Originally Posted by Arruke

Back up real fast, I made a post earlier addressing the fact that people don't really care what the champions look like and how they can relate to them, I suggested the reason why they don't play champions is because they aren't fun to use. Let's take a look at Trundle for example, you can argue that he looks horrid, but is that the reason why people don't play him? No, the reason why they don't play him is because he is NOT fun to use, his kit is boring. He doesn't have any rewarding feeling when using him. Now, look at urgot. He is played SO MUCH, banned and picked all the time, is it because of his appearance? Well, thinking your way, he wouldn't be played at all because he looks "terrible". The reality is, he is fun to play, and is really strong. Everything about him feels like you are doing something, from csing to positioning. Look at Kog maw as well, he's played a ton too because of his versatility and power. He can be AP (you guys should also look into balancing this >.>) and AD, appealing to multiple people's playstyles. He isn't picked because of how he looks, although in some cases, that may be the case (you can't rule out the idea that people pick champions based on looks, but those are newer players AND are not the majority).

If your statement that players choose to play characters they can relate to and are appealing to over "monsters" or "grotesque"/"horrific" champions, then explain to me why my friend mains Volibear, yet hate how he looks? He reminds me all the time that he hates every skin he has, but he's so awesome to play.

Why don't people play skarner? Is it because they can't relate to a giant crystal scorpion, or is it because they do not find his gameplay style appealing? That's something to think about, more so than ascetics.

Originally Posted by RapZero

You contradicted yourself so many times it's not even funny.

Originally Posted by Morello

I think these are force-multipliers on each other, we've done a lot of research on this front (and a lot is an understatement!) that helps us understand this better. Corki is a good example of why a "derpy" character concept doesn't work - his kit is good and he was the most OP carry consistently until Vayne was released, but nobody played him (was the least played champion and the most overpowered for about a year).

Mundo, on the other hand, is a joke that makes much more sense and feels clever/funny.

As for the Ezreal question, it's polarizing because people either LOVE or HATE anime-style guys. As you can probably imagine, he does much better in Asia where that's a core reference I think my concern with it is that it's a little out-of-place in our IP, but if we do in once in a great while it can be OK

Originally Posted by Morello

One of the challenges as a professional is to stay objective, and my absolute love affair with the Warhammer IP is something I have to watch not to inject subjectivity with. I can't just make what I think is cool, I have to make something that makes sense that you guys think is cool This is also why team-based structures work, because none of us are railroading the discussion with our own wants.

Originally Posted by Mogey Bear

Morello? Are you an ENTP? You sound like one.

Originally Posted by Redelva

You just compared Corki to Vayne. Two completely different skill caps. Corki not being played had nothing to do with his 'derpy' attitude as you put it. But the fact that so many people are terrible with him.

Do you honestly think that if you changed his art to something more appealing he would get more play time?

If you changed Trundle and Lee Sin skin for skin, do you think Lee Sins play time would go down and Trundles up?

Originally Posted by AFOM

I want to thank Morello for the free design lessons he regularly provides on this forum. It's very valuable insight, and as a hobbyist designer myself, I read your every post with great interest.

I think something forum goers need to understand is that the creative process can never be a democracy. If you want a cohesive, immersive, sensible universe, the plan for that universe has to have one absolute will in charge of the vision.

So many of the requests (and out-right demands) I see on this forum are so very specific and narrow in concept that they leave no room for interesting design. They're so tied up with a niche interest or a popular idea that they have an almost mandatory sort of "implied" content--it has to have this element, or it just isn't what you want. The spider queen is an example of that: you want a web, you want poison, and probably spiderlings. When Riot tried to make it more interesting, they had to do something silly with the design, and it showed--but how do you make something as specific as a spider queen more personalized and interesting? People even post pictures from other games of what they want when voicing their demands.

Morello and Riot have the ability as designers to do what all great creative teams do: ignore the surface desires, and give you what you would want if you knew it existed (in the AI / transhumanist circle, this is known as extrapolated volition). Did I know I wanted a giant undead diver with an anchor for a weapon who swims through the air for his taunt? No, but I love Nautilus now, much more than I would love a spider queen or a Beholder. Those concepts could be made fun to play, but why bother, when you could make a champ who is both fun to play AND interesting in concept?

I think requests like spider queens and Beholders are much less interesting than requests for things like "a champion who uses a whip" or "a boxer." These have far less of that implied content I mentioned before. They could be nearly anything in form, and it could be made to make sense.

Originally Posted by Morello

Actually, very much so Good eye

Originally Posted by BuzzJack

You know Cho'gath and Kog'maw actually have quite a few skins. In fact they both have a legendary skin.