|
On April 30 2015 12:05 Ketara wrote:
Okay.
And they're also giving it a lower cooldown, longer range, and more arrows for less mana.
It's a buff.
rank 1, cooldown -25% base damage -50%
rank 5, cooldown unchanged, base damage -25%
50 mana at all ranks as opposed to 60, at low levels where mana matters the most I'd say the trade is pretty even, at high ranks where the mana shouldn't matter as much it is a net nerf, albeit not a crazy one.
|
I suppose my point is though that they are not fundamentally changing the way the ability works.
Her W, E and R are all staying basically the same.
Her old passive is removed, which is fine because it was one of the stupidest and most terribly designed passives in the entire game.
Her gold generation mechanic is removed, which is fine because it wasn't exciting in any way, especially after they changed it to not scale with levels.
Her old Q becomes her new passive, and is basically not changed at all other than being straight buffed by not costing mana. This is also great because Frost Shot was a boring ability and makes much more sense as a passive than a toggle, IMO.
And then she gets a new Q, which is I agree a little complicated numbers wise, but no more complicated than other complicated things, and critically it's not complicated gameplay wise. When she activates it she does bonus damage for a few seconds. That's not complicated.
So her stupid mechanics get removed, her old Q becomes her new passive, she gets a new Q, and her skills all get buffed.
Where's the problem?
On April 30 2015 12:13 Slusher wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 12:05 Ketara wrote:
Okay.
And they're also giving it a lower cooldown, longer range, and more arrows for less mana.
It's a buff. rank 1, cooldown -25% base damage -50% rank 5, cooldown unchanged, base damage -25% 50 mana at all ranks as opposed to 60, at low levels where mana matters the most I'd say the trade is pretty even, at high ranks where the mana shouldn't matter as much it is a net nerf, albeit not a crazy one.
I'm not seeing the damage changed at all in the PBE numbers.
|
On April 30 2015 12:13 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 12:11 Sufficiency wrote:On April 30 2015 11:12 wei2coolman wrote:On April 30 2015 11:05 Ketara wrote:On April 30 2015 09:01 OhTwoMise wrote:On April 29 2015 11:21 sob3k wrote:On April 29 2015 09:58 OhTwoMise wrote:
These Ashe changes make me very sad. I've always felt she was one of the better champions in the game in terms of design. She's got a ton of legacy design features that are slowly being phased out of the game, so I supposed I shouldn't be too optimistic, particularly given Tristana just followed a pretty similar trajectory and wound up in a much less interesting place if not an outright worse one.
What's even more baffling to me is that she seems to be doing very well in terms of pick- and winrate at all levels below pro. And I can't imagine this update solves any of her problems on the pro scene, which as far as I can tell are primarily related to Crucible. But what aspects of her kit actually got removed? Her old passive which was completely nonexistant past lvl 1 brush cheese. She now has the slow permanently. Volley is a bit different but has basically the same functionality. E vision is still there. R is identical. So the only "legacy feature" that she lost was the gold generation....which was 600 gold at 200cs...basically a completely worthless noob trap. You're conflating power level and good design. They aren't necessarily related. I think the changes are probably going to wind up being a net gain or neutral for most Ashe players, the exception being those that are heavily volley-centric (which I am). But that's not what my complaint is about. They're systematically designing balance tools out of their game. The easiest and most-often talked about example is mana costs, which this re-work has in spades. They're also making Hawkshot a true one-point-wonder, which it wasn't before. This is a kind of small change since it was so close, but I'd still call it bad design. The crit mechanic is unnecessarily complicated. I don't have a problem with complexity in general, but only if it has meaning. There are a lot of places where added complexity opens up new design space or changes balance. But it's just obfuscation here. The only reason I can see for a change like this is to reduce the variance of crit, except Riot's already stated that they're okay with that variance because players find the big numbers viscerally satisfying. So again, I'd call this bad design, although I don't think it's as bad as the mana or Volley changes because it doesn't really have an impact on the game. It's just needless and silly. Volley is the big one, though. First, I think you're underselling the Volley nerf by a LOT. Volley is everything to Ashe. Waveclear, poke, DPS, disengage, teamfight control. And it's getting substantially worse at all of those things. The ideal scenario is the same. The problem is that the strength of Volley is the combination of its versatility and its reliability. Ideal case Volleys will be unchanged, but that's not why Volley was strong. Ideal case Volley actually looks pretty crappy compared to the ideal case for almost any other nuke. What makes Volley so strong is that you can reliably get very good value out of it. Volley exists in basically unique design space right now. I can't think of any other long-range, reliable, low cooldown AoE damage in League. Which is probably why they're nerfing it. But Volley is pretty much the dream on a design level right now. It manages to occupy a powerful and unique niche without being overpowered. Without even being oppressive in the majority of cases. And they're looking not just to change the way Ashe functions with this change, but to remove that niche from the game entirely. And in a game like League with as many interactions as it has, removing any niche from the game entirely is removing a future balance tool. So my grievance here isn't that I think the new Ashe will necessarily be less powerful. It's that I think they're both taking good design and making it worse and reducing the number of options and playstyles in the game in general. This isn't unique to the Ashe rework specifically, but I think it's by far the least justifiable instance. Regardless of my feelings on, say, Nidalee or Karma, I can see why Riot would feel that change was necessary, but by pretty much any meaningful metric, Ashe is in a good place right now. I don't think I agree with a single thing in this post. There's a lot to talk about, and I don't want to talk about it, but I would like to question why you think that Ashe's old passive was good design, and why the new passive is worse. The new passive is sort of convoluted. I mean at the lower levels it essentially reads "ashe slows people, and does bonus damage to slowed folks". but the calculations to determine bonus damage is hard to calculate, for example doing the math to see at what AD and what crit strike does this passive pass the DPS level vs traditional crit damage calculation is pretty convoluted. meanwhile having a stacking passive for crit is easier to understand at a very fundamental level based on what player is already used to (200% AD if crits, 250% ad if you have ie). that being said, I don't actually hold these views in regards to the Ashe passive being redone, but I could see why ohtwomise would think so. edit: while i don't think it changes her playstyle, you'll still be looking to initiate with ulti, while kiting back with volley and auto attacks. It does change how backloaded her damage is compared to her old kit. It's not. If the target is slowed, Ashe does an extra 0.1 AD damage per autoattack vs a traditional ADC on average. not if crit is involved.
If the target is slowed, Ashe does an extra 0.1 AD damage per autoattack vs a traditional ADC on average.
|
On April 30 2015 12:14 Ketara wrote:I suppose my point is though that they are not fundamentally changing the way the ability works. Her W, E and R are all staying basically the same. Her old passive is removed, which is fine because it was one of the stupidest and most terribly designed passives in the entire game. Her gold generation mechanic is removed, which is fine because it wasn't exciting in any way, especially after they changed it to not scale with levels. Her old Q becomes her new passive, and is basically not changed at all other than being straight buffed by not costing mana. This is also great because Frost Shot was a boring ability and makes much more sense as a passive than a toggle, IMO. And then she gets a new Q, which is I agree a little complicated numbers wise, but no more complicated than other complicated things, and critically it's not complicated gameplay wise. When she activates it she does bonus damage for a few seconds. That's not complicated. So her stupid mechanics get removed, her old Q becomes her new passive, she gets a new Q, and her skills all get buffed. Where's the problem? Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 12:13 Slusher wrote:On April 30 2015 12:05 Ketara wrote:
Okay.
And they're also giving it a lower cooldown, longer range, and more arrows for less mana.
It's a buff. rank 1, cooldown -25% base damage -50% rank 5, cooldown unchanged, base damage -25% 50 mana at all ranks as opposed to 60, at low levels where mana matters the most I'd say the trade is pretty even, at high ranks where the mana shouldn't matter as much it is a net nerf, albeit not a crazy one. I'm not seeing the damage changed at all in the PBE numbers.
well the original point you were responding to was an argument that there is a design paradigm issue, and not a buff/nerf issue.
|
|
|
Cool.
That was changed today though, it's back to 40/50/60/70/80 now.
Gotta keep up.
@wei:
That's just it. How can it be a design paradigm issue if, of her 5 abilities, 4 of them are staying the same?
In terms of design what's changing is the old passive for the new Q.
The old passive was TERRIBLE.
The new Q is probably less than terrible.
Every other change is just numbers tweaks.
|
You could make the argument that her new Q is kinda lame because it's another boring ADC autoattack steroid and why does every ADC have to have a boring autoattack steroid (Kogmaw Vayne Varus Tristana Sivir Jinx I'm sure I'm forgetting somebody)
But I suppose I look at it this way. Just about anything would be better than that dumb passive.
|
On April 30 2015 12:17 Ketara wrote:
Cool.
That was changed today though, it's back to 40/50/60/70/80 now.
Gotta keep up.
@wei:
That's just it. How can it be a design paradigm issue if, of her 5 abilities, 4 of them are staying the same?
In terms of design what's changing is the old passive for the new Q.
The old passive was TERRIBLE.
The new Q is probably less than terrible.
Every other change is just numbers tweaks.
The old passive was easier to understand.
|
The volley change is pretty big, and indicative of Riot's vision. The skill is going from almost guaranteed damage every CD to everything within range (srsly, they go through everything), to a cone skillshot with counterplay.
Its basically the same as why they change point and clicks to skillshots. There is something to be said for keeping some point and clicks and really easy to hit skills in the game, but generally I agree that its boring and doesn't leave much room for skill.
|
to be honest I probably wouldn't be so hype for point and click if LB with an athenes didn't have 4 sec distortion late game
|
on Miss Fortune an Essence Reaver + Black Cleaver cheap two item timing for grouping with your team once you have your level 11 ult seems decent.
she's obviously great at applying BC stacks while an early ~40% cdr puts a maxed Q at like a 2s cooldown and your ult is up for every teamfight. having only 3s of downtime in between E slows is also helpful since it's basically the only kiting tool you have.
the only other ADC i can see it not sucking on is Lucian because of how much he benefits from the CDR and his double-tap passive and the Culling probably do a good job of applying stacks.
|
On April 30 2015 12:25 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 12:17 Ketara wrote:
Cool.
That was changed today though, it's back to 40/50/60/70/80 now.
Gotta keep up.
@wei:
That's just it. How can it be a design paradigm issue if, of her 5 abilities, 4 of them are staying the same?
In terms of design what's changing is the old passive for the new Q.
The old passive was TERRIBLE.
The new Q is probably less than terrible.
Every other change is just numbers tweaks. The old passive was easier to understand.
I could make a long argument about how her old passive is easier to understand on paper and harder to understand inside of a real game, and the new Q is the opposite of that, but I don't want to.
Lets say I did.
|
On April 30 2015 12:38 Ketara wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 12:25 wei2coolman wrote:On April 30 2015 12:17 Ketara wrote:
Cool.
That was changed today though, it's back to 40/50/60/70/80 now.
Gotta keep up.
@wei:
That's just it. How can it be a design paradigm issue if, of her 5 abilities, 4 of them are staying the same?
In terms of design what's changing is the old passive for the new Q.
The old passive was TERRIBLE.
The new Q is probably less than terrible.
Every other change is just numbers tweaks. The old passive was easier to understand. I could make a long argument about how her old passive is easier to understand on paper and harder to understand inside of a real game, and the new Q is the opposite of that, but I don't want to. Lets say I did.
I got you dawg,
if you treat the new passive as only that her auto attacks slow, it's still a buff (outside of level 1, which this theoretical moron who can't understand a tooltip wouldn't know how to take advantage of anyway) and thats really easy to understand.
|
On April 30 2015 12:40 Slusher wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2015 12:38 Ketara wrote:On April 30 2015 12:25 wei2coolman wrote:On April 30 2015 12:17 Ketara wrote:
Cool.
That was changed today though, it's back to 40/50/60/70/80 now.
Gotta keep up.
@wei:
That's just it. How can it be a design paradigm issue if, of her 5 abilities, 4 of them are staying the same?
In terms of design what's changing is the old passive for the new Q.
The old passive was TERRIBLE.
The new Q is probably less than terrible.
Every other change is just numbers tweaks. The old passive was easier to understand. I could make a long argument about how her old passive is easier to understand on paper and harder to understand inside of a real game, and the new Q is the opposite of that, but I don't want to. Lets say I did. I got you dawg, if you treat the new passive as only that her auto attacks slow, it's still a buff (outside of level 1, which this theoretical moron who can't understand a tooltip wouldn't know how to take advantage of anyway) and thats really easy to understand.
the problem isn't buff or nerf >.>
how hard is that to understand? the problem people seem to have with it is similar to the problem people have with yasuo passive, it's too much shit tacked on to an ability, and therefore not intuitive.
|
Bearded Elder29903 Posts
|
How is it not intuitive?
1 - Her attacks apply a debuff that slows
2 - She can't crit
3 - Her attacks do bonus damage to debuffed targets
That's pretty easy to understand.
In fact, it's basically Gangplanks passive + can't crit.
|
The new Ashe is fine. Old Ashe was also fine. Yasuo will never be fine. Don't compare them.
|
On April 30 2015 12:44 Ketara wrote:
How is it not intuitive?
1 - Her attacks apply a debuff that slows
2 - She can't crit
3 - Her attacks do bonus damage to debuffed targets
That's pretty easy to understand.
In fact, it's basically Gangplanks passive + can't crit.
it's not as simple as "does not crit", it removes a key component in what all champions do based on their auto, and is replaced by another crit scaling mechanism.
|
I don't understand how someone who can't be bothered to read Ashe's new passive tooltip and/or is too stupid to understand it was supposedly exploiting her old passive.
|
On April 30 2015 12:47 Slusher wrote:
I don't understand how someone who can't be bothered to read Ashe's new passive tooltip and/or is too stupid to understand it was supposedly exploiting her old passive.
Working with an an established mechanism of damage that's been in the game since the beginning, is pretty different than removing it, and replacing it with something else for a singular champion.
But, like I said earlier, I personally don't have an issue with it, but I could see why people would argue the design paradigm issue here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
