EPT[Patch 1.0.0.143: MidJuly-Zyra] General Discussion - Page 64
| Forum Index > LoL General |
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
| ||
|
obesechicken13
United States10467 Posts
If baron gave less reward it'd take even longer for a winning team to get strong enough to beat a losing one. Baron could be easier but it'd make it near impossible to do without an AD carry. Also baron already applies tons of debuffs. One increases damage taken. One cuts attack damage in half. He has a knockup, and he deals 600 damage per auto. Many dumb AP's even waste their CD's on baron when the enemy team is near. Your entire team is also crowded into a small area. As soon as your team comes to engage, half of theirs will back off, leading them to get split off. Teams have been known to get quadrad or pentad for trying to do baron, and getting caught with their pants down. There are times it feels like one team is trying to draw out a fight as long as possible with their tower advantage. But forcing a sudden death would mean that no team could ever come back from a losing game. I hear at one point minions got strong enough that killing an inhib meant you won the game. | ||
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
On July 25 2012 08:25 Alzadar wrote: Just make it so you can't Smite while Stunned/Silenced/Airborne. The team with control of the pit will get the Buff 90% of the time (jungle Olafs aside). You can't smite while silenced / surpressed. Other statuses don't block summoners. | ||
|
Xevious
United States2086 Posts
If you seriously think there's no way to stop shyvanna from ulting into baron pit, and stopping her, you clearly don't ward baron right. it's pretty easy to ward the outer rim of baron, even this isn't hte issue. If you want to take baron COMPLETELY safely, then ace the enemy team, take baron. By leaving a shyvanna alive you're taking the risk, of a possible ulti+smite steal. If you engaged baron knowing full well enemy shyvanna still alive, that's the risk you take. how exactly does warding the outside of it stop her from warding it herself and ulting in when it's low? also you just contradicted yourself by saying that lol, first you say that she can be stopped by wards, then you say that she can't be stopped and that your team's taking a risk. you're basically saying your team has to take the risk and that's just the way it is even if it's a bad game mechanic and i'm proposing a way to make it a better game mechanic. As far as standoffs as barons are concerned, that's not a baron problem, that's a team trying to take an advantage problem. you used the exact same irrational argument as someone did earlier so i'll just post what i said to that i never said it was a problem with baron, it's a problem with the game that this change to baron would fix. is baron not part of the game? If you're team is equivalent to enemy team, and you try to risk baron. You're essentially do that, 'RISKING' baron. It's up to the teams to find a way to create an advantage to take baron, not to complain about how easy it is to kill. lol i thought you were being serious until the last sentence, comparing people complaining to actually relevant game mechanics. no matter how big of an advantage you have it's all potentially lost if their jungler has a wall jump and smite, or if someone on the enemy team is up with a large nuke that does equal or more damage than late game smite (i.e. ziggs) you can make fun of me for "complaining" but in the end it's still the argument of whether or not games should be decided by something irrelevant to the game itself. | ||
|
Alzadar
Canada5009 Posts
On July 25 2012 08:37 sylverfyre wrote: You can't smite while silenced / surpressed. Other statuses don't block summoners. Flash and Teleport are exceptions. Just add Smite to the list of exceptions. Also I'm 75% certain that you can Smite while silenced or suppressed. edit: according to the wiki you can while silenced but not while suppressed. http://leagueoflegends.wikia.com/wiki/Crowd_control | ||
|
arb
Noobville17922 Posts
Better bench elementz | ||
|
Xevious
United States2086 Posts
On July 25 2012 08:14 Amui wrote: Maybe something like every ally within 400 range increases damage dealt by smite by something like 5-10 per level? Still a skill element involved, and makes the initial pull for a jungler minimally easier(one auto in best case scenario). Makes smite steals harder, but definitely not impossible. i like this idea, just up the damage gained from having nearby allies. On July 25 2012 08:23 r.Evo wrote: Currently the entire point of League lategame is dancing around Baron and whoever gets that objective done properly wins the game. By the point you can get Baron towers aren't even a big problem anymore. Dancing around a single objective playing "who kills wards" isn't fun to watch or fun to play, I'd rather see a weaker Baron buff or other measures to actually give the team which is behind a valid method of gaining control back of the game. you know what's even less fun to watch or play on either team? having one team turtle behind their towers and waveclear for the entire game. teams can get ahead after being behind by winning a teamfight or turtling with their gp5 items until late game when their comp is stronger. i'd say the teamfight is more fun, and with my idea the teamfight will be forced from baron buff pushing, and say, the bonus AD and AP from baron buff could be removed. with this method baron buff will be weaker in actual 5v5 teamfights but stronger for pushing and forcing the fight to happen. also there will be less dancing around baron because teams will be less afraid to start killing baron without fear of it being stolen, i've seen some other great ideas here on ways to change the way smite works in addition to my own. On July 25 2012 08:40 Alzadar wrote: Flash and Teleport are exceptions. Just add Smite to the list of exceptions. Also I'm 75% certain that you can Smite while silenced or suppressed. silenced yes but not while surpressed | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Baron is just like any other objective in the game: there is a risk the enemy will come and really fuck you up unless they're all dead. When you Baron, you take the risk that you might get buff jacked or end up in what is essentially a 6v5 with baron on the enemy team. It's the same when you push a tower, try to take dragon, take a buff, etc. You can minimize the risk by warding a lot, doing it when some of the enemy team is dead, when they're on the other side of the map etc., but the only way to be completely safe is to ace the enemy team. The consequences of each event get bigger and bigger as the game goes on, making it more likely that a team will win and the game won't simply go on forever. Makes sense to me. | ||
|
Goragoth
New Zealand1065 Posts
I also don't think that turteling is that much of a problem in LoL, games already rarely go over 60 minutes. Then again I enjoy playing 6+ hour sessions of Sins of a Solar Empire and the majority of gamers seem to prefer short games. I like having turteling there as a strategic option (but I do understand that many people don't like it). | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On July 25 2012 09:17 Goragoth wrote: Luck isn't a bad game mechanic, in fact it can help facilitate comebacks and levels the playing field for worse players. Many great games have a huge luck component (for example poker) and are great fun to play. Now that being said I prefer my games to not be luck dependant but saying that luck is a bad game mechanic is simply wrong. As for Baron fights specifically I don't think I've seen a Baron steal happen in even 1 out 10 Baron fights in pro games, which makes me think it's not that much of a problem (at that level of play anyway, it is likely a much stronger tactic in solo queue play where teams are less organised against it). I also don't think that turteling is that much of a problem in LoL, games already rarely go over 60 minutes. Then again I enjoy playing 6+ hour sessions of Sins of a Solar Empire and the majority of gamers seem to prefer short games. I like having turteling there as a strategic option (but I do understand that many people don't like it). Nope, didn't even read the rest. Luck is BAD GAME DESIGN. Procs are pushing it, that's why they're never strong. Did you ever play WoW in BC when there was this little item called Stormherald? It had a chance on hit to stun the target for 4 seconds. Was that shit ever broken as balls, you'd win as a Ret/Warrior just by getting a free stun because of luck and nothing else you did. Level the playing field for worse players? Boy you are out of your goddamned mind. Worse players should lose, better players should win. That's why there's ELO, that's why we have victory conditions in the first place. Edit: I should clarify. Luck is fine when it's limited to non-game breaking things. Phage proc is a chance for a small amount of sticking power. Crit is a chance for a bit more damage. Neither is game breaking, both are good. Game breaking things are huge swings. I'd argue Dodge was a "broken" mechanic just because you were either taking 100% damage or 0%, which meant that when it procced you just got to win, especially on Jax. Crit is good because by the time you get a lot of it, you already have a lot of just straight damage anyway, so getting a crit isn't usually the difference between losing and winning. A bad version would be like, if your regular attacks did 10 damage, but when you crit you did 4000000 damage and instakilled your target. I actually just got back, so I'm not sure what we're talking about when it comes down to it, but as someone who's played systems that are fucked by chance and luck based gameplay, this shit makes me rage like nothing else. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
you know what's even less fun to watch or play on either team? having one team turtle behind their towers and waveclear for the entire game. teams can get ahead after being behind by winning a teamfight or turtling with their gp5 items until late game when their comp is stronger. i'd say the teamfight is more fun, and with my idea the teamfight will be forced from baron buff pushing, and say, the bonus AD and AP from baron buff could be removed. with this method baron buff will be weaker in actual 5v5 teamfights but stronger for pushing and forcing the fight to happen. Teams that are behind can get ahead by winning a teamfight? I don't even know what to really say to that. League lacks the mix between strong timings and powerfull abilities compared to the "squishiness" of champions that e.g. DotA offers. A team that's behind is very likely to just straight up lose teamfights because there is no way to compensate bare major mistakes from the team which is ahead (e.g. someone getting caught alone or a carry being mispositioned badly). Turtling with their gp5 items until their comp is stronger? Not going to happen. Mapcontrol is comparatively easy to gain and hard to lose; - the team with mapcontrol has more farming space and access to dragons. While I do think that certain timings are still highly undervalued (e.g. Aegis or Shurelyas) I also think that the timingwindows items in League offer at the moment are too small for "real" comebacks on a frequent basis. Comebacks should be possible both by great play from the team that's behind but also by big errors from the team which is ahead - in League the latter factor is too big, the former is too small imho. | ||
|
r.Evo
Germany14080 Posts
On July 25 2012 09:25 Requizen wrote: Nope, didn't even read the rest. Luck is BAD GAME DESIGN. Procs are pushing it, that's why they're never strong. Did you ever play WoW in BC when there was this little item called Stormherald? It had a chance on hit to stun the target for 4 seconds. Was that shit ever broken as balls, you'd win as a Ret/Warrior just by getting a free stun because of luck and nothing else you did. Flat out calling luck bad game design is highly overstating it. It's e.g. hard to give highground an advantage without some form of a misschance. Sure you could simply say "ever 3rd attack to the highground will miss" but simply making 33% of your attacks miss creates small random situations which have the possibility to create majorly exciting situations. The huge amount of variables games like League, DotA or Starcraft offer already have some form of "luck" in their very design. Since you're part of this Starcraft forum you surely remember all the moments with mines, reavers, highground advantages and similar "lucky situations" which created some of the biggest moments of starcraft history. Sure you can overdo it to some extent (Chaos Knight in DotA e.g., lol) but a certain amount of RNG in the right spots won't make a game less skillfull to play - just way more exciting. In some cases (e.g. highground advantage) I'd go as far as calling it great design because it's an elegant and simple solution to a certain problem. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On July 25 2012 09:36 r.Evo wrote: Flat out calling luck bad game design is highly overstating it. It's e.g. hard to give highground an advantage without some form of a misschance. Sure you could simply say "ever 3rd attack to the highground will miss" but simply making 33% of your attacks miss creates small random situations which have the possibility to create majorly exciting situations. The huge amount of variables games like League, DotA or Starcraft offer already have some form of "luck" in their very design. Since you're part of this Starcraft forum you surely remember all the moments with mines, reavers, highground advantages and similar "lucky situations" which created some of the biggest moments of starcraft history. Sure you can overdo it to some extent (Chaos Knight in DotA e.g., lol) but a certain amount of RNG in the right spots won't make a game less skillfull to play - just way more exciting. In some cases (e.g. highground advantage) I'd go as far as calling it great design because it's an elegant and simple solution to a certain problem. Yeah, that's why I edited it. Luck works in fringe cases, but basing a system around it (old Ret paladins, Seal of Command and Crit chance, etc...) is the worst fucking thing you can do to a game in my eyes. | ||
|
misirlou
Portugal3300 Posts
 | ||
|
Goragoth
New Zealand1065 Posts
On July 25 2012 09:39 Requizen wrote: Yeah, that's why I edited it. Luck works in fringe cases, but basing a system around it (old Ret paladins, Seal of Command and Crit chance, etc...) is the worst fucking thing you can do to a game in my eyes. Let me clarify my post. Luck is a very specific and often valid game mechanic decision by the game designer. Much like you I hate luck based games and absolutely hate losing to a player I know is worse than me because of some random act of chance. This does not make luck a bad game mechanic however, it is simply a choice. Many board/table games have large luck components for example and with good reason. When playing a game with friends/family where people have various skill levels it is nice for everyone to have a chance to win. If that one person that is really good at the game wins every time then no one will want to play with that person because it is boring - the outcome is predetermined. For a competitive game with rankings and matchmaking reducing the luck factor is generally going to be a good thing and is going to be what the majority of players want. So having luck be only a very small component of a game like LoL is very much a good thing. This is very different from a blanket statement that "luck is a bad game mechanic", which is frankly false from a general game design standpoint. | ||
|
thenexusp
United States3721 Posts
| ||
|
OutlaW-
Czech Republic5053 Posts
On July 25 2012 09:56 thenexusp wrote: BTW, on this luck discussion: crit doesn't use a straight random-number generator; if you missed crits earlier you will be more likely to get a crit next (conversely, if your last hit was a crit you have a low chance of getting a second crit, unless your crit chance is really high), so the effect of luck on crit is already pretty low Isn't that dota's RNG but not league's? | ||
|
Parnage
United States7414 Posts
| ||
|
arb
Noobville17922 Posts
On July 25 2012 10:08 Parnage wrote: ...Why are we speaking about smite stealing and calling it luck? Can anyone explain that to me because just reading over the last couple of pages it seems like someone who dives into baron pit at the right time, hits a smite at the right time, and isn't stopped from doing so should get baron because he or she simply played better and calling it luck feels.. ignorant to me. Well if the other jungle is on his game like he should be smite stealing is luck in a sense. | ||
|
Vaporized
United States1471 Posts
wingsofdeath statement about aphro leaving. basically every reason ppl thought is true. | ||
| ||
