@RiotScruffy People who want many more champions are shortsighted

>[{quoted}](name=RiotScruffy,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=vAkP5R62,comment-id=001d00010000,timestamp=2016-09-14T00:13:16.703+0000) > We hope for 6-8, but quality comes before quantity. So far 4 this year and we have more coming. I totally disagree with the previous poster who was disappointed by 4 champions per year. 4 is already a lot and a balance nightmare given the large existing roster (Riot has done a good job though). It isn't sustainable and will make the game unworkable from a balance perspective if it persists. It's already impossible for Riot to test and balance every comp. permutation. It becomes exponentially harder as you add more champions. Also, what exactly is the need for more champions when there is so much of the roster left unviable for higher level play? If the whole roster was equally viable, that would be like adding 25 more champions in one stroke. Consider more champions like adding new ingredients to a dish. Having just a few ingredients may be too bland but if you continue adding more and more, it eventually becomes an unrecognizable culinary mess and is made worse by each new addition. People who want many more champions are myopic and not thinking about the game's long-term health - at least if you want it to be a competitive endeavor and not a joke like NeoPets. Personally, I'm only interested in a competitive game and self-improvement. In fact, that's why I hated the idea of DQ (where some guys play with 4 friends and get the same rank as a solo player despite different skillsets). If I don't consider this a balanced and stable game which lets me isolate my own performance, I wouldn't play it anymore. I already played it far less this season and part of it is DQ but the other is that I can't accurately assess improvement when the game is so incredibly unstable. Way too many core game elements are changed every few months. One's performance 5 patches ago may have little correlation to current performance. Of course, this matters in a much more serious way for pro-teams and pro-gamers but I think everyone wants to feel that their mastery is growing in a non-artificial way when investing a lot of time in an activity. I've even started some guides a few months ago and worked on them every week or two only to eventually give up because I basically had to rewrite them after 2 months due to how much the game changed. I value games like chess or poker where there is incredible complexity/room for growth but also a stable ruleset so that your improvement doesn't get erased every year.
Share
Report as:
Offensive Spam Harassment Incorrect Board
Cancel