his jungle a lot.
Then they decided to slash his mana costs on all of his abilities, which gave him ridiculous Turtle Stance sustainability in lane while also increasing his viability and versatility in the jungle. He's one of the most banned champions now.
|
On August 16 2011 03:15 noodle wrote:
They haven't touch Trynd's ult. They changed him to a rage system and changed how his damage output works just slightly.
Tryndamere ulti used to last 1 second more.
|
On August 16 2011 03:21 scintilliaSD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 03:15 noodle wrote:On August 16 2011 03:03 Shikyo wrote:On August 16 2011 02:59 noodle wrote:On August 16 2011 02:40 NeoIllusions wrote:On August 16 2011 02:34 noodle wrote:On August 16 2011 00:55 Yiruru wrote:
LoL is a casual game and will probably stay more popular. Does this make it competitive? No. In fact, Riot often balances things with lower level players in mind just to make things easier for new players. No they don't. They balance around the highest tier of play, and even consult the top-ranked ladder players for their opinions on certain things regarding balance. Almost all of the champ designers (including the lead designer Morello) have said this on several different occasions on the LoL forums. Go look it up. on topic: I think that the prize pool increase is only a great thing for eSports. Even if it's not your game of choice, you have to be excited that someone's finally putting that much money on the line for a video game. To that other guy that said something about how Riot is looked upon as a joke in the eSports community: the only reason that's the case is because of the fact that the "eSports manager" that they hired has absolutely ZERO knowledge of how to run a tournament, especially after what happened going into Dreamhack Summer this year. lol, I'll just assume that you don't know who Yiruru is. But he's right. Riot does (unfortunately) balance their champions with all levels of elo in mind. For example, Xin Zhao had some random nerfs a few patches ago that no one really thought was warranted. Riot justified that at lower elos, Xin Zhao was a rampant menace. It's laughable to think about it but it is something Riot has routinely done in the past. This doesn't discredit Riot's/Morello's effort in talking with the top tier teams/players when they discuss about balance. But to say Riot looks at high tier results only and balance around that is completely inaccurate. I wish they did only look at top tier play and balance around it. 1) I'm honestly not concerned with who Yiruru is -- there, I said it. 2) There have been 3 champs that they've centered around low-elo gameplay -- Xin (and that was because they shut all of us off to the PTR and absolutely released an OP champ), Twitch (because of the broken stealth mechanic in the game), and Evelynn (same reason). They've said multiple times that they look at high elo play and see how balance changes would affect that before they look at the ramifications to low elo play -- which is often negligible at best due to lower tier mechanics not being as good and thus not creating the same types of super-farmed/super-fed situations that you'd get in higher tier play (which isn't to say that it doesn't happen). Any other MAJOR balance changes have been done because high elo players brought them to light via long, drawn out forum posts or streamed gameplay (Pantheon's first nerf into uselessness, Alistar's AP ratios, Gangplank's recent nerfs to the slow they put on his passive all come to mind off the top of my head). Pantheon actually wasn't viable in high elo, he was a pub stomper. They nerfed Udyr recently because he's too strong in noobie games. They nerfed Kassadin because he stomped uncoordinated teams too well. They nerfed Shaco multiple times because he was too difficult for noobs to counter. They first nerfed Jax multiple times because he was too powerful for people who didn't know you shouldn't autoattack spam him. They nerfed Tryndamere ulti because it was too OP for noobs to deal with because they can't chain CC. They nerfed Vladimir multiple times because he's so good in uncoordinated games. Guess how all of those things became common trends for lower level players to abuse? High level play being streamed via tournaments and personal player streams. Pantheon was a solo queue hero -- if you were confident enough, you could do well and demoralize a team with him. Did they actually nerf Udyr? I know they decreased the damage on his Pheonix stance, but other than that all they've done is buff Tiger stance. They nerfed Kassadin after some EU team stomped an American team in one of the WCG grand finals games (although I don't remember who or what it was, so I'm probably going to get flamed for that). They nerfed Shaco, Jax, and Vlad because of players like Reginald and HotshotGG absolutely DEMOLISHING people in solo queue on their personal streams and higherish elo players making forum posts about. They haven't touch Trynd's ult. They changed him to a rage system and changed how his damage output works just slightly. They nerfed Udyr's Phoenix Stance and buffed Tiger Stance a few patches back, which reduced his jungle a lot. Then they decided to slash his mana costs on all of his abilities, which gave him ridiculous Turtle Stance sustainability in lane while also increasing his viability and versatility in the jungle. He's one of the most banned champions now.
Oh yeah, I remember the mana cost change now (haven't played Udyr in a while). Thank you.
On August 16 2011 03:21 haitike wrote:
Tryndamere ulti used to last 1 second more.
You're right, forgot about that over the rage change.
|
On August 16 2011 03:10 rabidch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 03:04 Novalisk wrote:On August 16 2011 02:07 Judicator wrote:On August 16 2011 01:20 Novalisk wrote:On August 16 2011 01:11 Judicator wrote:On August 16 2011 01:09 Novalisk wrote:On August 16 2011 01:03 Judicator wrote:On August 16 2011 01:00 scintilliaSD wrote:On August 16 2011 00:57 Judicator wrote:On August 16 2011 00:50 Mordiford wrote:
I would certainly love it if I could purchase all the heroes in Dota 2 for a reasonable price, perhaps that would be great in addition to an unlock mechanic for people who want to play for free.
However, considering the current state of these games, micro-transactions seem to be the future. I particularly don't like the Rune system in LoL very much, I feel like it's kind of unnecessary and a distraction from the champions necessary to get people to spend money on the champions so they can buy the Runes with their IP. No, there shouldn't be any of that bullshit. One of the reasons why DotA's scene has grown like the way it did is because anyone can pick up the game and learn the game in it's entirety without worrying about access to a item/hero. This feeds the competitive scene as players are only bound by their own skill and not because they don't have access to a certain hero or item. Why is this important? Because if you have friends and they want to play, they're not stuck playing a limited set of heroes at the start due to some dumbshit unlock system that's there ONLY for the sole purpose of making money which from the community perspective is a piece of shit. TF2 does the microtransaction system well where it doesn't gimp the fuck out of the player because they didn't put (additional) money into the game. However, HoN/LoL's systems doesn't do that, rather it does the exact opposite. There is nothing you can do in LoL with money that you can't do without except make your characters prettier. Sounds like TF2 hats. Doesn't TF2 also have buyable weapons that can't be found via normal pickups? So you have access to everything straight up with LoL? TF2's weapons aren't used very often in competitive play and you can unlock or craft them yourself. The point is that TF2's system lets you be competitive with the standard unlocks or layouts. LoL/HoN's system doesn't let you do that. You can't say you're competitive when your hero pool is X% of someone with money. Regardless, you get access to a ton of content for free, which is why LoL got so popular. By the time you're level 30 you should have a lot of characters unlocked, and level 30 isn't enough experience to be considered in any way competitive. Alot isn't all, thanks for proving my point. There shouldn't be a "by the time I am 30", it's like saying hey you know that 30 levels of grinding? you weren't playing the game actually. Also thanks for proving my other point, why is the game limiting my abilities? If I am good enough to play competitive why do I need to grind 30 levels and then some to be competitive? Time invested != True skill. What game gives you full access to everything for free? If you think 30 levels is grinding then maybe the game isn't for you? And you didn't have to waste a cent while figuring that out. Fact is that in a team game, it's hard to know how good you are. Limiting ranked play to level 30 means that you can rely on the fact that your teammates won't suck in ranked. Didn't I just say that time invested doesn't means skill? What does going to level 30 have to do with anything about your teammates not sucking. All it means is that they won't be new, not that they won't suck. If you don't have an accurate assessment of yourself as a player, then there's no point in continuing any kind of discussion on this topic with you. Just because it's a team game doesn't mean it's hard to know how good you are unless you like lying to yourself. If you can't place all the metrics available to you in context as a player, then there's even less point in this discussion. By no means does level 30 dictate your skill level, it's a system put in place partially so people don't have to deal with trolls and newbies in a team game. If you're a great player and you love the game, getting to 30 shouldn't take long. ? DotA gives you full access to everything for free. I can attempt to join a IHL to play with better people with community enforced rules if I am good enough.
Edit:
Seriously, if anyone can provide a good reason why this particular (HoN/LoL) model is good for advancing the community and doesn't solely exist to make the company money, I am all ears, because so far the only "reasons" are that it's part of the process.
Before you go lolol company needs to make money, yeah notice that the game wasn't good enough for people to buy into before F2P and that should tell you how quality of a product you were paying for in the first place. People also like to forget that LoL had a huge marketing blitz ironically at Gamescom 2 years ago and the title still went flat. Also notice that TF2's model let it go F2P after being a massive success as a pay-once. That's an entirely different argument. Games like DotA and Brood War are prime examples of free(though they didn't start out free) E-Sports titles that had little to no developer support. Having no developer support has its shortcomings, as they are the only ones who can implement certain vital game changes and engine renovations. Do you think SC2 would be as successful if it was free to play like DotA? No, because it wouldn't exist. DotA had quite a lot of "developer support" even if icefrog couldnt change the underlying engine. many vital gameplay changes dont require engine level changes
Certain changes do, and one person can only do something for free for so long.
|
On August 15 2011 22:40 OooLong wrote:
For what? probably the worst looking game in the world on PC? Good luck with that. If Valve decide to make Dota2 free, LoL is as good as dead.
Yeah that terrible game that has 14 million users, hits 1 million concurrent and 200k+ on streams. Clearly doomed. Its great to see competition between 2 huge titles in the same genre(something blizz could use) promoting esports.
|
On August 16 2011 03:19 scintilliaSD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 03:04 RA wrote:On August 15 2011 22:37 Senx wrote:
Silly people thinking valve were actually going to outdo riot games in the esport department.. I dont think people realize how much spare money this company has to throw around.
GG no re valve. You joking? Valve has much, much, much, much more money. Tencent, the company who has a majority sharehold in Riot, is the third largest web company in the world behind Google and Amazon. They've shown through the multitude of Chinese games that they sponsor that they have absolutely no problem dumping tons of money into the video game industry. I think Tencent is quite a bit more money than Valve does.
Since when is a company's assets defined by the combined assets of all its shareholders ?
That litterally makes no sense, Valve is richer then Riot, period. The fact that Tencent is a shareholder in Riot doesnt mean Riot is richer, it just means that one of its shareholder is really rich.
Back on topic. I dont know what to do with this big money, to me it just seems like another ''oh shit Valve put up a large figure, lets also toss a bigger figure (without giving additional details)'', but that just might be me as I never quite liked LoL
|
I don't know why everything has to be compared to each other.
They are giving away money, what's the problem with some of you guys? Only time will tell how good a pre-realease-tournament with huge prizemoney for established teams or money spent for the whole community (as far as i get it) will do.
Two games competing with each other by giving away alot of money to gamers and hosting big tournaments? HELL YEAH!
|
On August 16 2011 02:15 Domination wrote:
5 Million dollar prize pool and still no public replay or observer mode :\ (unless they have released one in the last couple of weeks)
They have announced it's release with start of season 2, if you are not lazy you have been able to get replays for a year now.
|
On August 16 2011 03:04 RA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2011 22:37 Senx wrote:
Silly people thinking valve were actually going to outdo riot games in the esport department.. I dont think people realize how much spare money this company has to throw around.
GG no re valve. You joking? Valve has much, much, much, much more money.
Then its even stranger that theyve never supported their titles up until this point. no?
|
On August 16 2011 03:29 bigjenk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2011 22:40 OooLong wrote:
For what? probably the worst looking game in the world on PC? Good luck with that. If Valve decide to make Dota2 free, LoL is as good as dead. Yeah that terrible game that has 14 million users, hits 1 million concurrent and 200k+ on streams. Clearly doomed. Its great to see competition between 2 huge titles in the same genre(something blizz could use) promoting esports.
Yeah it is really exciting to see all of this support for the genre. You have to ignore all the trolls, Teamliquid is full of them. I'm excited for the future of LoL and Dota 2, couldn't be happier about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
