|
Alright, we're going to call it a day with all the Thorin drama, guys. I figured if it was about SI, onGamers, TSM, etc, it had some relevance to League but somehow you guys managed to devolve the discussion into an issue about race of all things.
Enough is enough. Let's move along now.
-NeoIllusions |
On June 05 2014 21:56 Numy wrote:
Yea the few people that do have the knowledge, confidence and experience to discuss these things may be held back by the monopoly nature of League of Legends. I think this is partially why Unions were created. It's almost impossible for an individual to speak out against his/her company of employment but via a Union they are more able to do this(At least here not sure about other countries).
We won't be able to find out without a leak or anonymous source if there is pressure to agree publicly with riot's decisions until players get out of LCS teams and stop being affiliated with teams or riot, like if they are hired to work for gamespot or twitch or some 3rd party site like that. but i know if i was coming out of high school into that kind of money to play the game i'd nod my head and play the part even if there wasn't any real pressure directly.
|
I'd think players can criticize balance as long as they are not insulting. Besides Riot firing a player on his "freedom of speech" would have severe consequences on the firm's image.
Although it's okay on balance, I'm not sure how they'd react to critics on their general business model, etc.
|
I personally don't think they actively pressure the players like that but I may just be naive.
|
11589 Posts
The problem is that some of their visions work too well, and some of them just plain suck. The game will never do well with differing levels of effort being put into champion design. It also won't work well now if you design a champion with other champions in that role in mind. Some champions have an interesting theme to them, like Orianna, that provides engaging gameplay, clear strengths and weaknesses, while remaining functional as a mid but not domineering.
Then you have binary champion design like the stealth assassins Riot has so much trouble with (Kha/Rengar, anyone?) that are either strong enough to kill their target and escape (their purpose, by design), or they aren't and they are useless. Most of them have almost no utility, just straight up damage. This will always be "fun to play as, but not against" which is the bane of Riot's business model. Thus, even if counterplay existed (which it could, if the vision changes were reversed and people had readily available reveal like in DOTA, where stealth is relatively balanced), these designs would still be problematic because they will be easier to play than to counter (also the case in DOTA).
Honestly, Riot's biggest fault is attempting to copy the archetypes of DOTA and then failing to understand their interactions properly. Vision, stealth, scaling, stats, lanes, roles, heroes/champions and even farming are all "different" from DOTA in obvious ways, and those differences are what creates the systemic problems League has. Their game is supposed to be easier to understand and play, yet they add unnecessary complexity to the game with things like the trinket system and support-only items because they can't make playing support more interesting in any other way than giving them their own special items to buy, because the only rewarding thing in the game apparently is acquiring and spending gold.
Maybe this sounds like a DOTA fanboy post just hating on LoL, but to legitimize it, let me say that I played LoL first, and have really enjoyed the game in the past. But many of the changes they made to the game made it increasingly less rewarding for me to play. Instead of turning a blind eye to the success of DOTA, they should take some lessons on how to maintain the fragile balance of such a complicated genre of games. They obviously greatly struggle with this now, so why make it harder by ignoring years of proven success of the game they started out by essentially copying? League rose to prominence as a "different enough" DOTA-clone, but in some respects they've gone too far trying to forge their own path while simultaneously borrowing so heavily from the archetype, if that makes any sense.
|
On June 05 2014 22:04 -Zoda- wrote:
I'd think players can criticize balance as long as they are not insulting. Besides Riot firing a player on his "freedom of speech" would have severe consequences on the firm's image.
Although it's okay on balance, I'm not sure how they'd react to critics on their general business model, etc.
I think balance/business anything not mostly involving LCS would be a problem. complaints about balance can influence the general player population same with complaints about business model or design goals. but a complaint about the number of games played in LCS or something really only affects pros so the avg player will likely just agree and keep playing/buying/watching. if pros start saying "the game isn't fun right now and balance sucks and riot is making it worse" i can imagine that having an impact on RP sales with players being more cautious about putting money into a game they are told isn't worth it. Whether there is active pressure contractual or not, is impossible to really know. but there is definitely some pressure on pros not to rock the boat too much just from being an unempowered employee.
I tend to be a bit cynical about riot's business and PR decisions since the whole hiring of pendragon as community manager fiasco though.
|
11589 Posts
On June 05 2014 21:49 Numy wrote:
I get the impression Riot actually dislikes the model of a "Moba" or RPG model if that's better way to describe it. They have been actively removing the concept of a gold advantage translating into more strength which leads into higher chance of getting a bigger advantage. It's the fundamental concept RPGs and Mobas function on. This is even worse because they first designed LoL to have multiple scaling properties that require this very concept to function properly. They can't retroactively change the concept of AP/AD scaling on abilities to better realize their no advantage or "snowballing" policy so they have to go about it in another way. So far this has meant decreases reward for CSing or Killing champions while increasing passive gold gain. Now it seems they trying more avenues
This somewhat reflects accurately what I was trying to say without directly mentioning DOTA. In short, I agree, but I think the problem goes beyond scaling and snowballing, and right down to stuff like base stats and vision mechanics.
|
11589 Posts
On June 05 2014 22:23 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 22:04 -Zoda- wrote:
I'd think players can criticize balance as long as they are not insulting. Besides Riot firing a player on his "freedom of speech" would have severe consequences on the firm's image.
Although it's okay on balance, I'm not sure how they'd react to critics on their general business model, etc. I think balance/business anything not mostly involving LCS would be a problem. complaints about balance can influence the general player population same with complaints about business model or design goals. but a complaint about the number of games played in LCS or something really only affects pros so the avg player will likely just agree and keep playing/buying/watching. if pros start saying "the game isn't fun right now and balance sucks and riot is making it worse" i can imagine that having an impact on RP sales with players being more cautious about putting money into a game they are told isn't worth it. Whether there is active pressure contractual or not, is impossible to really know. but there is definitely some pressure on pros not to rock the boat too much just from being an unempowered employee. I tend to be a bit cynical about riot's business and PR decisions since the whole hiring of pendragon as community manager fiasco though.
It's not really cynicism when it's quite obvious that Riot's goal with balance changes is directly aimed at keeping people playing the game, and keeping people playing as many different champions as possible. Whatever keeps people from quitting, and whatever makes them buy more skins/champions will invariably be what Riot does. They want to continue to appeal to as many people as possible, which means that they will listen to every minor complaint made by their playerbase to ensure that the game isn't exclusionary to anyone.
Even pro scene changes are made not with the idea of ensuring that the better team wins, but with ensuring that people continue to watch the games. This is done by increasing champion pick diversity at the LCS level and reducing the number of "boring snowball" victories by reducing the advantages of a gold and experience lead while increasing the number of mechanics that allow for comebacks. They also want to eliminate as much as possible anything that differentiates pro level play with the soloq experience so that the average viewer doesn't have to try too hard to understand what's going on, so they are more likely to watch the game.
|
A month ago TLGD criticized Riot for the ADC role being too weak and there not being enough champion diversity amongst ADCs.
Now Riot proposes changes intended to increase ADC item build diversity, increase the power level of ADCs and increase the number of viable ADCs.
And before they even post the numbers of the changes TLGD says they're bad changes.
I swear, reading this thread makes me dumber.
|
On June 05 2014 22:33 yamato77 wrote:
Even pro scene changes are made not with the idea of ensuring that the better team wins, but with ensuring that people continue to watch the games.
What should this even mean? "Better" is defined by winning, so by definition the better team always wins.
|
On June 05 2014 22:23 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 22:04 -Zoda- wrote:
I'd think players can criticize balance as long as they are not insulting. Besides Riot firing a player on his "freedom of speech" would have severe consequences on the firm's image.
Although it's okay on balance, I'm not sure how they'd react to critics on their general business model, etc. I think balance/business anything not mostly involving LCS would be a problem. complaints about balance can influence the general player population same with complaints about business model or design goals. but a complaint about the number of games played in LCS or something really only affects pros so the avg player will likely just agree and keep playing/buying/watching. if pros start saying "the game isn't fun right now and balance sucks and riot is making it worse" i can imagine that having an impact on RP sales with players being more cautious about putting money into a game they are told isn't worth it. Whether there is active pressure contractual or not, is impossible to really know. but there is definitely some pressure on pros not to rock the boat too much just from being an unempowered employee. I tend to be a bit cynical about riot's business and PR decisions since the whole hiring of pendragon as community manager fiasco though.
Your exemple sentence definitely isn't what a consider a critic, it's plain whine. And balance affects pro players as muchas the number of games played in LCS.
|
On June 05 2014 21:29 yamato77 wrote:
Riot will never understand that homogenization is not a way to add diversity to choices in champion select or to itemization.
Don't really see the issue when homogenization refers to BF items having 80 AD. Same thing happens with NLR and 120 AP.
|
11589 Posts
On June 05 2014 22:54 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 21:29 yamato77 wrote:
Riot will never understand that homogenization is not a way to add diversity to choices in champion select or to itemization. Don't really see the issue when homogenization refers to BF items having 80 AD. Same thing happens with NLR and 120 AP.
It's one of their reoccurring themes. "Bring X more in line with other things like X" usually means homogenization. It doesn't increase diversity, it actually lessens it. The more "similar" things are, the more clear it is which one is the "best" choice in a given circumstance, which is something they say they want to avoid.
|
11589 Posts
On June 05 2014 22:52 Prog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 22:33 yamato77 wrote:
Even pro scene changes are made not with the idea of ensuring that the better team wins, but with ensuring that people continue to watch the games. What should this even mean? "Better" is defined by winning, so by definition the better team always wins.
That's a semantics argument which I will forgive you for making since you are not from a native English-speaking country.
|
i don't really understand why having closer games is a bad thing?
|
11589 Posts
On June 05 2014 22:52 Ketara wrote:
A month ago TLGD criticized Riot for the ADC role being too weak and there not being enough champion diversity amongst ADCs.
Now Riot proposes changes intended to increase ADC item build diversity, increase the power level of ADCs and increase the number of viable ADCs.
And before they even post the numbers of the changes TLGD says they're bad changes.
I swear, reading this thread makes me dumber.
These changes won't increase build diversity. They are essentially just nerfing BT, which will make it bought less, and the ADs that buy it often now played less. The ADs that will see a "power level increase" will be the ones that like the AS changes, like 2-3DBlade -> IE, or were played less because of the prevalence of the champions that bought BT often (which are now nerfed and played less). The number of viable ADCs might go up, but there will be a few that clearly benefit the most from these changes and will be played the most.
The problem with ADCs that people have been saying isn't their relative power to each other necessarily, it is with their relative power to the other roles in the game, which this won't change in any appreciable way.
|
Well I do feel entitled to complain when Graves has been sitting in the dust ever since the meta moved away from "press R" midgame AoE burst comp, and Jinx's subsequent release made him obsolete in nearly every regard (but Smokescreen).
Plus nerfing early game dblade's sustain without compensation for dshield means hitting every offlane champion who's currently starting dblade only because they shat on dshield to the point where the offensive item is better to play defensively.
And yes, when Riot say "define real strength and weaknesses" about a champion they usually mean either "minor nerfs not pertaining to the issue" (for example reducing Rengar's E damage so he has "less poke" or something) or "look at a successful champion (in terms of balance) and emulate what they did on him for the current ones" eg. bringing them closer.
On June 05 2014 23:00 Frolossus wrote:
i don't really understand why having closer games is a bad thing?
You're being binary.
20 minutes stomps everytime is bad.
30 minutes games decided from minute 12 but taking time to close out in a grindfest is bad.
45 minutes slugfest with no team ever acquiring a deciding lead no matter what they try until lategame were one lost fight decides everything is bad.
Having closer games than exhibit n°2 is a good thing, of course. But Riot were way too heavy-handed with it, what with the increased exp for behind junglers, huge bonus exp from dragon, increasing the ability to turtle, and generally making the games "closer" by making plays harder to execute and the gains from a successful play less rewarding.
They made breaking into base way harder (and now people discover the cancer-Ziggs who was always there but more vulnerable in a meta that promoted aggression and dives), thus virtually prolonging games.
I'm 0K with making games closer by promoting plays and being pro-active (increasing dragon gold in the late game can help that, stealing a drake gives you 2k gold post-35 minutes), but Riot's way of making games closer is "you can turtle more easily now, if you turtle 10 minutes then that 5k gold lead weighs relatively less!" which basically pauses the game between 18 and 35 minutes.
It's not fun to watch. It's a grind to play. You feel like all the hard work that was done before that goes to the gutter because of how easy it is to nullify it now.
|
On June 05 2014 22:58 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 22:52 Prog wrote:On June 05 2014 22:33 yamato77 wrote:
Even pro scene changes are made not with the idea of ensuring that the better team wins, but with ensuring that people continue to watch the games. What should this even mean? "Better" is defined by winning, so by definition the better team always wins. That's a semantics argument which I will forgive you for making since you are not from a native English-speaking country.
A very noble move.
Nevertheless can you restate your argument in a way that is semantically clear for a non-native speaker? It just makes no sense to me, because the only criteria for being better is winning/losing or directly related to that. I think you want to say that you don't like the gameaspects that riot wants to lead to winning, but the way you say it is very confusing to me.
|
11589 Posts
On June 05 2014 23:00 Frolossus wrote:
i don't really understand why having closer games is a bad thing?
I didn't say it was, but there is a difference between a close game between two equal opponents and a game that appears close because the better team isn't able to build upon advantages they gain in the laning phase because there are so many "catch up" mechanics designed into the game.
|
On June 05 2014 23:04 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 22:52 Ketara wrote:
A month ago TLGD criticized Riot for the ADC role being too weak and there not being enough champion diversity amongst ADCs.
Now Riot proposes changes intended to increase ADC item build diversity, increase the power level of ADCs and increase the number of viable ADCs.
And before they even post the numbers of the changes TLGD says they're bad changes.
I swear, reading this thread makes me dumber. These changes won't increase build diversity. They are essentially just nerfing BT, which will make it bought less, and the ADs that buy it often now played less. The ADs that will see a "power level increase" will be the ones that like the AS changes, like 2-3DBlade -> IE, or were played less because of the prevalence of the champions that bought BT often (which are now nerfed and played less). The number of viable ADCs might go up, but there will be a few that clearly benefit the most from these changes and will be played the most. The problem with ADCs that people have been saying isn't their relative power to each other necessarily, it is with their relative power to the other roles in the game, which this won't change in any appreciable way.
Okay wait wait.
So right now every ADC builds BT first.
You agree that BT nerfs will make it so fewer ADs will build BT first, and more ADs will go 2-3Dblade -> IE.
But this is not increasing build diversity.
Okay.
|
If the game's more forgiving, it's harder to leverage your superiority (especially the early game: openings (level 1 strats), laning, ganking, invading, early objectives, etc.) because by not being able to punish your opponent's mistakes as hard you can't accrue that large of a lead.
On one hand this means less stomps. On the other hand unless you're superior to the other team on a very large scale, or specifically train closing out games from an early advantage, the waters will be muddied as it'll be harder for you to maintain or increase your lead than it'll be for the opposing team to slowly nullify it. For the spectators it'll mean more comebacks. For the players it'll mean having to crush even harder to win early/mid, or have your whole superiority in the early phases nullified, not necessarily because the other team is really good at stalling, but just because you're aren't vastly superior to them. It's tilted in favor of the late game teams and the turtling/stalling style, which is passive and doesn't reward proaction as much.
TL;DR: you have less levers to use your superiority because it's easier to wait if you're bad, than it is to push your advantage if you're good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
