|
United States47024 Posts
On December 07 2012 01:46 Ghost-z wrote:
Oracles nerf was to prevent a team who gets ahead from completely denying the other teams vision indefinitely. 5 minutes is still plenty of time to clear the map of wards during late game no matter how many sight stones they have. Pink wards are going to become a strong, cost-effective counter to sightstone during lane phase. I think many of you are being to quick to condemn the changes to the vision game.
Adding a duration to Oracle's is fine. But it should be accompanied with a cost reduction as well. An Oracle's that lasts 5 minutes isn't worth 400 gold.
In general, I feel that any shift toward more complete vision isn't a good direction for the game. Incomplete information allows a team that's behind to make plays (which is why Smoke is one of the best comeback tools available in DotA). It's not just vision denial that causes a winning team to be able to snowball an advantage--it's vision control as well. They've reduced the vision denial advantage of a winning team, but they've exacerbated the vision control aspect, because now the winning team can ward virtually everything at no cost, and make it utterly impossible for the losing team to make plays because they can see all map movement from a mile away.
At the highest levels of play, teams simply will not commit to fights they cannot win. They way to make comebacks happen is to make use of incomplete information to force your opponent into suboptimal plays based on their limited information (e.g. playing too safe because they think you're going to gank them when you're farming, punishing them when they take risks to farm). If you make vision too easy to obtain, that reduces the ability for teams to accomplish this.
|
On December 07 2012 01:51 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 01:46 Ghost-z wrote:
Oracles nerf was to prevent a team who gets ahead from completely denying the other teams vision indefinitely. 5 minutes is still plenty of time to clear the map of wards during late game no matter how many sight stones they have. Pink wards are going to become a strong, cost-effective counter to sightstone during lane phase. I think many of you are being to quick to condemn the changes to the vision game. Adding a duration to Oracle's is fine. But it should be accompanied with a cost reduction as well. An Oracle's that lasts 5 minutes isn't worth 400 gold.
It is if everyone on the other team has a sight stone. And as I said earlier you can always grab a pink ward which basically tells your jungler to "insert gank here" 
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 07 2012 01:55 Ghost-z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 01:51 TheYango wrote:On December 07 2012 01:46 Ghost-z wrote:
Oracles nerf was to prevent a team who gets ahead from completely denying the other teams vision indefinitely. 5 minutes is still plenty of time to clear the map of wards during late game no matter how many sight stones they have. Pink wards are going to become a strong, cost-effective counter to sightstone during lane phase. I think many of you are being to quick to condemn the changes to the vision game. Adding a duration to Oracle's is fine. But it should be accompanied with a cost reduction as well. An Oracle's that lasts 5 minutes isn't worth 400 gold. It is if everyone on the other team has a sight stone. And as I said earlier you can always grab a pink ward which basically tells your jungler to "insert gank here"
So what happens when they place two wards outside your Pink's detection range that have the same effective coverage? You can't continue to trade pinks for Sightstone wards.
|
On December 06 2012 22:25 Celial wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 21:47 Scip wrote:
I don't know why we are discussing what should change anyways.
The patch is out for what, 3 days? And it changed majority of game aspects in quite a significant way. I think passing judgment over that is kind of premature. No one is playing even close to optimal right now and it's really hard to tell what playstyles are going to become standard. I'd say giving it time to figure things out is more constructive (and in my opinion more satisfying) than instantly jumping the gun on aspects you don't immediately start to like. BUT WARDING IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT
Warding is not bad. Having perfect information, or close to it, in a game like lol is going to make it less enjoyable to both play and watch.
|
On December 07 2012 01:59 Badboyrune wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 22:25 Celial wrote:On December 06 2012 21:47 Scip wrote:
I don't know why we are discussing what should change anyways.
The patch is out for what, 3 days? And it changed majority of game aspects in quite a significant way. I think passing judgment over that is kind of premature. No one is playing even close to optimal right now and it's really hard to tell what playstyles are going to become standard. I'd say giving it time to figure things out is more constructive (and in my opinion more satisfying) than instantly jumping the gun on aspects you don't immediately start to like. BUT WARDING IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT Warding is not bad. Having perfect information, or close to it, in a game like lol is going to make it less enjoyable to both play and watch.
It would be like chess!
Except you'd move 5 pieces per turn -- one with your hand, and 4 by shouting at them
|
On December 07 2012 02:02 Flakes wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 01:59 Badboyrune wrote:On December 06 2012 22:25 Celial wrote:On December 06 2012 21:47 Scip wrote:
I don't know why we are discussing what should change anyways.
The patch is out for what, 3 days? And it changed majority of game aspects in quite a significant way. I think passing judgment over that is kind of premature. No one is playing even close to optimal right now and it's really hard to tell what playstyles are going to become standard. I'd say giving it time to figure things out is more constructive (and in my opinion more satisfying) than instantly jumping the gun on aspects you don't immediately start to like. BUT WARDING IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT Warding is not bad. Having perfect information, or close to it, in a game like lol is going to make it less enjoyable to both play and watch. It would be like chess! Except you'd move 5 pieces per turn -- one with your hand, and 4 by shouting at them
Also there's a hundred different pieces and they're different every game!
|
On December 07 2012 01:58 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 01:55 Ghost-z wrote:On December 07 2012 01:51 TheYango wrote:On December 07 2012 01:46 Ghost-z wrote:
Oracles nerf was to prevent a team who gets ahead from completely denying the other teams vision indefinitely. 5 minutes is still plenty of time to clear the map of wards during late game no matter how many sight stones they have. Pink wards are going to become a strong, cost-effective counter to sightstone during lane phase. I think many of you are being to quick to condemn the changes to the vision game. Adding a duration to Oracle's is fine. But it should be accompanied with a cost reduction as well. An Oracle's that lasts 5 minutes isn't worth 400 gold. It is if everyone on the other team has a sight stone. And as I said earlier you can always grab a pink ward which basically tells your jungler to "insert gank here" So what happens when they place two wards outside your Pink's detection range that have the same effective coverage? You can't continue to trade pinks for Sightstone wards.
If they place 2 wards outside of your pink ward's range then they aren't warding in the optimal places. And you won't place your pink ward until they place one of theirs so you can counter it. Sight stone does have a limit before they have to return to base. And same as my mid lane example; if they buy a sightstone and you buy a pink ward, you gain 575 gold worth of an item advantage against them in lane. You won't need a gank if you can just bully/zone/kill them yourself.
TheoryCrafting: This is a rare case where the "scout" mastery might come into play. You have 3 seconds of long range vision to possibly clear them although I doubt 3 seconds is enough. Buff to 5 seconds?
|
with sightstone you can place more wards to prevent someone from killing your last placed ward
|
Anyone knows when the CLG support tryout starts?
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 07 2012 02:09 Ghost-z wrote:
If they place 2 wards outside of your pink ward's range then they aren't warding in the optimal places. And you won't place your pink ward until they place one of theirs so you can counter it.
Why would they place their Sightstone ward in a suboptimal spot until you've committed a pink ward to that spot?
They get 4 Sightstone wards at a time. If you place a pink to counter one, they still have 3 left, which covers them long enough before they base anyway, based on current ward buying habits.
On December 07 2012 02:09 Ghost-z wrote:
Sight stone does have a limit before they have to return to base. And same as my mid lane example; if they buy a sightstone and you buy a pink ward, you gain 575 gold worth of an item advantage against them in lane. You won't need a gank if you can just bully/zone/kill them yourself.
Again, you obviously won't buy Sightstone in a situation where it will lose you the lane.
The thing is EVERY champ eventually reaches the point where buying a Sightstone is better than buying wards because of the buy/sell cost point I made last page (and have been making since the item was announced). And once a team has all its champs past that point, it can more or less have 10 free wards on the map at all times.
|
On December 07 2012 01:51 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 01:46 Ghost-z wrote:
Oracles nerf was to prevent a team who gets ahead from completely denying the other teams vision indefinitely. 5 minutes is still plenty of time to clear the map of wards during late game no matter how many sight stones they have. Pink wards are going to become a strong, cost-effective counter to sightstone during lane phase. I think many of you are being to quick to condemn the changes to the vision game. Adding a duration to Oracle's is fine. But it should be accompanied with a cost reduction as well. An Oracle's that lasts 5 minutes isn't worth 400 gold. In general, I feel that any shift toward more complete vision isn't a good direction for the game. Incomplete information allows a team that's behind to make plays (which is why Smoke is one of the best comeback tools available in DotA). It's not just vision denial that causes a winning team to be able to snowball an advantage--it's vision control as well. They've reduced the vision denial advantage of a winning team, but they've exacerbated the vision control aspect, because now the winning team can ward virtually everything at no cost, and make it utterly impossible for the losing team to make plays because they can see all map movement from a mile away. At the highest levels of play, teams simply will not commit to fights they cannot win. They way to make comebacks happen is to make use of incomplete information to force your opponent into suboptimal plays based on their limited information (e.g. playing too safe because they think you're going to gank them when you're farming, punishing them when they take risks to farm). If you make vision too easy to obtain, that reduces the ability for teams to accomplish this.
I harped on this in the IPL5 thread, but game 2 and game 3 of the finals were object lessons in the power of vision control. Fnatic was dominating game 2 until Cyanide lost his Oracle's and no one replaced it. Then WE cleared out Fnatic's wards, warded the heck out of Fnatic's jungle, and suddenly WE was making plays while Fnatic struggled to accomplish anything. Even though Fnatic had been winning and still had a gold lead for much of the remaining game, the fact that their every move was telegraphed made it stupidly easy for WE to boss them around. Game 3 was even worse because WE was winning from the start and caught Cyanide the moment he bought Oracle's.
|
sunfire cape is so bad (tbh i think it was bad even in s2 but people build it more because of item slot cost effectiveness than the overall item strength) now we have randuin, u pay 600g more for +25armor,50 hp and sick active/passive
|
On December 07 2012 02:03 TwoToneTerran wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 02:02 Flakes wrote:On December 07 2012 01:59 Badboyrune wrote:On December 06 2012 22:25 Celial wrote:On December 06 2012 21:47 Scip wrote:
I don't know why we are discussing what should change anyways.
The patch is out for what, 3 days? And it changed majority of game aspects in quite a significant way. I think passing judgment over that is kind of premature. No one is playing even close to optimal right now and it's really hard to tell what playstyles are going to become standard. I'd say giving it time to figure things out is more constructive (and in my opinion more satisfying) than instantly jumping the gun on aspects you don't immediately start to like. BUT WARDING IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT Warding is not bad. Having perfect information, or close to it, in a game like lol is going to make it less enjoyable to both play and watch. It would be like chess! Except you'd move 5 pieces per turn -- one with your hand, and 4 by shouting at them Also there's a hundred different pieces and they're different every game!
Serious question: Suppose Riot removed the Fog of War and wards completely from the game (100% perfect vision for both teams like the chess example). How would it play out? Obviously I'm not saying this is good for fans/spectators but you still have dynamic play.
1) Enemy jungler is nearby = play passive or enemy jungler is far away = get aggressive.
2) Enemy X just went back to base, quickly force a 5v4
3) New meta: Push the lane and invade their jungle with numbers advantage.
Obviously neither team will ever have perfect vision but if they get 2-3 minutes where vision is near-perfect they can make some interesting plays.
|
On December 07 2012 02:18 Ghost-z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 02:03 TwoToneTerran wrote:On December 07 2012 02:02 Flakes wrote:On December 07 2012 01:59 Badboyrune wrote:On December 06 2012 22:25 Celial wrote:On December 06 2012 21:47 Scip wrote:
I don't know why we are discussing what should change anyways.
The patch is out for what, 3 days? And it changed majority of game aspects in quite a significant way. I think passing judgment over that is kind of premature. No one is playing even close to optimal right now and it's really hard to tell what playstyles are going to become standard. I'd say giving it time to figure things out is more constructive (and in my opinion more satisfying) than instantly jumping the gun on aspects you don't immediately start to like. BUT WARDING IS BAD AND YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT Warding is not bad. Having perfect information, or close to it, in a game like lol is going to make it less enjoyable to both play and watch. It would be like chess! Except you'd move 5 pieces per turn -- one with your hand, and 4 by shouting at them Also there's a hundred different pieces and they're different every game! Serious question: Suppose Riot removed the Fog of War and wards completely from the game (100% perfect vision for both teams like the chess example). How would it play out? Obviously I'm not saying this is good for fans/spectators but you still have dynamic play. 1) Enemy jungler is nearby = play passive or enemy jungler is far away = get aggressive. 2) Enemy X just went back to base, quickly force a 5v4 3) New meta: Push the lane and invade their jungle with numbers advantage. Obviously neither team will ever have perfect vision but if they get 2-3 minutes where vision is near-perfect they can make some interesting plays.
I imagine most people would quit playing the game completely truthfully.
|
Most ganks should be possible even if the opponents have vision, assuming the ganking is done at the correct time: When the lane is being pushed hard. If vayne and taric are beneath my tower, there's no way they'll be able to back off in time just because they see my jungler coming in the river, they are already commited at that point. Sure, they won't be caught at my tower, they'll be caught mid-lane, but it should still be very possible to gank them. Question is, do we want the constant threat of ganks no matter where you are in lane except under own tower because of lack of vision, or do we only want real threat of ganking when pushing hard, regardless of vision?
|
On December 07 2012 02:15 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 02:09 Ghost-z wrote:
If they place 2 wards outside of your pink ward's range then they aren't warding in the optimal places. And you won't place your pink ward until they place one of theirs so you can counter it. Why would they place their Sightstone ward in a suboptimal spot until you've committed a pink ward to that spot? They get 4 Sightstone wards at a time. If you place a pink to counter one, they still have 3 left, which covers them long enough before they base anyway, based on current ward buying habits. Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 02:09 Ghost-z wrote:
Sight stone does have a limit before they have to return to base. And same as my mid lane example; if they buy a sightstone and you buy a pink ward, you gain 575 gold worth of an item advantage against them in lane. You won't need a gank if you can just bully/zone/kill them yourself. Again, you obviously won't buy Sightstone in a situation where it will lose you the lane. The thing is EVERY champ eventually reaches the point where buying a Sightstone is better than buying wards because of the buy/sell cost point I made last page (and have been making since the item was announced). And once a team has all its champs past that point, it can more or less have 10 free wards on the map at all times.
They won't ward sub-optimally until you place your pink ward. And you won't pink ward until they place their ward. If you pink ward your lane bush they can't ward against a lane gank.
A 5-minute oracles is enough time late game to clear wards around the map but perhaps oracles needs to be cheaper to warrant the limited duration, especially early to mid game. How cheap should oracles be? Too cheap and it almost becomes OP.
|
On December 07 2012 02:25 Ghost-z wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 02:15 TheYango wrote:On December 07 2012 02:09 Ghost-z wrote:
If they place 2 wards outside of your pink ward's range then they aren't warding in the optimal places. And you won't place your pink ward until they place one of theirs so you can counter it. Why would they place their Sightstone ward in a suboptimal spot until you've committed a pink ward to that spot? They get 4 Sightstone wards at a time. If you place a pink to counter one, they still have 3 left, which covers them long enough before they base anyway, based on current ward buying habits. On December 07 2012 02:09 Ghost-z wrote:
Sight stone does have a limit before they have to return to base. And same as my mid lane example; if they buy a sightstone and you buy a pink ward, you gain 575 gold worth of an item advantage against them in lane. You won't need a gank if you can just bully/zone/kill them yourself. Again, you obviously won't buy Sightstone in a situation where it will lose you the lane. The thing is EVERY champ eventually reaches the point where buying a Sightstone is better than buying wards because of the buy/sell cost point I made last page (and have been making since the item was announced). And once a team has all its champs past that point, it can more or less have 10 free wards on the map at all times. They won't ward sub-optimally until you place your pink ward. And you won't pink ward until they place their ward. If you pink ward your lane bush they can't ward against a lane gank. A 5-minute oracles is enough time late game to clear wards around the map but perhaps oracles needs to be cheaper to warrant the limited duration, especially early to mid game. How cheap should oracles be? Too cheap and it almost becomes OP.
Id say 2-300gold personally. 400 for something that lasts 5 minutes, which you may not even make cost effective is just ehh to me
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 07 2012 02:25 Tobberoth wrote:
Most ganks should be possible even if the opponents have vision, assuming the ganking is done at the correct time: When the lane is being pushed hard. If vayne and taric are beneath my tower, there's no way they'll be able to back off in time just because they see my jungler coming in the river, they are already commited at that point. Sure, they won't be caught at my tower, they'll be caught mid-lane, but it should still be very possible to gank them. Question is, do we want the constant threat of ganks no matter where you are in lane except under own tower because of lack of vision, or do we only want real threat of ganking when pushing hard, regardless of vision?
That scenario is categorically a misplay (if you're so far out that a gank will succeed even when you see it coming).
|
I had a game last night where I was playing support on the purple side and I had the sight stone and warded both the river and tri-bush (they had a pink ward on dragon). Out of nowhere their graves gets aggressive so we back off but no gank comes. He does it again and still no gank. The third time we just assumed he grew a pair and decided to straight up kill them (we had an advantage). As soon as the fight starts here comes cho-gath down the river (just outside of ward range) and manages to kill 1 of us. Idk if cho-gath flashed over the dragon wall (doubtful) or was just sitting on the pink ward by dragon waiting for 30 seconds to gank us.
My point here is that even sight stone doesnt make you immune to jungle ganks and pink wards help counter it.
|
On December 07 2012 02:31 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 02:25 Tobberoth wrote:
Most ganks should be possible even if the opponents have vision, assuming the ganking is done at the correct time: When the lane is being pushed hard. If vayne and taric are beneath my tower, there's no way they'll be able to back off in time just because they see my jungler coming in the river, they are already commited at that point. Sure, they won't be caught at my tower, they'll be caught mid-lane, but it should still be very possible to gank them. Question is, do we want the constant threat of ganks no matter where you are in lane except under own tower because of lack of vision, or do we only want real threat of ganking when pushing hard, regardless of vision? That scenario is categorically a misplay (if you're so far out that a gank will succeed even when you see it coming).
That depends on the situation, a lot of heroes can dive very effectively under tower if they are pushing. For example when aphromoo is playing Ezreal, I've seen him go up under tower with his minions and if the opponents don't back off, he bursts them down (obviously when he is doing good in lane). It's just a choice, you either stay back from the tower to be safer, but that lets your opponents farm under tower which most good adc players do without huge problems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
