|
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 23:14 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 23:04 yamato77 wrote: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.
Not to mention 3blade IE costs the same amount as 1blad BT/BotRK Zeal.
|
I think yamato means that Riot has implemented changes to the game that makes it harder to run away with advantages, so the games would be (perhaps artificially) closer. One example of this would be experience gain changes when you're behind, another would be the first blood gold reductions.
|
On June 05 2014 23:18 Alaric wrote:
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.
One also has to remember it's a lot easier to deal with a loss that was a stomp than losses that are all 45 minute slugfests that end in your teammates stupidity rather than anyone actually outplaying their opponents. Personally find this kind of game incredibly frustrating compared to one where I know I'm just being outplayed and stomped.
edit: Yango mentioned this but not sure if anyone has here. It's interesting that one of League's selling points was the fact that the average gametime was a lot shorter than Dota. While dota has actively shorten their gametime league as actively increased it. Doesn't really mean much but it is rather funny
|
11589 Posts
On June 05 2014 23:09 Prog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 22:58 yamato77 wrote: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.
The outcome of a game does, in theory, solely depend on the skill of the team. However, is this really the case when mechanics like the enemy jungler gaining more experience from farming when they are behind exist? Does this make sure the better player wins more often, or does it make sure that the player that is better after a certain point in the game wins more often?
By reducing snowball mechanics, Riot devalues things that happen in the early game as game-deciding events, which devalues skills that matter more in the early game like laning and adds more value to teamfighting skill and objective control, which is what they said they wanted anyway. But, in effect, this just further narrows the diversity of games because before, a team like S2 TSM could ride their laning strength to victory, while a team like S2 CLG.EU could offset their laning weakness with strong lategame teamfight and baron control. Now, a team like C9 focuses much of their strategy around controlling map objectives and sees more success than any other team. Obviously there is still some diversity, but it is less than it was before, at least in my opinion.
|
On the other hand: late game decisionmaking superiority becomes way easier to leverage into a win. The weighting of certain factors contributing to winning just change a bit. That does not imply at all that a worse team has more chances now, only that the factors constituting "better" or "worse" are slightly different with a bigger impact of late game play.
Edit: Does this make sure the better player wins more often, or does it make sure that the player that is better after a certain point in the game wins more often?
It's a question of weighting early game superiority versus lategame superiority. It is still not like the early game does not matter at all. Less snowballing and more catch-up mechanics just mean that the lategame is at least equally important. Of course it somewhat devalues the early game, but only because it was arguably too important before. Now you may think they devalue it too much, which is a fair point that I'm not sure about.
|
Retarded changes all over again :D Well I guess that's what makes LoL fun. They change everything every 2 months for no reason.
|
On June 05 2014 23:28 mr_tolkien wrote:
Retarded changes all over again :D Well I guess that's what makes LoL fun. They change everything every 2 months for no reason.
season 2 jungle anyone?
|
11589 Posts
On June 05 2014 23:14 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 23:04 yamato77 wrote: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.
This is a rather nitpicky reply to my argument, but also not what I said. Build diversity won't go up appreciably, the dominant build will change. Thus, champion diversity won't change, there will just be different dominating champions. This is because the idea of making items more similar to each other (which changes like all BT items becoming 80AD certainly do) doesn't provide players with more choices, it just makes the best choice that much more obvious.
|
By making the power level of items more similar to each other, you are by design reducing the number of cases where one item is the best choice, and increasing the number of cases where items have equivalent power levels and player choice becomes meaningful.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
As an example, I think most everybody agrees that there's more item diversity for APs than there are for ADs, and this is exactly how the AP items work.
|
11589 Posts
On June 05 2014 23:22 Prog wrote:On the other hand: late game decisionmaking superiority becomes way easier to leverage into a win. The weighting of certain factors contributing to winning just change a bit. That does not imply at all that a worse team has more chances now, only that the factors constituting "better" or "worse" are slightly different with a bigger impact of late game play. Edit: Show nested quote + Does this make sure the better player wins more often, or does it make sure that the player that is better after a certain point in the game wins more often? It's a question of weighting early game superiority versus lategame superiority. It is still not like the early game does not matter at all. Less snowballing and more catch-up mechanics just mean that the lategame is at least equally important.
I don't think the balance was ever that out of whack in the first place. I just think that teams were bad at playing safe against aggressive play and thus teams that were aggressive early won more often in landslides. CLG.EU was the safest team of their time and one of the most successful (2nd place at S2 worlds).
All they've done is make it less probable to win by beating your opponents in the early game with kill and farm leads than with objective leads, which makes the game less interesting from a strategical perspective.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 05 2014 23:31 Ketara wrote:
By making the power level of items more similar to each other, you are by design reducing the number of cases where one item is the best choice, and increasing the number of cases where items have equivalent power levels and player choice becomes meaningful.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
As an example, I think most everybody agrees that there's more item diversity for APs than there are for ADs, and this is exactly how the AP items work.
Ketara, your difference in opinion comes from your consistent optimism that Riot's design goals will match up with their implementation, contrasted with yamato's consistent pessimism that they'll fuck up the numbers on one or more of the items and create the imbalanced game he's talking about.
Conceptually, you're right, Riot's stated goals could lead to more diversity, it's just that their track record is not necessarily all that good on this point.
Though I agree with you that it's silly to try and assess this without numbers at this point.
|
I just wonder if it will really be good to not go BT. If I choose to go mercurial or something, what happens late game when I have to sell my dorans to make room for better items? Do we really expect ADCs to enter late game with only a few % lifesteal? I gess the idea is less about changing the BT/PD/IE/LW item build and more about mixing up the order you get them. I suppose it could be viable to go something like triple dorans>IE>PD>LW>BT or something. The Ryan Chois style era of ADC builds.
|
On June 05 2014 23:39 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 23:31 Ketara wrote:
By making the power level of items more similar to each other, you are by design reducing the number of cases where one item is the best choice, and increasing the number of cases where items have equivalent power levels and player choice becomes meaningful.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
As an example, I think most everybody agrees that there's more item diversity for APs than there are for ADs, and this is exactly how the AP items work. Ketara, your difference in opinion comes from your consistent optimism that Riot's design goals will match up with their implementation, contrasted with yamato's consistent pessimism that they'll fuck up the numbers on one or more of the items and create the imbalanced game he's talking about. Conceptually, you're right, Riot's stated goals could lead to more diversity, it's just that their track record is not necessarily all that good on this point. Though I agree with you that it's silly to try and assess this without numbers at this point.
If you want to say that the proposed changes won't have the intended result, wait for the numbers to come out before you do it.
Otherwise all you're doing is nonsensical balance whining, IMO.
|
11589 Posts
On June 05 2014 23:31 Ketara wrote:
By making the power level of items more similar to each other, you are by design reducing the number of cases where one item is the best choice, and increasing the number of cases where items have equivalent power levels and player choice becomes meaningful.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
As an example, I think most everybody agrees that there's more item diversity for APs than there are for ADs, and this is exactly how the AP items work.
AP items aren't really that much more diverse than AD items. Most Mana-reliant AP mids build Athene's -> DCap -> Void. Some used to go lichbane, but they nerfed that. Some used to go DFG, but they nerfed that. Some used to go AA, but they nerfed tear. Do you not understand how this happens?
They aren't making the power level of IE/BT the same, either. They are removing the need for ADs to go BT first by giving Doran's lifesteal back and nerfing BT AT THE SAME TIME. BT will be appreciably weaker and champions that did well going BT first and scaled off of raw AD (lucian, hello?) will be worse.
The original complaint (that you in turn complained about) wasn't even about BT vs IE anyway, it was about ADC vs every other role, which these changes don't affect whatsoever.
|
Czech Republic11293 Posts
On June 05 2014 23:43 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2014 23:39 TheYango wrote:On June 05 2014 23:31 Ketara wrote:
By making the power level of items more similar to each other, you are by design reducing the number of cases where one item is the best choice, and increasing the number of cases where items have equivalent power levels and player choice becomes meaningful.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
As an example, I think most everybody agrees that there's more item diversity for APs than there are for ADs, and this is exactly how the AP items work. Ketara, your difference in opinion comes from your consistent optimism that Riot's design goals will match up with their implementation, contrasted with yamato's consistent pessimism that they'll fuck up the numbers on one or more of the items and create the imbalanced game he's talking about. Conceptually, you're right, Riot's stated goals could lead to more diversity, it's just that their track record is not necessarily all that good on this point. Though I agree with you that it's silly to try and assess this without numbers at this point. If you want to say that the proposed changes won't have the intended result, wait for the numbers to come out before you do it. Otherwise all you're doing is nonsensical balance whining, IMO.
Dayum Ketara laying down the law
couldn't agree more
|
United States15536 Posts
Frankly, we should probably change the name of the thread to Nonsensical Balance Whining.
|
On June 05 2014 15:19 VayneAuthority wrote:
its still a really strong lane until you get ganked lol
did the meta at that time happen to be non-mobile junglers or something? because you literally cant win 2v2 vs them. you just get kited to hell and 6 is stun lock death
ashe zyra was the czech metagame for their bot lane players
so i guess your post is confirmed on several czech streams
|
United States47024 Posts
Go figure, when you move off-topic to it's own thread, balance whining is all that's left.
|
everyone should just shut the fuck up and listen to prog he actually seems to know what he's talking about
like making logical sense instead of like HURR RITO SAID THEY MAKE GOOD BUT THAT MAKE BAD THEREFORE NEXT TIME RIOT SAY THEY MAKE GOOD MAYBE THEY MAKE BAD AGAIN
speculation like this is pointless unless you can pinpoint the factors that they didnt see before the changes go through and not after, otherwise you'd just argue to never change anything because its hard to calculate all the factors
|
I wonder how the changes will possibly affect other lanes
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
