|
11589 Posts
Zileas, as you add champions, you must have more bans, right?
We don't really agree with this -- we feel the minimum bans are related to the number of S tier champions, which can come from new releases, but honestly, is something we are getting better at managing with time. It's very conceivable we could have 50% more champions but have half the S tier champions.
ROFL.
|
I don't think it would reduce the champ pool, but it would certainly emphasize the importance of power picks like thresh/lucian/leesin that are good in any comp.
That said, if the other team picks like Nasus before the second banning phase (which has to happen to atleast one team) you could safely pick like a Kogmaw because you can ban out jungles that are good at diving knowing that their top Lanett already can't. You don't have to ban all the threats in that scenario, just the ones left up.
Ads more depth and viability to lots of champs.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 26 2014 03:13 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 01:41 zer0das wrote:
I guess it depends on what audience you're targeting. I think a lot of people here would gladly sacrifice 3-4 more minutes for having something more strategic. The League audience as a whole? Eh... probably less likely. I think people would probably get acclimated with it and enjoy it once they realized it allows for much more specialized picks and team comps, even if there was some initial resistance.
I doubt Riot would want to take the risk though, which is a shame. There isn't really much of a reason to believe that four or five bans would make the pick phase more strategic. At the very least interwoven bans make strategies which have interlocking components more difficult to pull off. This is because as soon as one piece of the component is shown all viable compliments can be banned out by the enemy team. Team compositions which survive will have to be "more generic" because more specific compositions can be removed in the middle of the pick phase. Only compositions which have many possible picks in each position would be reasonably viable. Edit: that is, an interwoven ban system is more likely to reduce the reasonable champion pool than increase it.
This is the same argument Zileas used, but it's not a convincing one because most fragile teamcomps tend to be so not because they require certain individual irreplaceable champions (this case is actually pretty rare where there are more than 2 champions that absolutely MUST be picked for a teamcomp to function), but because the picks they rely on themselves are not stable and can be counterpicked/disrupted by certain picks from the enemy team. As such the additional reactionary bans help these teamcomps more than hurt because the addition of protective mid-draft bans against counterpicks tends to help more than they hurt.
By and large niche comps don't function by having 3+ single irreplaceable champions that, if banned, totally fuck the teamcomp. It's generally more likely that there are only 1-2 lynchpin champs that can be picked together in a single pick phase anyway, and the 3 supporting picks are more flexible.
|
On June 26 2014 03:16 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 03:13 Goumindong wrote:On June 26 2014 01:41 zer0das wrote:
I guess it depends on what audience you're targeting. I think a lot of people here would gladly sacrifice 3-4 more minutes for having something more strategic. The League audience as a whole? Eh... probably less likely. I think people would probably get acclimated with it and enjoy it once they realized it allows for much more specialized picks and team comps, even if there was some initial resistance.
I doubt Riot would want to take the risk though, which is a shame. There isn't really much of a reason to believe that four or five bans would make the pick phase more strategic. At the very least interwoven bans make strategies which have interlocking components more difficult to pull off. This is because as soon as one piece of the component is shown all viable compliments can be banned out by the enemy team. Team compositions which survive will have to be "more generic" because more specific compositions can be removed in the middle of the pick phase. Only compositions which have many possible picks in each position would be reasonably viable. this hasn't been shown to be true in dota, why would it suddenly become fact in league.
How do you know it isn't true in DotA? Is there a before/after on interwoven bans in the competitive scene? Or are you just making some ridiculous claim that "DotA has more meta variation" or "DotA has more team compositions" which a) don't mean anything and b) are probably wrong anyway?
More seriously, DotA has significantly different mechanics and champion interactions. This should be enough to dissuade you from making foolish comparisons to how its ban phase plays out relative to League.
More importantly this is a necessary consequence of teams not being stupid. Imagine for a second you want to build a 5 man push comp (as has been seen before) but to do this you need Heimerdinger and a couple of other specific picks. Because you need them both, and because picking Heimerdinger will set the other off immediately that they need to grab AoE you have to pick Heimerdinger last. Because you have to pick Heimerdinger last you're giving the other team a large window to realize what is up, and ban Heimerdinger.
Similar things work for Orianna, who almost needs ball delivery systems. If you see a BDS picked you ban Orianna. If you see Orianna picked you ban the remaining BDS. Congratulations you've simply made it so that its much less likely to see Orianna picked. This doesn't expand the relevant champions and compositions but reduces it to compositions and champions whose interactions cannot be banned out in the middle of pick phase.
|
On June 26 2014 03:20 yamato77 wrote:Show nested quote +Zileas, as you add champions, you must have more bans, right?
We don't really agree with this -- we feel the minimum bans are related to the number of S tier champions, which can come from new releases, but honestly, is something we are getting better at managing with time. It's very conceivable we could have 50% more champions but have half the S tier champions. ROFL.
i think what zileas didnt 'expect' is that its not about 's tier champs' its about s tier synergy. it doesnt really matter how many 'op' champs there are, now that there are arguably 10+ both sides are going to get them, thats one conversation.
but now we have this situation where champs like malphite and nami who are arguably poor on their own can combo well with a champ like yasuo, and devistate easily.
so you have this situation where theres breakpoints, <6 top tier picks and you can just ban them all out. 6 - ~10 top tier champs and both sides just pick them up (like in the mundo/shyv/renek/ era of top) and everyone is bored but relatively happy. once you get 150 champs in the game, which tends to lead to 20,30 or even 40 strong picks it stops being about getting hold of strong champions, because thats no issue (as it seems to be now). but now that we have so many champs in the game you get much more situations where amazing champ synergy because unstoppable. if the other team picks a yasuo, suddenly you want to ban out 20 champs with long range knock ups.
so now it rolls back around to being "we need to stop them getting x AND y, instead of just x or y. and so it feels like you need more bans to deal with it. zileas might be right, that they are better at balancing the game now, but even if thats the case theres a whole new can of worms to deal with as more and more unique champs get released. in the end im not even sure if this means that we need more bans, or if zileas is even wrong in what he said. i just think its worth mentioning that the reasons people feel the need for more bans has actually changed in the 2 years since those comments were made.
|
On June 26 2014 03:25 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 03:13 Goumindong wrote:On June 26 2014 01:41 zer0das wrote:
I guess it depends on what audience you're targeting. I think a lot of people here would gladly sacrifice 3-4 more minutes for having something more strategic. The League audience as a whole? Eh... probably less likely. I think people would probably get acclimated with it and enjoy it once they realized it allows for much more specialized picks and team comps, even if there was some initial resistance.
I doubt Riot would want to take the risk though, which is a shame. There isn't really much of a reason to believe that four or five bans would make the pick phase more strategic. At the very least interwoven bans make strategies which have interlocking components more difficult to pull off. This is because as soon as one piece of the component is shown all viable compliments can be banned out by the enemy team. Team compositions which survive will have to be "more generic" because more specific compositions can be removed in the middle of the pick phase. Only compositions which have many possible picks in each position would be reasonably viable. Edit: that is, an interwoven ban system is more likely to reduce the reasonable champion pool than increase it. This is the same argument Zileas used, but it's not a convincing one because most fragile teamcomps tend to be so not because they require certain individual irreplaceable champions (this case is actually pretty rare where there are more than 2 champions that absolutely MUST be picked for a teamcomp to function), but because the picks they rely on themselves are not stable and can be counterpicked/disrupted by certain picks from the enemy team. As such the additional reactionary bans help these teamcomps more than hurt because the addition of protective mid-draft bans against counterpicks tends to help more than they hurt. By and large niche comps don't function by having 3+ single irreplaceable champions that, if banned, totally fuck the teamcomp. It's generally more likely that there are only 1-2 lynchpin champs that can be picked together in a single pick phase anyway, and the 3 supporting picks are more flexible.
Sure, but it cannot be said that interwoven bans go the other direction and open things up. The only reasonable way that interwoven bans can operate is to close off champions due to the potentiality of banning out their complements.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 26 2014 03:32 Goumindong wrote:
Sure, but it cannot be said that interwoven bans go the other direction and open things up. The only reasonable way that interwoven bans can operate is to close off champions due to the potentiality of banning out their complements.
No, it can, because there are a lot of champions that become unpickable implicitly due to the fact that they CAN be counterpicked.
Any such champion gains more ground with interwoven bans due to the ability to use 2nd pick->2 protective bans to reduce that pressure on such a champion.
|
On June 26 2014 03:29 Goumindong wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 03:16 PrinceXizor wrote:On June 26 2014 03:13 Goumindong wrote:On June 26 2014 01:41 zer0das wrote:
I guess it depends on what audience you're targeting. I think a lot of people here would gladly sacrifice 3-4 more minutes for having something more strategic. The League audience as a whole? Eh... probably less likely. I think people would probably get acclimated with it and enjoy it once they realized it allows for much more specialized picks and team comps, even if there was some initial resistance.
I doubt Riot would want to take the risk though, which is a shame. There isn't really much of a reason to believe that four or five bans would make the pick phase more strategic. At the very least interwoven bans make strategies which have interlocking components more difficult to pull off. This is because as soon as one piece of the component is shown all viable compliments can be banned out by the enemy team. Team compositions which survive will have to be "more generic" because more specific compositions can be removed in the middle of the pick phase. Only compositions which have many possible picks in each position would be reasonably viable. this hasn't been shown to be true in dota, why would it suddenly become fact in league. How do you know it isn't true in DotA? Is there a before/after on interwoven bans in the competitive scene? Or are you just making some ridiculous claim that "DotA has more meta variation" or "DotA has more team compositions" which a) don't mean anything and b) are probably wrong anyway? More seriously, DotA has significantly different mechanics and champion interactions. This should be enough to dissuade you from making foolish comparisons to how its ban phase plays out relative to League. More importantly this is a necessary consequence of teams not being stupid. Imagine for a second you want to build a 5 man push comp (as has been seen before) but to do this you need Heimerdinger and a couple of other specific picks. Because you need them both, and because picking Heimerdinger will set the other off immediately that they need to grab AoE you have to pick Heimerdinger last. Because you have to pick Heimerdinger last you're giving the other team a large window to realize what is up, and ban Heimerdinger. Similar things work for Orianna, who almost needs ball delivery systems. If you see a BDS picked you ban Orianna. If you see Orianna picked you ban the remaining BDS. Congratulations you've simply made it so that its much less likely to see Orianna picked. This doesn't expand the relevant champions and compositions but reduces it to compositions and champions whose interactions cannot be banned out in the middle of pick phase.
so... you ban just simply thresh alistar shen diana shaco rengar jarvan zac everytime you see orianna.
its a fact that diversity increased the last time dota changed ban pick order, and instead of you defending your position you just attack an established fact and prior evidence. you haven't proven anything, you just keep stating things without any backup. apart from incorrect examples.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 26 2014 03:29 Goumindong wrote:
Similar things work for Orianna, who almost needs ball delivery systems. If you see a BDS picked you ban Orianna. If you see Orianna picked you ban the remaining BDS. Congratulations you've simply made it so that its much less likely to see Orianna picked. This doesn't expand the relevant champions and compositions but reduces it to compositions and champions whose interactions cannot be banned out in the middle of pick phase.
Picking a dive-capable hero that can carry the ball doesn't instantly make Orianna a must-ban champion (there are a lot of cases where these champions are stable without Orianna and banning Orianna in these situations carries inherent risk if the enemy team didn't plan on using Orianna to begin with and you wasted a ban on something they didn't want).
As such you're going to get situations where sometimes Orianna will get banned when something like Shyvana is picked early, and sometimes she won't. When she isn't sometimes she'll get picked. The number of possible variations here increases because picking a dive-capable champion cannot possibly result in an Orianna ban 100% of the time (or even most of the time). If she was that strong, she would already be a must-pick champion to begin with--which would mean the second-phase ban wouldn't even come into play.
The only case where what you said can hold is if the interaction is so fragile that the components HAVE to be picked together because they are so bad individually that they cannot function without one another. Furthermore, that interaction has to involve 3+ champions because if it only requires 2, a 2-champ pick phase still allows the 2 fragile picks to be made together.
The case where 3+ champions together result in a relevantly powerful interaction but are poor enough individually that they have to be picked together AND this interaction already isn't too unstable to be unplayable in the current drafting format is exceedingly rare. Far more so than the number of picks that become enabled by the existence of protective bans against counterpicks.
|
|
|
Something clever about riot's buff timers implementation that I don't think has been mentioned here:
the problem with timers is not that it takes skill to add 7 to the clock, the skill resides in remembering to check the timer. Curse's timers, being always on screen, actively reminded people that a buff was coming up, reducing skill.
Riot's timers, being in the scoreboard, require a conscious decision on the part of the player to check for them. This conserves the skill while reducing the busy work. (maybe someone will argue that reducing typing removes mechanical skill lol)
The only flaw is that someone may be reminded of a buff timer incidentally when checking the scoreboard for another thing, which could be fixed by having the timers display on their own hotkey
|
On June 26 2014 03:41 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 03:29 Goumindong wrote:
Similar things work for Orianna, who almost needs ball delivery systems. If you see a BDS picked you ban Orianna. If you see Orianna picked you ban the remaining BDS. Congratulations you've simply made it so that its much less likely to see Orianna picked. This doesn't expand the relevant champions and compositions but reduces it to compositions and champions whose interactions cannot be banned out in the middle of pick phase. Picking a dive-capable hero that can carry the ball doesn't instantly make Orianna a must-ban champion (there are a lot of cases where these champions are stable without Orianna and banning Orianna in these situations carries inherent risk if the enemy team didn't plan on using Orianna to begin with and you wasted a ban on something they didn't want). As such you're going to get situations where sometimes Orianna will get banned when something like Shyvana is picked early, and sometimes she won't. When she isn't sometimes she'll get picked. The number of possible variations here increases because picking a dive-capable champion cannot possibly result in an Orianna ban 100% of the time (or even most of the time). If she was that strong, she would already be a must-pick champion to begin with--which would mean the second-phase ban wouldn't even come into play.
not even to mention just the sheer number of dive-capable champions that exist.
and if you try to ban out the other half of the equation: the AOE burst damage follow-up you have to ban MF and twitch at minimum, but that leaves varus for the CC combo, Yasuo and graves or wu kong for further damage. hell if you want to run double ap with it you open up vel koz or any aoe burst mage.
|
yea it's bad. only way its worth it is if you dont mind the free shitty housing that comes with it...but anyone with those qualifications is going to be some one older and won't want to do that. Job market is so bad though im sure some one will pick it up
|
Yes. That amount of compensation seems like death in California. It'd probably work better if they just hired summer interns or something to do the excel work for them.
|
It be worth it if: you had 2 years of internship in college and just graduated. and thats about it.
|
2 Years work experience and a Bachelors for 40-50k(lets be less than generous and suggest that the value of the rent is only 500 dollars/month)? Not too bad. Edit: I mean so long as you don't already have a job. Their qualification list isn't high though the responsiblities they're asking seem a bit high considering what they want the other two doing.
|
but you get to work with ESPORTS, the ultimate reward
|
United Kingdom50293 Posts
On June 26 2014 03:51 Nos- wrote:
but you get to work with ESPORTS, the ultimate reward
Banking on the ESPORTS PASSION is a questionable at best method of recruitment.
|
On June 26 2014 03:51 Goumindong wrote:2 Years work experience and a Bachelors for 40-50k(lets be less than generous and suggest that the value of the rent is only 500 dollars/month)? Not too bad.
40k annually for doing the entirety of CLGs actual functional backend. all of the finances all of communication with legal teams and store personel. and then being expected to help with promo stuff and managing the team in addition to that. is a lot of work. that's not much. people with that much responsibility are executives in other companies.
|
On June 26 2014 03:54 Fusilero wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2014 03:51 Nos- wrote:
but you get to work with ESPORTS, the ultimate reward Banking on the ESPORTS PASSION is a questionable at best method of recruitment.
I never said it was a good proposal
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
