North America - English
Support

League of Legends Community

League of Legends Community > League of Legends > General Discussion
#1 Vlad Counter: Common Sense

First Riot Post
 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
deathcoilfeardot ?? Senior Member
This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
06-16-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morello View Post
But it is indicative at how the game is played if you play well. Most things in normal play can be fixed by "make less mistakes." The most effective actions in the game are the ones we encourage, whether intentionally or not, and right now it's not bad that the actions have effect, it's the type of game that results in it.

All the passivity changes I spoke of are precisely that - actions that result in a more likely chance to win, but remove a lot of interaction points people in most elo ranges feel. In 1300-1500, games being 25-25 at the end isn't uncommon, so the game doesn't feel passive. But 30 of those deaths are from avoidable mistakes that top level players just don't make, which slows the game to a crawl. Shouldn't the most fun actions intuitively feed into the most effective?

Think about how you can tell the difference between a massive novice and an experienced player; new players auto-attack and push their lanes. They do this because intuitively, in a team game, it makes sense to assault the enemy and their objective! You want to get to that tower and attack it!

In more experienced games though, players last hit carefully and never push their lane due to now reward for doing so (farming at your tower is easy) and the risk of getting eaten by the constantly MIA jungler. This creates gameplay where attacking is disincentivized in general, and laning doesn't become a good battle of lane control, harassing, and clutch moves, but instead becomes a 15-minute farm fest of last-hitting NPCs. I think players should be naturally encouraged to interact more in this portion of the game - lane control should matter.
This is probably a topic for a separate thread, but do you think earning gold from last-hitting creeps may be part of the problem? I realize it's a gameplay artifact carried over from WC3, where all creep kills were hardcoded to yield gold.

+4
 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
SVX348 ?? Member
This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
06-16-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morello View Post
Not necessarily - because you become worth more gold as well. This means the risk/reward ratio isn't adjusted, just how much each action is worth. The best way to fix this is to add lane control mechanics (and reward being more aggressive in lane) and adjust jungling. Other changes will be built around supporting this.
and by adjusting jungling you mean nerf it untill it isn't viable? I don't see the point in this, cause this changes will remove strategical depth from the game. Of course it's not very intertaining to watch 15 mins farm but it's an basic aspect of MOBA games.

-1
 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
TwinkieM ?? Member
This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
06-16-2011

btw morello i appreciate your feedback and answering

+4
 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
Darmikau ?? Senior Member
This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
06-16-2011

Sorry, I probably should have dropped this in this thread, since this is where it was mentioned.

http://www.leagueoflegends.com/board...d.php?t=846125

"I gave a quick thought to what you said about lane passivity and assaulting enemy objectives, and then extrapolated it a bit - If passivity no longer becomes a problem, the game will shift to more aggressive play (duh). In what bizzaro world is aggressive play bad? Well, pushing can get kinda icky when it's out of line. While I think there are certain limits on being too aggressive (mana constraints for example) that don't exist while playing passive, there is always a ying to the yang. Obviously the primary objective is to shoot for balanced, less passive play, but I'd like to hear your take on the idea that if the reasons for passive play are removed, then it is thus rewarding to play aggressive in ways that are cheesy rather than healthy. I mean, it makes sense that if there's no reason to play passive, then there's no reason not to be as aggressive as possible, and while the design team is obviously not going to let the pendulum swing to the other side, I'd still like to hear what you have to say from a hypothetical point of view.

Other examples of "Cheesy" aggressive play besides push comping would be hyper-aggressive laning, like Blitzcrank + Alistar. They likely wouldn't kill anybody, but their level 2 CC would definitely give them enough lane control to, upon grab, likely send somebody running back to base, or at least into denial mode. I don't know how many cheesy lane combinations you could come up with - but I'm assuming there's a lot of undiscovered potential in that field (why would higher levels of play, where strategies are popularized, try and make hyper-aggressive lanes in when passivity is so much easier? Thus those kinds of combinations haven't been dug up)."

+0
 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
Asko ?? Senior Member
This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
06-16-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morello View Post
Exactly - now you're getting into exactly the types of things that bother me and I want to fix.

I think it's bad that our game encourages people to play this way. As the game matures, this becomes more common knowledge and the game will get stale. This is why this is a very big deal to fix, even though it will likely be pretty disruptive.
What about lowering the creep gold?

+0
 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
Mayobe ?? Senior Member
This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
06-16-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morello View Post
Ashe is just about the right level, maybe a dash too strong - this is mostly due to her toolset and a ranged initiation always being good. Her signature ability affords her a role on a team, especially where starting teamfights and securing kills is more rare.

Nunu is too strong because of a 40% spammable slow on a jungler with a speed buff and a great jungle speed. If jungle Nunu's Icebolt just did 1000 true damage, it would lead to the same results in 90% of laning gank cases
AGREED. Although I wouldn't necessarily call Ashe too strong. She's strong alright, but she's weak in early laning compared to Cait or Trist or sometimes to artillery champs like Kog and Karthus. But once you leave the laning phase she picks up quite a bit and I think that really makes up for it. I think Ashe is really in the right place. She has champs that she's good against and champs that eat her alive. She has situations where she's strong and situations where she's weak. Easy to learn, hard to (truly) master, etc, etc, etc.

+2
 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
Sindae ?? Senior Member
This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
06-16-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morello View Post
I'd challenge that with this; what was the goal of each team in the qualifiers?
To not lose. Which is different from trying to win.

-10
 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
SVX348 ?? Member
This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
06-16-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asko View Post
What about lowering the creep gold?
longer line phase. and more gold5/10 items.

+0
 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
Venguy ?? Senior Member
This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
06-16-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morello View Post
But it is indicative at how the game is played if you play well. Most things in normal play can be fixed by "make less mistakes." The most effective actions in the game are the ones we encourage, whether intentionally or not, and right now it's not bad that the actions have effect, it's the type of game that results in it.

All the passivity changes I spoke of are precisely that - actions that result in a more likely chance to win, but remove a lot of interaction points people in most elo ranges feel. In 1300-1500, games being 25-25 at the end isn't uncommon, so the game doesn't feel passive. But 30 of those deaths are from avoidable mistakes that top level players just don't make, which slows the game to a crawl. Shouldn't the most fun actions intuitively feed into the most effective?

Think about how you can tell the difference between a massive novice and an experienced player; new players auto-attack and push their lanes. They do this because intuitively, in a team game, it makes sense to assault the enemy and their objective! You want to get to that tower and attack it!

In more experienced games though, players last hit carefully and never push their lane due to now reward for doing so (farming at your tower is easy) and the risk of getting eaten by the constantly MIA jungler. This creates gameplay where attacking is disincentivized in general, and laning doesn't become a good battle of lane control, harassing, and clutch moves, but instead becomes a 15-minute farm fest of last-hitting NPCs. I think players should be naturally encouraged to interact more in this portion of the game - lane control should matter.
i know it's not so simple, but it seems to me if you want a more active laning experience, then you're still going to run into problems, only they will be balance-related. without the always MIA ganker, how many lanes would easily be lost to superior laning duos and solos? do you really think you can fix every champ, because, imo, even slight imbalances can result in a won lane.

+0
 
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.
Morello Morello's Avatar ?? Lead Content Designer
This user has accepted the summoners code, click for more information
18 of 21 Riot Posts
06-16-2011

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darmikau View Post
Sorry, I probably should have dropped this in this thread, since this is where it was mentioned.

http://www.leagueoflegends.com/board...d.php?t=846125

"I gave a quick thought to what you said about lane passivity and assaulting enemy objectives, and then extrapolated it a bit - If passivity no longer becomes a problem, the game will shift to more aggressive play (duh). In what bizzaro world is aggressive play bad? Well, pushing can get kinda icky when it's out of line. While I think there are certain limits on being too aggressive (mana constraints for example) that don't exist while playing passive, there is always a ying to the yang. Obviously the primary objective is to shoot for balanced, less passive play, but I'd like to hear your take on the idea that if the reasons for passive play are removed, then it is thus rewarding to play aggressive in ways that are cheesy rather than healthy. I mean, it makes sense that if there's no reason to play passive, then there's no reason not to be as aggressive as possible, and while the design team is obviously not going to let the pendulum swing to the other side, I'd still like to hear what you have to say from a hypothetical point of view.

Other examples of "Cheesy" aggressive play besides push comping would be hyper-aggressive laning, like Blitzcrank + Alistar. They likely wouldn't kill anybody, but their level 2 CC would definitely give them enough lane control to, upon grab, likely send somebody running back to base, or at least into denial mode. I don't know how many cheesy lane combinations you could come up with - but I'm assuming there's a lot of undiscovered potential in that field (why would higher levels of play, where strategies are popularized, try and make hyper-aggressive lanes in when passivity is so much easier? Thus those kinds of combinations haven't been dug up)."
Generally, being aggressive is risky natively, so you have to encourage it. If you perfectly balance passive/aggressive, the effort and opportunity cost makes defense and passive play better.

I think a lot of people think that means things like "everyone dies in one hit" or "just attack all the time" and other such silliness. We just want to give you reasons to be aggressive, so that you can capitalize on that and feel good for risks and clutch moves. If you're ahead, you should be being more aggressive, where I think people who are behind should be looking for avenues to turn the tables (with other lane ganks or their own clutch plays).

+6

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »