|
|
On February 28 2014 10:18 mr_tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 10:13 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On February 28 2014 10:11 Crusnik wrote:
I'm going to ignore how blatantly bullshit the majority of that post is and instead focus on TF. How would they make him "balanced for competitive"? If they buffed anything on him, he would nearly immediately go back to 100% pick/ban in OGN/LPL/GPL just because of his ultimate. He might be fine in NA/EU just because there aren't nearly as many mechanical midlaners that would take the weak laning phase without the lategame carry potential that you would get as say, Kassadin.
I'm kinda curious how you could actually balance a champion having a global ultimate that gives true sight, except through Paranoia, with his stun and waveclear/splitpushing with his Wildcard+Lich Bane? By having another champion that ALSO have ridiculous strengths that can be exploited to completely destroy the opposing team's will to live. In fact, have 40, 50, 60 of them. Then this game might actually be fun again. Who cares if you can destroy lanes and assert global pressure and split push like a God when there's another hero that can do something equally ridiculous but completely different? DotA is pretty nice you know. LoL is just a completely different game, and while it doesn't mean Riot has the best or even a good design philosophy, it looks pretty reasonable balance and fun wise.
LoL design is great and why I picked the game. It was much more straightforward than DotA to pick up and learn. Most of the champions did variations of the same thing so skills were easily transferable.
Too bad everything has been thrown out the window since then. Like if there were 120 Brands that would be fine, but instead we have 119 Brands and 1 Brand that does % missing HP true damage execute or something else totally garbage like that.
|
On February 28 2014 10:27 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
I have no comments about the change, and you are trying to conflate a separate issue into one in some stupid attempt to "prove a point" (you don't have one), because you have no idea what you're talking about.
This change has absolutely nothing to do with balance. This change is the equivalent of saying "we made Veigar's Dark Matter hot pink instead of black, and this will really help us balance Veigar."
I just wanted to point out that he's not lying. You said he was lying.
Saying it has nothing to do with balance is I think a bit hyperbolic. It probably doesn't have very much to do with balance, but to say it will never help anyone play TF ever I think is not going to prove correct.
When they added directional indicators to Wild Cards, did that have anything to do with balance? This is kinda similar.
|
the pick a card change is completely unlike meepo, and it's not even at the level of blink dagger max range. it's a very small change that helps with tf's learning curve, that's it
unless i'm missing something huge here, which i suspect might be the case otherwise why all the fuss
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On February 28 2014 10:32 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 10:27 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
I have no comments about the change, and you are trying to conflate a separate issue into one in some stupid attempt to "prove a point" (you don't have one), because you have no idea what you're talking about.
This change has absolutely nothing to do with balance. This change is the equivalent of saying "we made Veigar's Dark Matter hot pink instead of black, and this will really help us balance Veigar." I just wanted to point out that he's not lying. You said he was lying. Saying it has nothing to do with balance is I think a bit hyperbolic. It probably doesn't have very much to do with balance, but to say it will never help anyone play TF ever I think is not going to prove correct. When they added directional indicators to Wild Cards, did that have anything to do with balance? This is kinda similar.
On February 28 2014 09:45 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +In reality, the Live Team tends to buff about as much as they nerf. A few factors lead to the perception that our balance is nerf heavy:
First, players trend toward playing overpowered champions, and tend to focus on champions they play when reading the patch notes. For example, Corki's playrate increased 8x within a 1 month period around September of last year (Trinity Force buffs made him very strong). It's only natural to focus on the champions you play when reading the patch notes and pay less attention to the (previously underpowered) champions you don't. That's why I don't fault you for missing the straight buffs to Corki, Ryze and Skarner in 4.3, despite the fact that it's written in clear English.
Second, players tend to read net neutral changes (buffs + nerfs) as nerfs. For example, community sentiment was largely that our recent changes to Kayle's Q ratio was a nerf, when in fact the buff to her W's movement speed made her about the same strength, if not more potent -- We reduced Kayle's burst while increasing her team utility and ability to deal sustained damage. Since players were used to bursting with Kayle, they focused on the reduction to their ability to 1 shot a dude over the gains. This isn't true of all players, mind you, but it happens to a lot of us (even Yours Truly).
Third, buffs are often hard to associate with a particular champion, but nerfs feel very specific. Returning to Corki, when we buffed Trinity Force before Worlds, very few players saw this as a dramatic gain for Corki on patch day. Nonetheless, he was immediately overpowered. When we made subsequent changes to Corki which resulted in a net decrease in power, everyone saw that as a dramatic loss for Corki. Again returning to 4.3, we expect all Tear of the Goddess and Spellthief's Edge users to be stronger in this patch. However, it will take a while for these buffs to be fully appreciated.
Finally, if you are posting here, you likely read posts here, and players are much more likely to write a forum post when they feel frustrated or aggrieved than when they feel content. Thus, all of the above is magnified because the "TLDR" of the patch notes often seems like a litany of nerfs because a huge portion of the posts on this forum are just players venting about specific nerfs to their favorite overpowered champion. Show nested quote +All of the champions you listed ["why is Fiora/Viktor/Brand/Heimer/my favorite champion still unviable/clunky/outdated/otherwise disadvantaged?"] are perfectly viable. Unfortunately, they do not feel viable (for a number of reasons specific to each).
Take Fiora. If you cannot win with Fiora, that's likely because you are playing her wrong. Show nested quote +I did not mean to imply everyone played champions for power, only that our more powerful champions on average tend to see more play than our less powerful champions.
I also agree with you that the major nerfs we did to Urgot (and Olaf) were unfortunate and tarnished our balance reputation. It is of course unfortunate that some champions are dramatically more powerful in the hands of a pro than our average player, as were Olaf and Urgot (who both saw/see success in competitive after we "destroyed" them). What we should have done was alter their underlying mechanics so that they could be relatively fun while still being unique and balanced at the highest levels of play.
Indeed, this is a lesson that the Live team has taken to heart. SmashGizmo did a phenomenal re-work on Olaf that retained his core identity (Berserker) while removing the competitive balance problems (massive true damage on a CC immune bruiser whose offensive itemization was full health/CDR). More recently, this patch's Twisted Fate changes, while they may seem minor, are designed to make him balanceable across the entire spectrum of players. The Kha'zix changes almost certainly reduce his overall power level, but they also help fulfill his identity as a hunter/assassin in the process. I actually enjoy playing this patch's version of Kha'Zix much more than the previous version -- I may not take Dragon/Baron as quickly, or annihilate underleveled targets instantly when I am ahead, but I can make game defining turn-around plays and can drop aggro in skirmishes when needed and move to isolated targets more effectively.
So while it is fair to be critical of the Urgot/Olaf approach, it is not fair to portray that as reflective of our current approach to game balance.
I have bolded some of the many lies and disingenuous distortions for your convenience.
|
On February 28 2014 10:36 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 10:32 Ketara wrote:On February 28 2014 10:27 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
I have no comments about the change, and you are trying to conflate a separate issue into one in some stupid attempt to "prove a point" (you don't have one), because you have no idea what you're talking about.
This change has absolutely nothing to do with balance. This change is the equivalent of saying "we made Veigar's Dark Matter hot pink instead of black, and this will really help us balance Veigar." I just wanted to point out that he's not lying. You said he was lying. Saying it has nothing to do with balance is I think a bit hyperbolic. It probably doesn't have very much to do with balance, but to say it will never help anyone play TF ever I think is not going to prove correct. When they added directional indicators to Wild Cards, did that have anything to do with balance? This is kinda similar. Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 09:45 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:In reality, the Live Team tends to buff about as much as they nerf. A few factors lead to the perception that our balance is nerf heavy:
First, players trend toward playing overpowered champions, and tend to focus on champions they play when reading the patch notes. For example, Corki's playrate increased 8x within a 1 month period around September of last year (Trinity Force buffs made him very strong). It's only natural to focus on the champions you play when reading the patch notes and pay less attention to the (previously underpowered) champions you don't. That's why I don't fault you for missing the straight buffs to Corki, Ryze and Skarner in 4.3, despite the fact that it's written in clear English.
Second, players tend to read net neutral changes (buffs + nerfs) as nerfs. For example, community sentiment was largely that our recent changes to Kayle's Q ratio was a nerf, when in fact the buff to her W's movement speed made her about the same strength, if not more potent -- We reduced Kayle's burst while increasing her team utility and ability to deal sustained damage. Since players were used to bursting with Kayle, they focused on the reduction to their ability to 1 shot a dude over the gains. This isn't true of all players, mind you, but it happens to a lot of us (even Yours Truly).
Third, buffs are often hard to associate with a particular champion, but nerfs feel very specific. Returning to Corki, when we buffed Trinity Force before Worlds, very few players saw this as a dramatic gain for Corki on patch day. Nonetheless, he was immediately overpowered. When we made subsequent changes to Corki which resulted in a net decrease in power, everyone saw that as a dramatic loss for Corki. Again returning to 4.3, we expect all Tear of the Goddess and Spellthief's Edge users to be stronger in this patch. However, it will take a while for these buffs to be fully appreciated.
Finally, if you are posting here, you likely read posts here, and players are much more likely to write a forum post when they feel frustrated or aggrieved than when they feel content. Thus, all of the above is magnified because the "TLDR" of the patch notes often seems like a litany of nerfs because a huge portion of the posts on this forum are just players venting about specific nerfs to their favorite overpowered champion. All of the champions you listed ["why is Fiora/Viktor/Brand/Heimer/my favorite champion still unviable/clunky/outdated/otherwise disadvantaged?"] are perfectly viable. Unfortunately, they do not feel viable (for a number of reasons specific to each).
Take Fiora. If you cannot win with Fiora, that's likely because you are playing her wrong. I did not mean to imply everyone played champions for power, only that our more powerful champions on average tend to see more play than our less powerful champions.
I also agree with you that the major nerfs we did to Urgot (and Olaf) were unfortunate and tarnished our balance reputation. It is of course unfortunate that some champions are dramatically more powerful in the hands of a pro than our average player, as were Olaf and Urgot (who both saw/see success in competitive after we "destroyed" them). What we should have done was alter their underlying mechanics so that they could be relatively fun while still being unique and balanced at the highest levels of play.
Indeed, this is a lesson that the Live team has taken to heart. SmashGizmo did a phenomenal re-work on Olaf that retained his core identity (Berserker) while removing the competitive balance problems (massive true damage on a CC immune bruiser whose offensive itemization was full health/CDR). More recently, this patch's Twisted Fate changes, while they may seem minor, are designed to make him balanceable across the entire spectrum of players. The Kha'zix changes almost certainly reduce his overall power level, but they also help fulfill his identity as a hunter/assassin in the process. I actually enjoy playing this patch's version of Kha'Zix much more than the previous version -- I may not take Dragon/Baron as quickly, or annihilate underleveled targets instantly when I am ahead, but I can make game defining turn-around plays and can drop aggro in skirmishes when needed and move to isolated targets more effectively.
So while it is fair to be critical of the Urgot/Olaf approach, it is not fair to portray that as reflective of our current approach to game balance. I have bolded the many lies for your convenience.
Well that could be useful with all the shit you're posting. Thanks for pointing the 1% of your posts actually having anything to do with the discussion.
|
today has been a good day in both gd threads
AND new patch day, it's better than christmas
|
On February 28 2014 10:17 Harem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 10:08 Ketara wrote:
I'm not sure I understand how he's lying?
Maybe you could explain? The stuff you quoted seems very reasonable and well thought out to me, aside from possibly the Fiora comment, which is sort of a half truth. Err, the TF change? It was just a particle change and he is acting like a politician how it is the greatest thing ever.
I am not a cognitive scientist but I have a theory of what he means.
First, try to do this test yourself:
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/
This tests your reaction time when a box of red turns green. My own reaction time is around 250ms and according to this website the average is around 200ms. Regardless this test seems awfully hard to do and I am sure everyone here agrees that our reaction time in game is far less than 200ms.
My theory here is that we are bad at detecting quick change of colour with our eyes because of how our cone cells work in our eyes. I think if we change the red -> green transition to a black -> white transition or some sort of movement cue we will be able to perform the test with much greater proficiency.
Similarly, provided my theory is correct, we should be able to detect the card colour more quickly with the current PAC setup than what it was previous.
Again this is just my theorycrafting on human cognition. If someone can make an applet to test this it would be great.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On February 28 2014 10:37 mr_tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 10:36 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:On February 28 2014 10:32 Ketara wrote:On February 28 2014 10:27 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
I have no comments about the change, and you are trying to conflate a separate issue into one in some stupid attempt to "prove a point" (you don't have one), because you have no idea what you're talking about.
This change has absolutely nothing to do with balance. This change is the equivalent of saying "we made Veigar's Dark Matter hot pink instead of black, and this will really help us balance Veigar." I just wanted to point out that he's not lying. You said he was lying. Saying it has nothing to do with balance is I think a bit hyperbolic. It probably doesn't have very much to do with balance, but to say it will never help anyone play TF ever I think is not going to prove correct. When they added directional indicators to Wild Cards, did that have anything to do with balance? This is kinda similar. On February 28 2014 09:45 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:In reality, the Live Team tends to buff about as much as they nerf. A few factors lead to the perception that our balance is nerf heavy:
First, players trend toward playing overpowered champions, and tend to focus on champions they play when reading the patch notes. For example, Corki's playrate increased 8x within a 1 month period around September of last year (Trinity Force buffs made him very strong). It's only natural to focus on the champions you play when reading the patch notes and pay less attention to the (previously underpowered) champions you don't. That's why I don't fault you for missing the straight buffs to Corki, Ryze and Skarner in 4.3, despite the fact that it's written in clear English.
Second, players tend to read net neutral changes (buffs + nerfs) as nerfs. For example, community sentiment was largely that our recent changes to Kayle's Q ratio was a nerf, when in fact the buff to her W's movement speed made her about the same strength, if not more potent -- We reduced Kayle's burst while increasing her team utility and ability to deal sustained damage. Since players were used to bursting with Kayle, they focused on the reduction to their ability to 1 shot a dude over the gains. This isn't true of all players, mind you, but it happens to a lot of us (even Yours Truly).
Third, buffs are often hard to associate with a particular champion, but nerfs feel very specific. Returning to Corki, when we buffed Trinity Force before Worlds, very few players saw this as a dramatic gain for Corki on patch day. Nonetheless, he was immediately overpowered. When we made subsequent changes to Corki which resulted in a net decrease in power, everyone saw that as a dramatic loss for Corki. Again returning to 4.3, we expect all Tear of the Goddess and Spellthief's Edge users to be stronger in this patch. However, it will take a while for these buffs to be fully appreciated.
Finally, if you are posting here, you likely read posts here, and players are much more likely to write a forum post when they feel frustrated or aggrieved than when they feel content. Thus, all of the above is magnified because the "TLDR" of the patch notes often seems like a litany of nerfs because a huge portion of the posts on this forum are just players venting about specific nerfs to their favorite overpowered champion. All of the champions you listed ["why is Fiora/Viktor/Brand/Heimer/my favorite champion still unviable/clunky/outdated/otherwise disadvantaged?"] are perfectly viable. Unfortunately, they do not feel viable (for a number of reasons specific to each).
Take Fiora. If you cannot win with Fiora, that's likely because you are playing her wrong. I did not mean to imply everyone played champions for power, only that our more powerful champions on average tend to see more play than our less powerful champions.
I also agree with you that the major nerfs we did to Urgot (and Olaf) were unfortunate and tarnished our balance reputation. It is of course unfortunate that some champions are dramatically more powerful in the hands of a pro than our average player, as were Olaf and Urgot (who both saw/see success in competitive after we "destroyed" them). What we should have done was alter their underlying mechanics so that they could be relatively fun while still being unique and balanced at the highest levels of play.
Indeed, this is a lesson that the Live team has taken to heart. SmashGizmo did a phenomenal re-work on Olaf that retained his core identity (Berserker) while removing the competitive balance problems (massive true damage on a CC immune bruiser whose offensive itemization was full health/CDR). More recently, this patch's Twisted Fate changes, while they may seem minor, are designed to make him balanceable across the entire spectrum of players. The Kha'zix changes almost certainly reduce his overall power level, but they also help fulfill his identity as a hunter/assassin in the process. I actually enjoy playing this patch's version of Kha'Zix much more than the previous version -- I may not take Dragon/Baron as quickly, or annihilate underleveled targets instantly when I am ahead, but I can make game defining turn-around plays and can drop aggro in skirmishes when needed and move to isolated targets more effectively.
So while it is fair to be critical of the Urgot/Olaf approach, it is not fair to portray that as reflective of our current approach to game balance. I have bolded the many lies for your convenience. Well that could be useful with all the shit you're posting. Thanks for pointing the 1% of your posts actually having anything to do with the discussion.
I made a graphic interface change to my post. I believe this will really allow responders to make thoughtful responses, thus sorting out the good posters from the great posters.
You fall in the third category of posters.
On February 28 2014 10:39 Sufficiency wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 10:17 Harem wrote:On February 28 2014 10:08 Ketara wrote:
I'm not sure I understand how he's lying?
Maybe you could explain? The stuff you quoted seems very reasonable and well thought out to me, aside from possibly the Fiora comment, which is sort of a half truth. Err, the TF change? It was just a particle change and he is acting like a politician how it is the greatest thing ever. I am not a cognitive scientist but I have a theory of what he means. First, try to do this test yourself: http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/This tests your reaction time when a box of red turns green. My own reaction time is around 250ms and according to this website the average is around 200ms. Regardless this test seems awfully hard to do and I am sure everyone here agrees that our reaction time in game is far less than 200ms. My theory here is that we are bad at detecting quick change of colour with our eyes because of how our cone cells work in our eyes. I think if we change the red -> green transition to a black -> white transition or some sort of movement cue we will be able to perform the test with much greater proficiency. Similarly, provided my theory is correct, we should be able to detect the card colour more quickly with the current PAC setup than what it was previous. Again this is just my theorycrafting on human cognition. If someone can make an applet to test this it would be great.
I think I just got eye cancer reading this post.
|
my favorite part of the certainlyT post is where he points to minor, meaningless buffs for corki and skarner as examples of them buffing champs instead of nerfing them, completely ignoring the context of previous recent patches.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On February 28 2014 10:41 chalice wrote:
my favorite part of the certainlyT post is where he points to minor, meaningless buffs for corki and skarner as examples of them buffing champs instead of nerfing them, completely ignoring the context of previous recent patches.
The best part is, that exact same logic/accounting method gets used when Sufficiency and Ketara throw shit at each other while they argue over whether Riot is buffing or nerfing champions.
Basically he falls within the target audience of individuals who cannot seem to sustain more than 10 seconds of critical thought who will eat up this garbage unquestioningly.
Edit: Yes, Eppa is giving a good example of what I'm talking about.
|
If you look at design choice changes in the name of balance some are good like Zed ulti, Darius ulti, Panth channel time on ulti, Fear change, Kayle q nerf. Some are really bad like Shyvana W nerf, Ahri E change, Nunu blood boil nerfs. Instead of directing champs into a niche they become good at everything.
From a design perspective you want counter play in draft (for a bigger pool of viable champs and more interesting choices) Good at everything slightly better at something pushes a lot of champions out of viability. You generally want to keep Mu active like what you see bot lane where its not so much that both want to do x but that they wish to different things.
This also limits teams. Hard engage vs Poke vs Waveclear split push vs Quick rotation comps are being forced more and more into a standard play where you very much want to do everything. Its becoming a choice of do I want Panth for better ganks mid game or Elise for better drake control, but they are both good at both rather than do I want jungle Udyr so i can take drake at 3 or jungle Thresh so i have huge chance to kill something early to get my team snowballing.
|
Uh, making Ahri reliant on E instead of "build DFG, faceroll, miss every skillshots and still kill people from full health if ignite is up" made her more "good at everything"?
|
On February 28 2014 10:32 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2014 10:27 Carnivorous Sheep wrote:
I have no comments about the change, and you are trying to conflate a separate issue into one in some stupid attempt to "prove a point" (you don't have one), because you have no idea what you're talking about.
This change has absolutely nothing to do with balance. This change is the equivalent of saying "we made Veigar's Dark Matter hot pink instead of black, and this will really help us balance Veigar." I just wanted to point out that he's not lying. You said he was lying. Saying it has nothing to do with balance is I think a bit hyperbolic. It probably doesn't have very much to do with balance, but to say it will never help anyone play TF ever I think is not going to prove correct. When they added directional indicators to Wild Cards, did that have anything to do with balance? This is kinda similar.
The only way you can say he isn't "lying" in many of those statements is if you accept the politicians' definition of a lie.
People saying "You can keep your healthcare" or "there are WMDs in Iraq" etc. I like Smash, I'm glad they hired him, but the Olaf rework has done nothing to make him easier for Riot to balance, they made him an autoattack reliant champion in a game that they are increasingly moving away from autoattacks being a good source of damage. Fiora is not a strong champion (unless you also subscribe to the "viable" myth of balance) and they Kayle change was a straight up nerf.
|
Baa?21244 Posts
On February 28 2014 10:53 Alaric wrote:
Uh, making Ahri reliant on E instead of "build DFG, faceroll, miss every skillshots and still kill people from full health if ignite is up" made her more "good at everything"?
The Ahri change was a stupid and unnecessary change that was a straight up nerf disguised as a "separate the good Ahris from the great Ahris" change, and is a perfect example of the point that's being made here.
|
Does anyone know where I can find a list of moderators/banlings on TL?
|
On February 28 2014 10:23 Crusnik wrote:
If you define Balance by everything being the same, then yes, LoL is fine. I for one would prefer to not have 8 champions to pick between for my two roles (ADC and Top) without being completely fucked in lane. Not playing Mundo/shyvana/Renekton/Trundle? Get ready to lose/be less useful than your opponent. Not playing Caitlyn, Jinx, Lucian, Sivir? Better completely outplay your opponent, and even if you do, you might cost your team the game just because you played Corki, MF, Varus, or Twitch.
I know Draven is viable as well, but I can't play him and haven't put the time into learning him since I don't think it's worthwhile.
Ehh, I think you're overblowing things.
LCS picks are consistent because pros will pick either what suits their team comp or whatever is marginally the best. Flavor picks are rare when you're paid to win.
Twitch was so damn close to being the next OP AD before they buffed the shit out of Triforce/Corki right before S3 Worlds. Now he doesn't get played because Meta teams don't/can't protect the AD; Jinx rarely gets picked in Korea for the same reason.
Diamond is full one one-trick pony players that main non-Meta picks. The majority of champs are not unviable; some just require less effort than others and I think bitching about that is pointless.
|
Cheeps growing on me. <3 you babby.
|
The problem is, Sheep is a sheep and takes every word litteraly. Yeah the Riot message is pretty full of shit, but just as you would expect. You mix their posting with their design philosophy and the way they do it. That's 3 different topics you adress as one and you take face value from bullshit they post on forums to make Reddit happy. You'll always find points to argue with such backup.
|
Uhm, so who was the dip that let things like tormented soil trigger spellthief's?
|
On February 28 2014 10:23 Crusnik wrote:
If you define Balance by everything being the same, then yes, LoL is fine. I for one would prefer to not have 8 champions to pick between for my two roles (ADC and Top) without being completely fucked in lane. Not playing Mundo/shyvana/Renekton/Trundle? Get ready to lose/be less useful than your opponent. Not playing Caitlyn, Jinx, Lucian, Sivir? Better completely outplay your opponent, and even if you do, you might cost your team the game just because you played Corki, MF, Varus, or Twitch.
I know Draven is viable as well, but I can't play him and haven't put the time into learning him since I don't think it's worthwhile.
Yeah, because if you're not playing a FotM champion then you automatically lose. Ok.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
