Originally Posted by YamiBelgarath

Well, I think theoretically that a better designed game is defined by a game that more people enjoy playing (or, if the design is being upgraded, perhaps the game that people now enjoy playing more), since the point of a game is to be enjoyed. So the question would be: would people like these changes?

I think that divides into multiple parts: the first question is, mechanically are these characters at least as good as the characters they are updating from. And the answer to that is: you are trying to compare apples and oranges. It says very specifically on his (or her) blog that:

"None of the changes in these (theoretical) redesigns are intended for LoL as it currently stands, and are purely examples of what champions could've been if their kits had stayed true to their theming 100%, creating playstyles that better reflect the nature of the champions they belong to. If anything, they would be more fit for a sequel game--a LoL 2 of sorts--allowing fans of the old champions to stick with kits they're familiar with, while giving Riot the opportunity to start anew and create stronger designs with the experience they've accumulated over the years."

As such I derive the idea that these changes aren't actually intended to be balanced with the current system, which is the system we are all accustomed to. Players who've been playing these champions, some for several years, would have to get used to these changes- and many probably wouldn't feel comfortable with that change. Therefore, I'm not sure the champions are entirely comparable. I think a better question is: are the themes well represented, and if a system consisting of these modified champions were to be created, would that system then be reasonably balanced. Given that I had never seen these champions before today, and don't have much experience analyzing balance, I am certainly not in a position to make a decision on that front. I would trust Morello or IronStylus, though.

A second part would be: are these actually fun? Disregarding the changes, and looking solely at these champions, would people enjoy playing them? I would guess the answer to that question is yes, looking over them. Generally speaking, being able to execute epic combos and get those crazy kills that require an epic combination of skill and luck, that is considered fun. And I think these kits promote that, because they are designed to work well together. That's arguably the biggest beauty of a thematic kit- your skills work well in tandem. See his Yorick ability kit for a pretty fantastic example of skills working together to create awesomeness. So at least for the player, I am thinking yes these would be fun. Are all of them going to be amazingly fun? Probably not. But in real LoL, that is the case too. With 100+ champions (or in this case, ~75), the odds are that at least one or two champions aren't quite thoroughly thought through (that was really fun to type). Maybe he was tired, maybe he just doesn't play the champ often enough to have a good sense for their feel...but that is definitely a minority of the ones I have seen. Additionally, without the numbers for the abilities, it is impossible to have an accurate prediction.

My last indicator of "fun" is whether or not you are fun to fight against. I have personal opinions about this, since I don't like certain LoL mechanics. But ignoring that- I don't really see any enormous problems and I haven't seen any brought to the table so far.

Overall, I just don't see the evidence that the dress will be uncomfortable or in any way worse for the wear, and no reason why the wearer wouldn't want to wear it. As someone mentioned before, people don't like change in general, and change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good thing. But I don't see this as change for the sake of change- I think it makes the champions better fit the roles they are supposed to play, which is good. And most importantly, it addresses the enormous, crisis-level problem Riot has where you can divide over 100 champions into maybe 5-6 categories and every.single.champion fits comfortably- and given that means there are 10+ champions in each of those categories, inevitably some of them become copy cats or better replacements which is not really a good thing. Thematic mechanics go a long way towards repairing that problem.

Originally Posted by IronStylus

Glad this thread got some traction =D

And look! A sticky!

Originally Posted by SuperJavelin

@ItemsGuy

I read through a lot of your champ remakes. Not all, but enough to where I've found several that I like, some that I don't really care either way, and some I disagree with.

I feel that your Sion remake is just spot on. If anyone should have Anivia's passive, it's Sion. If I had to use one word to sum up what I think Sion needs to be all about I think it would be "inexorable," much like Nautilus (who pulls inexorable off with aplomb), but less of an "I can't get away, I'm being dragged down to the depths, noooooooo" inexorable and more of a "Oh no, it's gonna get me, I can't kill it, IT WONT DIE AAAAHHHH" flavor. Everything in the kit makes this happen. The axes fall over and over, growing in strength, and the more he kills, the bigger he gets - he just slowly becomes this (thematically, not practically) unstoppable force that shrugs off CC, heals off damage, and spits in the face of death. What has Sion to fear from death? He's already dead. Nigh-perfect in my humble opinion, with the slight concern of the impact of loss/gain of resistances in passive form on game balance.

Many of the champions I glossed over a bit because I recognized a nostalgia factor in my knee-jerk "No way. Are you kidding?" reactions and resigned myself to the fact that I probably couldn't view it with an unbiased eye. Over time, certain champs become ingrained in peoples' minds as a cohesive character, no matter how off-the-wall their abilities might seem. Nobody in the league has a poison trail but Singed. That's his thing. For me, poison trail and Singed are peas and carrots, so to speak, and I can't think of him as anything but the spewing bottle dude that you don't chase. Therefore I distanced myself from those.

With Swain (my favorite champ, and as I myself have mused over possible alterations to him, I figured my nostalgia factor would not factor as much here), I can appreciate the thematic direction in which you took him, but I don't feel that alterations are currently needed (unlike Sion's situation).

(Also I do realize that these were intended for an entirely new game a la "LoL2." So yeah, I see nothing wrong with that, if the purpose is to make each champion kit differently from scratch using only their themes as a starting point.)

What you proposed is certainly a cohesive, synergistic "Tactician" theme, but I feel that there are multiple of these. Your kit is but a single strain, and I think Swain's current kit elaborates another. There are some base qualities that I think are necessary to rightly convey a trope - in the instance of "Tactician," cunning and foresight among others. I think your Swain goes more toward the idea of an aloof tactician who wins the war of attrition, never committing, wearing down the enemy health until they can no longer justify continuing to fight. The consummate laner. That is certainly one way of looking at it.

However, the current Swain I believe perfectly fulfills the qualities of "Tactician" as well. What may have turned you off (I don't know, just guessing) was the whole "giant flamboyant bird monster" aspect of current Swain. At face value, it certainly seems like a giant healing hard-to-kill monster who sits comfortably in the middle of teamfights would not be caught dead wearing a tactician title. That's a tank that I just described. There's so much more to Swain than his ultimate, though. I believe Swain truly is at his core an old hobbling guy with an air of unknown consequence. By that I mean that from his pre-6 abilities, a lane opponent who didn't know Swain could get the feeling while dodging Nevermove and taking E's and Q's that there's something terrible he's holding back, not wanting to commit until the opponent has fallen into his trap. Nevermove is a great AoE snare, but why is it holding you in place? For Swain to hobble up and toss a ball and lazer bird you? Course not, he can do that whenever. Decrepify and Torment are both great DoTs that give that same "war of attrition" feeling of being constantly whittled down, but the crippled old dude still doesn't follow up. Swain is a tactician, so yes, he can whittle opponents, yes he can single out people to die (Torment's damage steroid), YES he can zone and position and trap people. But why? Because if you slip up or he outplays you, and the opportunity arises, he drops his cool, collected, logical mask and goes balls deep ravenmode on your ass. Swain is a dyed in the wool Noxian, and personal might and glory are still very important characteristics to even the normally reserved tacticians of Noxus.

I think your kit would be perfect to fit some sort of Ionian or Shadow Isles version of Swain, or ex-Ionian like Varus, where the idea of either "emotionless attrition until you leave this lane" or "never-ending itching annoying torture" seem to mesh better thematically. Also I'm pretty sure I'm not confusing theme with lore here (might be), though I named specific places, but you get the idea. Current Swain is meant to be ominous, which I think the current kit pulls off well. You can't be ominous if there's no terrible secret hiding in the shadows. But once again I reiterate - even if you weren't going for ominous, the kit is still a great "tactician" set, just thematically a bit different in my opinion.

The only one I really felt I disagreed with was Karthus. It seemed that you went for a completely different theme, to the point where I would expect a different model, backstory, etc. In short, an entirely new champion that has little to do with Karthus. I understand your frustration with the current Karthus being an R on a stick, but to me it seems his current theme is something along the lines of "undead lich who chants in horrific eldritch tongues to effect harmful voodooesque change on his enemies, namely their death.

I mean, if you want to make the whole dancy ghoul control thing a champ, that's great, and I'm not complaining about what you "did to" Karthus (which would be silly). My main point here is that if X champion has a backstory/theme that you expect them to fulfill, and they currently don't, then there is already a wealth of thematic material for you to build on kitwise, seeing as their kits do not satisfy it. So why create the new theme if your goal is to remake champs based on the theme you currently have?

Just some thoughts from a random non-game-designer dude who plays the game.

Also I love the discussion by the way. :3

Originally Posted by IronStylus

Glad this thread got some traction =D

And look! A sticky!

Originally Posted by iProbie

problem with this is that simple:

people can't be bothered to learn and wants everything simple and easy thus the phrase "burden of knowledge"

Originally Posted by Daemon

It's basically Morgana's Tormented Soil. It procs her passive spell vamp, this would proc his passive.

However, any enemy who touches it is instantly in danger of being hit with a Q, stunned and well, it's OP. His Pillar of Fire takes some skill to land.

Originally Posted by Morello

Depth: I think we agree on the concept, but likely disagree on the specifics. I don't think Fiddlssticks and Annie are shallow, but I also don't think DotA's original Invoker is deep (ie; it's just complex). Depth is something we think is important, but I think each champion requires a different approach (and different people want different types of depth).

In design, I equate depth to execution and decision-making density. The more interesting nuances (and a large part of where I think counter-play exists) of how things can be used can create long-term depth. The reason I wanted to speak on that Darius thread is because he doesn't contain that set of nuanced decision-making (and frankly, I think many fighters also suffer from this) - where someone like Fiddlesticks has to do a lot of setup and play differently to set up a Crowstorm, or that his drain is so susceptible to CC effects. The more high end of this is someone like Orianna where there's additional object-positioning elements that stand out, and I think characters with tradeoffs tend to have more depth (and why I prefer slower skillshots/longer CD's).

Let me ask you this: are you guys generally fans of complexity as a mechanic (definitely a player archetype I fall into)? Do you think there's a possibility you might be confusing depth and gameplay distinction/strategic diversity? I think League actually has a good amount of depth overall, though I don't feel all of our characters are, as you said, as awesome as they could be - you're correct in bringing up the Darius example here as representative of this issue..