|
Want to rage about your latest loss? Use the QQ thread. If you whine in GD, you'll get warned. |
On November 26 2011 08:35 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2011 08:30 overt wrote:On November 26 2011 08:26 Craton wrote:
There are as many people, if not more, who want the opposite. I can understand people who like jungling. Or people who just plain like the way the game is now. I just don't think the requirement of a jungle is fun for the game. Although I will enjoy getting to play champions that could never jungle before. If you want to make it not a requirement to have a jungler, then you have to incentivize non-jungling teams. Even if you have a roaming support or something, the benefit has to outweigh the fact that they're choosing not to farm in the jungle. Putting more farm IN the jungle has the opposite effect.
Maybe I wasn't clear but I don't think that this change will make jungling less important, it's pretty obvious that jungling is even more important now. I think that if they really wanted to address passivity they'd need to do the opposite of what they did. Make jungling hard and make it have less rewards. Sorry if I wasn't very clear earlier when I said, "You know, the jungle change would've been cooler if they made it so that jungling wasn't essential." But yeah, I agree that this change does the opposite of what I would've liked to see.
You might be right and there may not be a passivity problem. I'd still rather see roaming instead of jungling but that's just me. Then you have to decide if staying in lane for XP, while leeching XP off someone else, is more important than going and trying to gank a lane. You don't hurt anyone on your team but yourself when you leave your jungle to gank.
|
Ok I watchted the Stonewall 008 video and from what he says it's pretty apparent that the new jungle is going to suck dick - just farm all game, ganking not even worth it, no strategy behind openings etc. anymore, control junglers & counterjungling really useless etc.
|
it's obvious that the jungle changes are retarded
they took out early game fighting entirely because like stonewall said, invading enemy jungle is worthless.
|
On November 26 2011 08:35 TheYango wrote:
At this point, it's just a buzzword that Riot uses to get people onboard the bandwagon.
Frankly it's always been the case. Bot lane was the only lane that was ever truly passive and that was because you could easily outheal damage and ward off any ganks. Shortly after Riot made this claim, people started sneaking into the side brush for their ganks or TPing behind them, which Riot nerfed by making the TP visible to the enemy team (although I agree w/ that particular change).
At the time most of the midlaners had poor mobility, so ganking them was actually possible. However, certain champs have too much free mobility and are thus ungankable from mid in most situations (Kass, LB, Vlad); you have to be literally pushed to tower w/o having a ward to die in a gank as those kind of champs. Incidentally, many of them have resurged in popularity, but that's irrelevant to the time when they started the "game's too passive" crap.
Top lane on the other hand was similar to bot lane in many cases, where champs could just regen 24/7 and farm all day, plus never really being involved in team fights. This was adjusted in some cases (Wriggles nerf, Udyr nerfs), but in general there are still many champs which dgaf and can ignore harass completely. In competitive play, TP got a big rise in popularity for top laners, which curtailed this "passivity" by letting them join a big fight / gank / dragon at any point. Junglers can gank top from the lane bushes even more easily than bot.
There's only two possibilities for something that can make a lane passive: first, either the lane ignores each other because of low damage + high sustain, or the lane hides from each other due to high burst (e.g. Annie 100-0 combo) and second, because ganks aren't possible. There are definitely mages that can still 100-0, which is a big balance gaff, but has never really been a true part of the passivity Riot liked to bitch about.
Ganks currently happen at every level of play in every lane and are the main source of "activity." There is some back and forth in lanes, but in competitive play the majority of lane phase kills come from ganks or dragon fights, not from evenly matched lane skirmishes. Their jungle change rapes that. There are now much smaller windows to gank and much more risk in trying to gank. They have, in no uncertain terms, made the game more passive by forcing this debacle upon the jungle.
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 26 2011 08:47 overt wrote:
Maybe I wasn't clear but I don't think that this change will make jungling less important, it's pretty obvious that jungling is even more important now. I think that if they really wanted to address passivity they'd need to do the opposite of what they did. Make jungling hard and make it have less rewards. Sorry if I wasn't very clear earlier when I said, "You know, the jungle change would've been cooler if they made it so that jungling wasn't essential." But yeah, I agree that this change does the opposite of what I would've liked to see.
You might be right and there may not be a passivity problem. I'd still rather see roaming instead of jungling but that's just me. Then you have to decide if staying in lane for XP, while leeching XP off someone else, is more important than going and trying to gank a lane. You don't hurt anyone on your team but yourself when you leave your jungle to gank.
OK big wall of text incoming. Most of you probably won't read this, but I figured I needed to get this out there.
Passivity is not the problem. Passivity is what the problem is attributed to. What is the problem? Farm-y lanes, farm-y jungles, and kills not happening. The last point has been the biggest one of note, where action simply does not happen throughout the early-midgame, particularly in competitive games. The main thing to recognize that its a problem across the board. It's not exclusive to lanes, and it's not exclusive to the jungle. And as such, any fix that only helps the problem in one area (e.g. "passivity in lane" fixes like the weaker red buff nerf) will have an opposite effect on the other one (weaker jungle ganks let laners play more aggressively, but also disincentivizes jungle ganking). As such, these fixes can only be temporary, and Riot has basically just been shifting the issue back and forth without making any headway.
So what is the root of the problem? To answer that we need to ask what makes kills happen, which has a very simple answer. Kills happen when people fuck up. This is very straightforward. It has nothing to do with playing passive or playing aggressive. A player playing aggressively in lane can kill a passive player if the passive player fucks up, and if he moderates his aggression intelligently, he does not put himself at risk. The only time when someone should ever die (and the only time someone ever WILL die in high level play) is when they misplay. If you want more kills and action to happen across the board, then you need to accept the fact that when you fuck up, it has to get you killed.
There are relevant examples to this. Take, for example, EHOME's games at IEM China. Many of the spectators loved their games. "Oh wow, they play so aggressive! This is so different from US/EU play!" But you know what comments we got from informed TL viewers? We noted that it wasn't just "aggressive play". It was sloppy play. We got kills and actions because people made bad dives, got caught out by themselves, and got baited. It wasn't necessarily that they played more or less aggressive than what we were used to. It was because they fucked up, so action happened.
This of course, leads us to the issue that Riot, either unintentionally or deliberately, has been avoiding when trying to get to the root of this problem: The reason that kills don't happen is that Riot has made it too easy to avoid or get away with mistakes and has made them too difficult to punish. Don't pay attention to who's in all the lanes? It's ok, you have every lane entrance warded, so you get a warning whenever someone's coming, and even if you don't your support can CV. Get ganked/engaged poorly? That's fine, blow an escape and run away. Made a bad trade with your opponent? It's OK, they still can't kill you because you've got tons of HP. The fact that Riot has effected the minion damage and red buff changes further illustrate that they don't understand this is the issue. If you want kills to happen, ganks being guaranteed kills and poor engagements due to minions causing you to take significant damage are exactly the sorts of mechanics that make mistakes punishing enough for kills to happen.
"But Yango, mechanics that make lanes more punishing will just make people play more safe!" NOT TRUE. This is only the case when the difference between playing pussy and playing out in the lane give similar outcomes. Again an issue of not punishing misplays. It is not punishing for someone to play overly safe and sit on their tower. Why? Because the lane will eventually push to you. You'll miss a few CS on the first wave, but once the creep pressure has built up, very few of the creeps will die on the way to your tower, and you will be able to pick up the vast majority of the CS. What's more, it's not that punishing to let your lane opponent get a few waves of free-farm. Obviously letting them free-farm is bad, but simply nobody in this game scales well enough that putting yourself at risk over a few CS is worthwhile. If misplaying in either direction (overly safe, overly aggressive) are equally punishing, then playing pussy no longer is advantageous. You have to take a gamble. And it's that gambling that creates room for you to fuck up. And when you can fuck up by gambling incorrectly, that gives openings for your opponents to kill you, and for action to happen.
So what do we need? We need punishing mechanics. Flash nerfs help. CV nerfs help. Ward nerfs/limitations would definitely help (forcing players to gamble on the safety of their lanes). But one thing that would help a LOT that even people who support the above changes often go against--champions need to be strong. I'm not talking just a few small numbers tweaks. I mean abusive strong. If one mis-step against most laners gets you killed, you're going to see a lot of kills, because people inevitably make mis-steps. If letting a hard-carry free-farm for 10 minutes allows them to spiral out of control and 1v5, then you're going to play aggressive against them because, gank risk be damned, you're going to lose the game if you don't. It's a problem when a small subset of heroes are ahead of the curve (because all that does is create ban pressure). But when every hero is super-punishing, then it creates for a more action-packed game. This is the ultimate hypocrisy when it comes to the LoL playerbase--we want games to be less farm-y and more action-packed, but at the same time, we bitch and moan every time a champion comes out that is punishing to play incorrectly against.
|
tl;dr:
bitchez want to see kills and action packed games
but they don't want to die all day in game when they're the ones playing
wat do???!
that's riot's conundrum
|
Cool. No more counterjungling roflmao.
Gogo riot make game more passive
|
Too bad Riot isn't going to make a systemic change to make all champions more punishing
|
So I was watching TSM scrimmage against a Chinese team (forget which one) that ran Udyr top, Galio mid, jungle Fids, and KM+Sona bot. This was about 2-3 weeks ago though.
Personally I was in love with this team comp when I saw it. First off, I believe Galio may be sleeper OP, but since almost no one plays him, he really will never be touched. Just thinking of Galio+Fids ult at the same time makes me want to cry. Played a game today where that exact situation happened. 5v5 team fight turned into a 4-0 win for us. Just thought I'd give my 2 cents on it.
Anyway, solo top Olaf is so stupid. I barely managed to keep up with him as Udyr, but I gave him a kill and he wrecked me in farm. =\
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 26 2011 10:20 GeneralStan wrote:
Too bad Riot isn't going to make a systemic change to make all champions more punishing
No, but if they stop this over-reactive nerfing of champs every time they get a little bit of popularity, buff some of the weaker champions in the pool, and slowly let the power level drift upward, they can get to somewhere more suitable for the level of action they want. That's more likely to actually get somewhere than this endless cycle of jungle-passivity/lane-passivity that we've been floating around in for the last year.
More relevantly, it also means that people bitching about OP champions are hardly in a place where they can complain about issues of "passivity" and no action happening. Having powerful, unforgiving champions is a large step toward fixing those issues, but since they obviously don't like powerful, unforgiving champions, they have to accept that no alternative solution to the "passivity" issue will come about easily.
|
So what do we need? We need punishing mechanics. Flash nerfs help. CV nerfs help. Ward nerfs/limitations would definitely help (forcing players to gamble on the safety of their lanes). But one thing that would help a LOT that even people who support the above changes often go against--champions need to be strong. I'm not talking just a few small numbers tweaks. I mean abusive strong. If one mis-step against most laners gets you killed, you're going to see a lot of kills, because people inevitably make mis-steps. If letting a hard-carry free-farm for 10 minutes allows them to spiral out of control and 1v5, then you're going to play aggressive against them because, gank risk be damned, you're going to lose the game if you don't. It's a problem when a small subset of heroes are ahead of the curve (because all that does is create ban pressure). But when every hero is super-punishing, then it creates for a more action-packed game. This is the ultimate hypocrisy when it comes to the LoL playerbase--we want games to be less farm-y and more action-packed, but at the same time, we bitch and moan every time a champion comes out that is punishing to play incorrectly against.
All of this is wrong. Go play DotA if you want retarded power creep.
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 26 2011 10:24 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +So what do we need? We need punishing mechanics. Flash nerfs help. CV nerfs help. Ward nerfs/limitations would definitely help (forcing players to gamble on the safety of their lanes). But one thing that would help a LOT that even people who support the above changes often go against--champions need to be strong. I'm not talking just a few small numbers tweaks. I mean abusive strong. If one mis-step against most laners gets you killed, you're going to see a lot of kills, because people inevitably make mis-steps. If letting a hard-carry free-farm for 10 minutes allows them to spiral out of control and 1v5, then you're going to play aggressive against them because, gank risk be damned, you're going to lose the game if you don't. It's a problem when a small subset of heroes are ahead of the curve (because all that does is create ban pressure). But when every hero is super-punishing, then it creates for a more action-packed game. This is the ultimate hypocrisy when it comes to the LoL playerbase--we want games to be less farm-y and more action-packed, but at the same time, we bitch and moan every time a champion comes out that is punishing to play incorrectly against. All of this is wrong. Go play DotA if you want retarded power creep.
I will. I'll also go play Brood War, because it functions around the same design philosophy of punishing, unforgiving mechanics creating action.
I can't really give you a longer response, seeing as you didn't actually provide a reasoned response and just said "you're wrong".
|
i am ambivalent about jungler changes
i am, however, in favor of health pot nerf
|
If you want your lane ganked, buy a pink ward. Mmhmm.
|
i wonder how significant health pot nerf will be, and whether hp regen quints and dring openings will be strictly better
which will depend in turn how significant the nerf is
|
the jungler changes according to stonewall really is a downer....
i dont want to imagine people picking random champs to jungle with...
oh man >_>
|
On November 26 2011 10:31 Inschato wrote:
If you want your lane ganked, buy a pink ward. Mmhmm.
this isn't the solve-all because there are two sides to get into mid, and top and bottom have multiple entrances (either bush or inbetween) which no single ward can give all encompassing vision to clear all wards to that lane. also, in lane ganks.
people don't like dying. nobody likes dying! but to some extent the question of "how big of a mistake do i have to make to put myself at 100% risk of dying if someone comes" is one that riot has played around for a long time with, and with their softened power curve you have to play much riskier to die in league than u would in dota or hon. i think it's more fun for the player, but for a viewer experience its probably less so. either way, they are their respective games, but if riot thinks that these changes will result in more dynamic gameplay i think they are viewing this problem from the wrong angle as yango has mentioned.
|
Gawd, these jungle changes is pretty much an extra lane.
|
these jungle change will make jungle mordekaiser boss
farm all day, then 20 minutes into the game your team has a fucking unstoppable ball of death. gg
no more getting harrassed and dying in lane
|
Lol is supposed to be noob friendly and unpunishing. It's what differentiates the game from HoN and DoTA. The game isn't going to get any harder or exciting and that's why so many people play it and watch it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
