EPTIf there are tons and tons of matchups like that it demonstrates a balance issue in my opinion, something that would have to be fixed even with the current setup.
[D] Fixing passive play - Page 4
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
If there are tons and tons of matchups like that it demonstrates a balance issue in my opinion, something that would have to be fixed even with the current setup. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
I have a huge problem with how little you are rewarded for early game kills. Several times me and my lane partner have gotten multiple kills on the enemy heroes and kept out tower at 100% only to have a single hero damage or destroy our tower when we were off buying items or helping in a team fight. If you get a kill in the first few levels, you are hardly rewarded. Barely any gold, you can't kill creeps very quickly so your experience gain from them being gone is meager and even if you can get to the tower you can't damage it very well. Compare this to a herp derp hero who just afks behind the minions until level 8 and at the first sign of an empty lane wtfpwns two enemy minion waves and destroys a tower just like that. Minion waves should feel like a tug and pull and they just aren't, even at fairly low levels. You can say that the game is about killing towers and not heroes, but when I take the risk and use the skill to kill an enemy hero I feel like I should be making a lasting contribution to that lane, not one that is so trivially negated. This also favors champions that are better at killing minion waves. This ties in with Southlight's problem with rewarding passive play. Why should you bother trying to get kills when it doesn't benefit you that much? It benefits your lane more to be there, literally doing nothing, than it does getting a kill and porting back to buy and heal. Team fights? Why should I got to help in those? I lose more in gold and XP walking there than I could possibly gain. I'll just stay in my lane. | ||
|
howerpower
United States619 Posts
On August 24 2011 06:26 Jerubaal wrote: I was thinking about making a thread about this, but I'm not sure it quite deserves its own thread and it's related to this: I have a huge problem with how little you are rewarded for early game kills. Several times me and my lane partner have gotten multiple kills on the enemy heroes and kept out tower at 100% only to have a single hero damage or destroy our tower when we were off buying items or helping in a team fight. If you get a kill in the first few levels, you are hardly rewarded. Barely any gold, you can't kill creeps very quickly so your experience gain from them being gone is meager and even if you can get to the tower you can't damage it very well. Compare this to a herp derp hero who just afks behind the minions until level 8 and at the first sign of an empty lane wtfpwns two enemy minion waves and destroys a tower just like that. Minion waves should feel like a tug and pull and they just aren't, even at fairly low levels. You can say that the game is about killing towers and not heroes, but when I take the risk and use the skill to kill an enemy hero I feel like I should be making a lasting contribution to that lane, not one that is so trivially negated. This also favors champions that are better at killing minion waves. This ties in with Southlight's problem with rewarding passive play. Why should you bother trying to get kills when it doesn't benefit you that much? It benefits your lane more to be there, literally doing nothing, than it does getting a kill and porting back to buy and heal. Team fights? Why should I got to help in those? I lose more in gold and XP walking there than I could possibly gain. I'll just stay in my lane. Early game is all about farm, and killing enemy champions absolutely is a good way to get gold. This game isn't about kills and it isn't about destroying towers, it is about being the team with the most gold. | ||
|
Two_DoWn
United States13684 Posts
| ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
Kills in LoL are VERY rewarding if you consider them in the objective based enviroment. Kills aren´t worth it in terms of pure gold for the risk alone BUT doing it properly means a kill leads to taking Dragon, a Tower, buff or even Baron. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
| ||
|
gtrsrs
United States9109 Posts
First blood now worth 800g - 100x where x is the number of minutes passed by. Lowest value is 400 10x as much action early game with fb worth so much | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On August 24 2011 08:37 gtrsrs wrote: Had this idea whilst taking a shit yesterday First blood now worth 800g - 100x where x is the number of minutes passed by. Lowest value is 400 10x as much action early game with fb worth so much The problem is that more rewarding kills and more punishing deaths are not symmetric in terms of how they affect aggression, because of how different roles interact with one another. Compare a system where deaths cause the victim to lose 400 gold, vs a system where deaths cause the attacker to gain 400 gold. In the first scenario, it is more favorable for supports and gankers to take risks for kills--this is because knocking off 400 gold from a carry is very damaging, while dying themselves is not very punishing--they'll probably keep their gold spent on wards and small items anyway, and even if they had some money, there's not some big item they're trying to save for. Conversely, when the attacker gains 400 gold, supports are disincentivized from being aggressive. 400 extra gold on a support doesn't really go anywhere, whereas if they get counterganked and the carry gets a kill, that's a huge boon to the carry. Carries by nature hold a passive role--this is because of the way farm scales on them. They do not need to get hugely ahead of everyone in order to do their job, because so long as they keep consistent farm, they will outscale everyone else lategame. As such, increasing rewards for kills is not an efficient way of attacking the problem of passivity because it rewards more aggression on carries--but by the nature of the role that's already discouraged. By contrast, punishing death favors aggression on supports, junglers, and early-game lane dominators much more efficiently, because that already ties into their role. We see this as the case in DotA--the carries are never the ones to put their own farm hugely at risk. Most of the early game action happens between supports and gankers. Hard carries generally tend to play much more conservatively. This is because the gankers and supports' lives are worth less than those of the carries, and the carries will generally come out ahead lategame if they protect their own farm, even if they're not getting a ton of kills early on. If i were to say 3 things I think might make the early game less passive, they are: 1) More punishing deaths -- longer death timers, gold loss on death (unfortunately Riot will never do this one), incentivizing supports, junglers, and gankers to gank more lategame-oriented champs. 2) Remove oracles, replace with some other means of detection (this would obviously have other effects, but I think right now oracles makes supports really passive because that big eye above their head suddenly makes death way more risky for them when they normally have very little to lose). 3) Jungle buffs no longer transfer on death (same as 2--double buff ganks right now are very powerful, but if you lose the buff, the opponent getting a full-duration buff makes the punishment for failure stupidly high)--again junglers should have less to lose in ganking, seeing as that's a major part of their role, and thus should be able to play more aggressively, but that buff risk forces passivity to some degree. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
LoL had PLENTY lvl 1 action when Dragon spawned right away - and lvl 1 champions dominated. Solving passivity by sacrificing design integrety won´t happen. | ||
|
tobi9999
United States1966 Posts
Just incredibly annoying sometimes to know that the moment you start attacking, something that does twice your damage will retaliate even if you kill your target. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
| ||
|
Senx
Sweden5901 Posts
Also adds economic choice to the game - do i save for a buy back or that one item that might not make me die in the first place? | ||
|
Craton
United States17274 Posts
I don't know why people keep thinking making things more punishing = people will be more aggressive. It's flat out wrong. If something is more punishing, one side might try harder to capitalize it, but the other side will try just as hard to be extra conservative. Losing gold or exp is not a fun mechanic -- it will never be implemented. Denying will never be implemented, either. Bringing these up over and over is a waste of time because it will not happen. Focus on things that might actually be done. It may well be that the relationship between champion kills and minion kills should be adjusted, but it doesn't mean the game will be more active because you buff one or nerf the other. If a lane can see you coming, it doesn't matter how much more valuable that kill is because you aren't going to gank it. Conversely, if you try to do something like make wards the scarcest resource in the game, people will also play conservatively because they're blind. Remember the height of eve? Playing against her was "claustrophobic" because you never knew where she might be so you spent the whole game roving as 5 or hugging a tower/oracle. The same effect occurs if you make wards super scarce, especially when they can be destroyed very regularly in the late-game. Watch the very last game of CLG vs TSM and see how TSM would not do anything involving their jungle without the entire team present because of 1.) how blind they were and 2.) how punishing a single death would be at that point. You want people to have vision, but you don't want them to have vision of everything. You want people to be willing to come off their tower and favor one area because they know its relatively safe, just as you want people to have a blind side to gank from. An additional point: There are way too many people posting as if activity only equals kills and that if someone survives that equates to passivity (shoutout to the Doran's giving HP is ridiculous! crowd). You want people to have skirmishes and ganks. You want people to sometimes all survive, to sometimes all die, and to sometimes just trade. That's the entire concept of a skillcap. Doran's giving people more hp and damage doesn't magically make people hug a tower harder or less willing to attack someone. If I get a bunch of Doran's Rings, I can cast that many more spells. If I get a bunch of Doran's Blades, I'm more willing to get in a fight because I'm a little beefier. I don't see how being stronger = less willing to fight. Glossing over the extra damage Doran items provide just because they give HP is silly. On August 24 2011 01:20 STS17 wrote: Craton, halving tower damage and doubling their attack speed will result in more damage taken from towers not less. Towers do increased damage to champions with each consecutive hit so your change will result in more damage taken within the same time span under a tower. Why would you only change one and not the other? If you do 1/2 dmg 2x attacks, you'd also cut down the armor pen amount. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
But like all the other suggestions in this vein it´d make the disadvantage/defensive Player act even more passive. There is no need to get players to act more aggressive when it´s in their clear advantage to do so - that already happens, just watch high elo players once the enemy jungler pops up on the other side of the map. Neither is acting passivly when they are at a disadvantage - thats just smart. The problem is situations that "reward" all players in a lane to act passivly. Junglers that punish offensive positioning severely. High substain lanes that nullify damage but not mana expenses. | ||
|
nyxnyxnyx
Indonesia2978 Posts
-reduce creep bounty by x% for lane, y% for jungle -increase the price of all defensive items by variable amounts -reduce hp on doran items, increase offensive stats to make up shouldnt this encourage more aggression? | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
| ||
|
Lanzoma
Mexico813 Posts
Maybe if Riot had an actual PTR server. | ||
|
nyxnyxnyx
Indonesia2978 Posts
| ||
|
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
I mean in SC what do you expect a Terran with only floating CCs to do? Attack?! Moreover, not all aggression is desirable. I imagine that soon people will either complain about all the burst and never being able to live through it, or people will complain about kiting/poking teams that will just wear you down because of nerfed sustain. But I think our biggest problem is that we're not asking the right questions. Why is Dominion (or insert FPS/CTF/Zone control game here) more aggressive than SR? Or even, *is* Dominion more aggressive than SR or were all those players just super baddies? The latter question is sort of interesting but not immediately useful I think. I personally wonder if it has something to do with map control. Map control is extremely powerful. In SR if you lose turrets you lose a ton of map control. Moreover, in SR if you feed the wrong champion you lose map control because you can no longer defend your turrets. Losing map control in SR is gigantic: you can't ward, you can't snag buffs, you can't dragon, you can't baron, you can't even farm when you want to. It also becomes much harder to push your opponent's turrets because you're so vulnerable to a gank and if you die you're dead for so long your team can insta-lose turrets or the whole game. You sort of start out with some innate map control with your turrets, but once champ scaling and death timers kick in you will often get *severely* punished if you attempt to defend your base against superior force. If you die in your base that often accomplishes nothing and lets them push even more, whereas if you played passive and let them take inhib at least you can defend nexus. Contrast this with Dominion. If they control all five points you can easily zerg a point or two and/or send mobility runners to other points on the map to cap them depending on the other team's positions across the map..Zones near your base are easy to defend from because of fast recall and low respawn timers so you have an strong defenders advantage (turrets in both maps become irrelevant late game but in SR they guard inhibitors and respawn timers mean that getting aced near your base = insta-lose). At the same time attackers want to hold as many points as possible so that they can win faster and suffer less from turret turnover,so they are encouraged to press for as many points as they can handle, perhaps 4 points. That's just one part of it. Another is that having only 30 hp on your nexus in no way prevents you from obtaining equal ownership of the map against your opponents. Creep (and champ) farming opportunities always remain equal no matter how many turrets you hold. Buffs are powerful but are pretty easily accessible unless you're losing really badly, but often there are pretty good things to do outside of grabbing them. "Pushing" turrets is always as easy as channeling a spell on them even if you have zero HP as long as they're undefended, and a 1 for 1 trade at a turret 2v1 always results in the turret being capped. At the same time, defending turrets against superior force is more of an option. If a tanky character defends a turret on SR he is either ignored and the turret dies or he is focused and dies and his team has one less beefy dude to protect its squishies/squish the other team's squishies. If it's anivia then later in the game clearing creep waves isn't even enough, because their tanky characters are so tanky they can just tank the turret. Contrast this again with Dominion: tanky characters often still die when defending, but that's because they must be attacked before the turret can be capped. Rather than causing the game to be super ultra defensive, however, it gives the rest of the defending team a chance to go somewhere else and be aggressive. Dominion does have one stat which gives map control, however: team power. If your team is super fed or has better champs you'll more easily cap points and defend points. It's hard to say in the future whether or not winners will become defensive, winning teams might simply try to defend 3 points rather than take 4. But it's now the onus of the losing team to *attack*. Even if they delay attacking they do so at the cost of their own clock with the intentions of waiting for respawn or grabbing a buff in order to have a stronger attack later. I warn, though, that it can be just as un-fun to be losing horribly but forced hopelessly attack as it is to be losing horribly and forced to hopelessly defend. I've played many arathi basins where they had all five cap points and it felt entirely pointless to keep on running into them and dying. At least in Dominion though heals are nerfed so you can eventually wear them down... | ||
| ||
