Ukon3 (NA)
: The power budgeting of autonomy and it’s effect on perception of power. The ADC and Tank dilemma
something i meant to discuss in here but didn't is that a solution to this problem for ADC's can come in the form of itemization. More defensive itemization for marksmen solves this problem to a reasonable extent. Lucian building botrk cleaver, in addition to having a great design, is one of the main reasons he is as versatile as he is. His damage is more conditional as he is shorter range and more burst rotation oriented, and his itemization allows him to thrive in that playstyle. Most ADC players havent quite figured out yet, despite it being over 6 months since crit was changed, that building no lifesteal and no utility is very, very bad. The amount of AD players who build a stormrazor into 2 zeal items and an IE then complain about getting one shot is a comical waste of income the likes of which can only be matched probably Deathcap on Talon. It's no surprise that every successful adc at high levels at the moment, (being Ezreal, lucy, and draven) build items that have defensive components. I think we've hit a point in the damage creep in league that you simply can not function as a dps without having some amount of defense. I also think this is not indicative of crit items being weak, but crit as a build path being obsolete. The old build path of seasons 2-4 come to mind with BT > shiv/pd>whisper> IE. I think something similar to that, where the first item has a defensive component would be a good way forward. That very defensive utility/defensive item (akin to botrk but that scales with crit down the line) is something that i recommended around 10 months ago in my ADC item manifesto which you can find in my post history. Building purely offense as someone without burst simply isn't viable due to the damage creep in the game (check out zven getting solod by alistar on the reddit front page rn). ADC players need to adapt builds with this in mind and i think stormrazor should be reworked into this ideal first item for ADC's, or another item introduced all together.
: Why not make gold generation higher at lower ranks and less at higher ranks?
because changing fundamentals of a game between skill levels is always a bad idea. you are essentially creating two different games at that point and that sort of disconnect is never a good thing. It's akin to why nerfing yi in low elo and buffing him in high elo is a bad idea. Everyone should be playing the same game and improving at it rather than having levels of play be literally two different games.
Rioter Comments
Don Lupus (EUW)
: Needs to be a Yasuo emote.
yeah and maybe a way to emote "my bad" in champion select too when yas is locked in i like it. good thinking
: How would they visually express that though?
any number of ways, a chibi champ with their eyes looking down, a more sincere version of a pout, a little bow from a penguin or poro, etc. There's loads of body language that indicate apology.
MrGerund (EUW)
: ok now im wondering if emotes effect your winrate based upon if they're communicative/offensive. anyways im sure riot will drop one of those somewhere soon, emotes haven't been in the game for too long and they push out a lot of new ones every patch (besides that karthus one...!?)
you can almost be sure stuff like and its appropriate that would increase winrate to some extent. League is entirely a mental game. tilt can make you lose 15 games in a row in the elo you previously had a 55-60% winrate in. any ability to abate negativity in your teammates when you mess up and screw them over will help. Same reason that being toxic loses more games than not being toxic. its pretty well known that if two players are the exact same skill level, one is toxic and the other isn't, they more positive player wins more games.
: I think the Sona one works as my "mb" emote. Along with the Odyssey one for "what were you thinking?"
some of them *could* work, but it's more about having one that is specifically named "my bad" so people know that is your intention. The "Nice Try" is similar to good job like the "thumbs up" but when people use the nice try one after you mess something up, it's not perceived as sarcastic, whereas the thumbs up would be.
Rioter Comments
glava222 (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Ukon3,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=wEpgeLPR,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2018-11-19T21:28:21.011+0000) > > I'm gonna take these from last to first: > 3. This point is wrong because nerfing gp10 disproportionately nerfs supports because gp10 is a higher percentage of their income. adding back the gp10 to the item _that they lost disproportionately_, not the total amount reduced across the board, makes the change a net neutral, not nerfing everything but support. > > both points 1 and 2 are answered by a comment i recently posted and will expand on further in a little bit as an edit to this comment. > https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-plus/wEpgeLPR-passive-gold-generation?comment=00030000000000000000000000000001 wait, are you talking about gold per 10 items or ambient gold?
ambient gold reduction across the board and adding back some of that to support items to compensate for a change that would disproportionately affect them to a net neutral in terms of their power.
glava222 (EUNE)
: while i can understand what you are trying to say, i think that you forgot some other points. 1. Better play is not rewarded solely with a gold difference. If a player is winning their matchup for example in the mid lane and managed to take a tower, he didnt only get the gold for that tower, he also got the ability to ward the enemy jungle, the freedom to move through said jungle, priority when it comes to controlling the waves among other teams. Everybody has that one game where teams are even in gold but one team has a massive tempo advantage, which makes it almost impossible for the other team to do anything. 2. Only proactive play is considered good play. I would say its as much of a skill to not get murdered in a horrible matchup as it is to win in an even matchup, and some scaling champions' lane basically is:"survive somehow till i accrue some gold from passive sources and whatever cs i can scrounge up". In this case getting the passive gold gen for a longer period of time without losing the game is one of the objectives. Basically your objective is to try to not lose tower for longer so you get more gold. Here you would say that they both get equal gold, and that is true. But that gold isn't worth the same on both champions. 3. The impact of these changes on supports isnt well tought out. Its actually very hard to make this idea a power neutral thing for supports. You either cut the gold for everyone with no compensation, which would destroy supports since they get almost no gold now, or you would compensate supports with extra g10 on items which basically means you nerfed everyone but supports, which in the relative world of game balance means you severly buffed supports. I didnt exactly go deep into details with this but these are just some quick toughts on this topic
I'm gonna take these from last to first: 3. This point is wrong because nerfing gp10 disproportionately nerfs supports because gp10 is a higher percentage of their income. adding back the gp10 to the item _that they lost disproportionately_, not the total amount reduced across the board, makes the change a net neutral, not nerfing everything but support. both points 1 and 2 are answered by a comment i recently posted and will expand on further in a little bit as an edit to this comment. https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-plus/wEpgeLPR-passive-gold-generation?comment=00030000000000000000000000000001
: > [{quoted}](name=Ukon3,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=wEpgeLPR,comment-id=00030000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-19T20:26:57.984+0000)With all due respect, everything else you say in here is just "well i think this because..." and nothing substantial and at the very core is just a lack of understanding of the concept at hand. > >I could go on and on and on and on about what you aren't getting but it's something that would require hours upon hours of typing With all due respect -- and as someone with a bit of a background in game design -- this is probably the single most dismissive argument you could possibly make. It comes across very much as "you couldn't possibly understand," instead of attempting to provide any clarity on why a skilled player cannot leverage a small advantage (say, 200 hit points up on an opponent due to a Ruby Crystal, or 15 AD up due to an extra Longsword) to secure a larger one any better than a weaker player. It is at this point where I will respectfully disengage from the discussion, as it appears you do not believe I have the understanding needed to continue it and that is, ultimately, a stance I feel is highly detrimental to any productive discussion we could have.
and you are correct. check out my most recent reply and lets focus on that as a continuing point. I tend to get mislead over text based discussion because of how easy it is to lose track of intentions given the time between each response. A favorite quote of mine is something along the lines of "if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it enough yourself." after the response above this one i thought "why can't i explain this easily when i'm as sure of it" and realized what we'd ended up on was not at all where my points started and as such my explanations were poor. I got caught up in the back and forth and confused myself of what my own argument was, my fault.
: > [{quoted}](name=Ukon3,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=wEpgeLPR,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-19T18:58:04.329+0000)To allow the better player to more easily exert influence onto the game. I don't know what level you personally play at, but in higher levels it very, very often feels as thought the smaller advantages; a 30 cs lead, a level or two on the opponent, taking your tower, etc. feel inconsequential. This seems puzzling to me, as from pro games I've seen this sort of small advantage is enormous and even down in the MMRs where I play I find myself able to take advantage of a difference of 30 CS (which is at MINIMUM about a 400 gold difference, and at most over 600). I'd argue that if someone can't take advantage of a level spike AND a 400+ gold advantage, they're not actually much better than their opponent or -- and this IS a skill that has value -- their opponent is good at playing from behind. >But as someone with experience in them all and someone who goes over replays with these levels of players several times a week, i see laners that are like 6-0 and end up just losing straight up 1v1s to a 1-5 player. I see that _almost every single game_ in the lower tiers. I haven't seen this much myself, either in games I've spectated or games I've played. Both of these are anecdotal, of course, but I'd argue that if a 6-0 player is losing to a 1-5 player than the 6-0 player may have just messed up, or picked a fight into a bad match-up when they *should* be using that power elsewhere on the map. > winning player: "I won lane, feels good, now lets go use my lead while this guy catches up" > losing player: "my stupid ass jungler fed this guy doubles so i lost but w/e he's worth 800 gold now" I've actually never encountered the latter -- in fact, I'd argue this feel pretty damn bad, because there's a ton of value, sure, but you can't really DO anything about it without coordinating to take down that higher player. This is severely punishing for lower MMR teams that lack that coordination, especially since one of your goals seems to be to make a 6-0 player reliably win against a 1-5 player. >Are you saying that this ideal doesn't exist? or that the current gp10 creates this ideal. I think that the current gp/10 does a pretty good job at this, yes. >This inconsequentiality (which isn't a word but I'm going to pretend it is) of an incrementally accumulated advantage being maintained is something that simply does not exist at lower levels of play. I really find this hard to believe. A 1k gold lead in, say, pro play can be significant, and that's just 200 gold per person. I may not play at Masters personally, but I really struggle with the idea that the best players in the world can't capitalize on small advantages better than significantly worse players -- unless the reason behind that is that players are better at playing from behind as well, in which case I think it comes down to the fact that numerical power is simply worth less in an environment where everyone knows how to play around it best.
i thought of a better way to explain what i mean: Leads mean less because of the fact that champions are able to do their job even with large deficits. example: Kennen is a nasty lane bully, kennen should come out on top of the lane phase. the problem statement is that kennen isnt punished for losing lane because he will always be kennen. things like electrocute and high gp10 make it so his job is done regardless of his lane performance, not as a result of it. leads are less impactful because leads themselves don't open new opportunities. and that those who lose lane dont close many opportunities up for themselves as a result of very high base effectiveness. _thats_ what im getting at here. with high gp10 a good cs leads makes 5% more plays possible, while with lower gp10 that same lead creates 30% more opportunities.
: > [{quoted}](name=Ukon3,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=wEpgeLPR,comment-id=000300000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-19T18:58:04.329+0000)To allow the better player to more easily exert influence onto the game. I don't know what level you personally play at, but in higher levels it very, very often feels as thought the smaller advantages; a 30 cs lead, a level or two on the opponent, taking your tower, etc. feel inconsequential. This seems puzzling to me, as from pro games I've seen this sort of small advantage is enormous and even down in the MMRs where I play I find myself able to take advantage of a difference of 30 CS (which is at MINIMUM about a 400 gold difference, and at most over 600). I'd argue that if someone can't take advantage of a level spike AND a 400+ gold advantage, they're not actually much better than their opponent or -- and this IS a skill that has value -- their opponent is good at playing from behind. >But as someone with experience in them all and someone who goes over replays with these levels of players several times a week, i see laners that are like 6-0 and end up just losing straight up 1v1s to a 1-5 player. I see that _almost every single game_ in the lower tiers. I haven't seen this much myself, either in games I've spectated or games I've played. Both of these are anecdotal, of course, but I'd argue that if a 6-0 player is losing to a 1-5 player than the 6-0 player may have just messed up, or picked a fight into a bad match-up when they *should* be using that power elsewhere on the map. > winning player: "I won lane, feels good, now lets go use my lead while this guy catches up" > losing player: "my stupid ass jungler fed this guy doubles so i lost but w/e he's worth 800 gold now" I've actually never encountered the latter -- in fact, I'd argue this feel pretty damn bad, because there's a ton of value, sure, but you can't really DO anything about it without coordinating to take down that higher player. This is severely punishing for lower MMR teams that lack that coordination, especially since one of your goals seems to be to make a 6-0 player reliably win against a 1-5 player. >Are you saying that this ideal doesn't exist? or that the current gp10 creates this ideal. I think that the current gp/10 does a pretty good job at this, yes. >This inconsequentiality (which isn't a word but I'm going to pretend it is) of an incrementally accumulated advantage being maintained is something that simply does not exist at lower levels of play. I really find this hard to believe. A 1k gold lead in, say, pro play can be significant, and that's just 200 gold per person. I may not play at Masters personally, but I really struggle with the idea that the best players in the world can't capitalize on small advantages better than significantly worse players -- unless the reason behind that is that players are better at playing from behind as well, in which case I think it comes down to the fact that numerical power is simply worth less in an environment where everyone knows how to play around it best.
>This seems puzzling to me indeed it is, as you do not have experience or proper exposure to what I'm referring to. With all due respect, everything else you say in here is just "well i think this because..." and nothing substantial and at the very core is just a lack of understanding of the concept at hand. examples like: >but I'd argue that if a 6-0 player is losing to a 1-5 player than the 6-0 player may have just messed up, or picked a fight into a bad match-up when they should be using that power elsewhere on the map. Thats literally the exact point I'm making. Incremental leads don't matter when everyone is egregiously misplaying all the time. > I really struggle with the idea that the best players in the world can't capitalize on small advantages better than significantly worse players It's not that it doesn't ever happen it's that a 100cs champion and a 135 cs champion walking into a skirmish produce almost identical effects on said skirmish due to the high inbuilt power champions in current league. I could go on and on and on and on about what you aren't getting but it's something that would require hours upon hours of typing for something that if we were to do a survey of high level players, would be nigh unequivocally agreed upon. We can agree to disagree on this one based on differing experiences I think.
: > [{quoted}](name=Ukon3,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=wEpgeLPR,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-19T15:07:08.164+0000)This is where you lose me. Everything you mentioned exists _because_ of it's ability to maximize farm. Precisely. In the current environment farm is *already* important enough that we have *tons* of skills that have developed around securing as much of it as possible. These complex games are played for that 10-12% numerical advantage because of how important that edge is. I haven't really seen a good argument that further widening that gap would do anything more than making games decided far sooner. > passive income as a percentage of total income isn't a valid metric of weighing the value of taking action unless you think the game should be played as literally going afk at your tower. What i mean by this is that it doesnt matter what % of your income is passive, you should be actively playing the game and interacting with it to try to gain an advantage... i dont think anyone would argue against that. Passive income as a percentage of total income is important though, because it shows how much value there already IS in maximizing your action-based income. It also shows that the system is fairly skewed towards favoring the better-skilled player, who can get ahead by a meaningful percentage of total gold simply through even the denial of just one melee minion per wave. I know that we *could* sharpen this, but I honestly cannot say I've seen an especially good argument for it, especially when it comes at the cost of making players who are already behind simply fall further behind with no real recourse, as players who are ahead can usually leverage that to deny their opponents *more* income. We're basically exacerbating the effect at this point. > I think this reduction of X would have a % negative yield for the losing players that is a small fraction of the positive % yield for the better players. In other words, the better player gets to have a 50% better experience playing league while the losing player has maybe a 5%. That's what i think is attainable. These numbers seem fairly arbitrary, frankly. I'm not sure how we can say being further ahead for the same gameplay feels great to the winning player without also saying being further behind for the same gameplay feels pretty shitty for the losing player.
>Precisely. In the current environment farm is already important enough that we have tons of skills that have developed around securing as much of it as possible. These complex games are played for that 10-12% numerical advantage because of how important that edge is. I haven't really seen a good argument that further widening that gap would do anything more than making games decided far sooner. To allow the better player to more easily exert influence onto the game. I don't know what level you personally play at, but in higher levels it very, very often feels as thought the smaller advantages; a 30 cs lead, a level or two on the opponent, taking your tower, etc. feel inconsequential. Frequently does it feel as though being a measurably better player does not precipitate greater influence on the game's outcome. This is a concept that does not exist in lower levels, I would say below diamond 5. I want to make clear i am _absolutely_ not saying that lower levels are irrelevant or don't matter. But as someone with experience in them all and someone who goes over replays with these levels of players several times a week, i see laners that are like 6-0 and end up just losing straight up 1v1s to a 1-5 player. I see that _almost every single game_ in the lower tiers. What im trying to say is that this minutely larger influence that gp10 reduction brings is verifiably irrelevant to lower levels of play because leads that are orders of magnitude larger than what this would create are thrown in droves every single game. This is not something that will affect anyone who plays below mid diamond, but in my view and from my experience, it will significantly increase the quality of gameplay at and above that level. > These numbers seem fairly arbitrary, frankly. I'm not sure how we can say being further ahead for the same gameplay feels great to the winning player without also saying being further behind for the same gameplay feels pretty shitty for the losing player. Of course they are, they are supposed to demonstrate a concept, not be actual figures. Think of it this way: **1st scenario**, High gp10, but with no comeback mechanics (bounties, catch up exp, etc) winning player: "it doesnt really matter that i got ahead in lane, fuck" losing player: "it doesnt really matter than i got behind in lane, yay" **2nd scenario**: low gp10, no comeback mechanics winning player: "I stomped this guy, games over" losing player: "I'm stuck in a game thats already over XD" **3rd scenario**: medium-low gp10, lots of comeback mechanics winning player: "I won lane, feels good, now lets go use my lead while this guy catches up" losing player: "my stupid ass jungler fed this guy doubles so i lost but w/e he's worth 800 gold now" What I'm trying to demonstrate here is that there exists an ideal where both winning feels good and losing doesn't feel _that_ bad. the further you get towards one extreme, the more heavily the positive feedback loop of a bad experience exists. in the first scenario, it still feels generally bad to lose and get killed, but the lack of punishment dulls the pain. Being better and having it not matter is extremely frustrating, as i'm sure we all know. in scenario 2. It's a rush for the winning player, but too punishing for the losing player, in s3, It feels quite good for the winning player, and really not that bad for the losing player. That's the ideal i'm talking about. Are you saying that this ideal doesn't exist? or that the current gp10 creates this ideal. I think i speak more from experience that the differentiation of laning skill isn't translated to mid game as much as it should be, and, again, i am _not_ trying to be dismissive or disparaging, but i think this is something you can come to appreciate only if you have experienced it for yourself. This inconsequentiality (which isn't a word but I'm going to pretend it is) of an incrementally accumulated advantage being maintained is something that simply does not exist at lower levels of play. I also want to clarify that i don't believe this out of some sense of elitism, but rather have come to this conclusion from excessive exposure to every level of play.
: > [{quoted}](name=Ukon3,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=5wimqzYE,comment-id=000400000000000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-19T17:35:58.307+0000)its stating that games that are already decided should reach their conclusion more quickly, this is something achieved literally by not allowing baron to spawn. If the winning teams have nothing to wait for, they will actually push their advantage. This is facilitated by minion buffs at all levels of play. They will certainly push their advantage, but they may actually struggle to close out the game, which is a bit of my concern. You will also probably push back the same "don't throw before Baron" behavior, and just get a couple extra minutes out of it. I'm not saying I think it's a bad idea, but merely that I think there may be alternative implementations that might achieve better or more interesting results. > It is an excessively strong objective, but it's important to have defining objectives in the game so they don't get stalled indefinitely. Certainly! I wasn't discounting that fact, merely suggesting that the exact mechanics that Baron currently brings to the game maybe too heavily skewed toward its importance as a pushing tool.
>They will certainly push their advantage, but they may actually struggle to close out the game, which is a bit of my concern. You will also probably push back the same "don't throw before Baron" behavior, and just get a couple extra minutes out of it. The reason that people wait for baron to spawn is because breaking open the inhib tower line can end up killing you and letting the other team get baron control off of your over-extension. If minions are durable enough to the point where they aren't complete fodder, the inhib line will break pre 25, and likely pre 20, and the game will end before baron is needed. If a game is unable to be closed out pre 25, it wasn't the stomp that the devs are looking to hasten the outcome of to begin with. > Certainly! I wasn't discounting that fact, merely suggesting that the exact mechanics that Baron currently brings to the game maybe too heavily skewed toward its importance as a pushing tool. 100% agree. I think in it's current iteration it's a "maybe not the ideal mechanic but it's not bad and it's the best we got atm". If it were to be changed in terms of numbers for the earlier game as you previously suggested it'd have to be something that can be offset by superior macro play, which would mandate a pretty significant drop in brute force. Something to consider for sure, both seem like good alternatives.
: > [{quoted}](name=Ukon3,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=5wimqzYE,comment-id=0004000000000000,timestamp=2018-11-19T15:20:25.503+0000)99% of league has not been trending to faster closeouts though. Sure, but that's a specific goal of Season 9: games should have better opportunities to close them out sooner. >The threat of baron is as large or a larger influence on the game than the actual 3.5 minute buff is. I'm very well aware of this, yes. I'm not sure it is meaningfully fixed by simply pushing it back though, especially given that conflict with the stated Season 9 goals of allowing faster game close-outs. I'm afraid this would simply extend games while still having that Baron issue pop up -- just a bit later. If anything, it feels like it speaks to Baron being simply too strong an objective, to the point where it distorts the late-game options to revolve almost exclusively around it. I'd sort of like to see a game state where "take Baron" or "Push to Win" *aren't* the only options after a late-game victory.
> Sure, but that's a specific goal of Season 9: games should have better opportunities to close them out sooner. its stating that games that are already decided should reach their conclusion more quickly, this is something achieved literally by not allowing baron to spawn. If the winning teams have nothing to wait for, they will actually push their advantage. This is facilitated by minion buffs at all levels of play. >I'm very well aware of this, yes. I'm not sure it is meaningfully fixed by simply pushing it back though, especially given that conflict with the stated Season 9 goals of allowing faster game close-outs. I'm afraid this would simply extend games while still having that Baron issue pop up -- just a bit later. The winning team is not going to afk farm for upwards of 10 minutes to wait for baron because that will equalize their advantage and bring the game to neutral. delaying baron makes games end more quickly when they are excessively lopsided. When you play in high level games that are stomps, you take the outer line, grab herald and break a t2, then you wait for baron, literally every game. People say in chat all the time "pls stop throwing before baron" or something similar every time someone is proactive between the 14-20 minute mark. >If anything, it feels like it speaks to Baron being simply too strong an objective, to the point where it distorts the late-game options to revolve almost exclusively around it. I'd sort of like to see a game state where "take Baron" or "Push to Win" aren't the only options after a late-game victory. It is an excessively strong objective, but it's important to have defining objectives in the game so they don't get stalled indefinitely.
: Another thing that comes to mind that you don't cover is how different skill levels affect this balance. I'll be honest, I'm not shocked to see someone claiming to be masters and wanting more income from farming. That makes sense. But what about Iron 5? If I'm pushed under tower as the worst player in League, and I am *terrible* at farming, less passive gold generation really hurts my experience. That's something that's important to consider if Riot is going to make changes to this system.
this is definitely something i consider, in addition to the amount of coaching i do and exposure to lower levels i have, i also didnt start this game as a good player. I started league in preseason 4 and was promptly placed in bronze 5. season 4 i went from b5 to g2 and season 5 g2 to d5. I feel like people tend to mistakenly think of good and bad players as different, static, beings, when the fact of the matter is its just people who have put more effort or had more time to dedicate to the game. Having something that I sucked at gave me something to improve at. League saw its greatest growth in seasons 3 and 4, and those were times where league was a much more punishing game. I know exactly what it's like to be the literal lowest rank and worst player in the game, and it's really not that too distant a memory. Being a terrible farmer didn't make me want to quit the game on the spot cause it was too hard, the trend of growth league saw during those seasons supports the point that most other people didnt either. Also i really don't think it hurts your experience, cause if you're iron 4, you're playing against other iron 4 players, who are going to be similarly lower skill and have the same problems. I've never once heard the complaint from Gold players who have low income in the mid game because they quite know how to play the map to maximize resources and tend to aram say their experience is hurt. The lack of income isnt perceived because the other players have the same lack of income. Iron players with 40cs @10 will be playing against other guys with 40cs @ 10. I think what's generally painful to hear for people for some reason is that the intricacies of the game don't matter much at all to the lower ranks because they aren't exploited or even known about. thats why winrate distributions in bronze and silver is so narrow, with no champions getting above 52%, while in platinum and diamond you start seeing 58 and above. I never once thought about passive gold gen when i was a lower level player. things like baron control and map rotations and resources allocation weren't words that crossed my mind and my experience wasnt worsened by it because i didn't know what i didn't know.
: > [{quoted}](name=Ukon3,realm=NA,application-id=ELUpwER8,discussion-id=5wimqzYE,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2018-11-19T14:04:00.216+0000)completely removing baron would result almost invariably in the good ol' ziggs xerath comps of season 4. If you make the change in a vacuum, yes. This is why I suggested letting Herald also buff minions and nearby champions, so it becomes more of a play-making battering ram instead of a "take one tower" thing. Basically tie the current Baron buff to a specific lane/play. It might not work, but I think there's an interesting idea in there somewhere. I don't really like the idea of pushing Baron that far back though, because *League* has been moving towards earlier close-outs, and an early Baron take is one of the big things that can help a dominant mid-game team close out a game before a better-scaling team pulls back in the late-game. A better solution might be to actually make the Baron buff scale with time, so earlier Barons don't grant as much pushing power, but later Barons grant more. That would enable you to keep the earlier Barons as a way into the fight, but prevent the sheer amount of early brute force that is available.
my brain completely skipped over the line where you said herald could give minions a stat bonus, mb there. 99% of league has not been trending to faster closeouts though. As i said in another comment, i do tons and tons of coaching for lower level players and their games are almost never below 25 minutes, the average is over 30m, and they never prioritize baron at all. Competitive games are the same way. for 95-99% of the playerbase this change will do nothing at all. For the tier of games it does affect it has the potential to transform the mid game from a painfully stagnant flowchart into a more engaging and dynamic thats enjoyable to play. The average game time of competitive is 29.5 minutes according to Leagueofgraphs, and these games are rarely blowouts. Games not being blowouts means that baron leads to tons and tons of dead time in the mid game, which I've discussed before. Baron makes the games longer because it forces people to essentially do nothing for long periods of time in the mid game as well as hampering strategic diversity in terms of macro play. This is a known problem and I think if you dont experience it for yourself it's hard to understand the problems that baron creates other than just a way to close out games. The threat of baron is as large or a larger influence on the game than the actual 3.5 minute buff is.
: Alright! I'm actually home and can dig into this more. >For players who aren't the best at farming... well... that's kind of the point imo. If you aren't good at farming, you should get better at farming! The crutch of GP10 for players who lack a certain skill is a punishment for those who have put the time in to be good at last hitting. The intended outcome of reducing gp10 is to help differentiate the great from the good. So, from a perspective of raw mastery, this makes sense. There are actually a lot of solid reasons to *not* inject mastery into *every* element of a game though. For example -- we could make baseball bases move around, which would add complex prediction analysis into the relatively simple "run from point A to point B" part of the game, or we could introduce a noise generator into chess to really weed out those who are bad at focusing. For more practical (and less silly) examples, we could put reload quicktime events into all FPS games so that reloading becomes a skill test, and you get less ammo in your clip (and a further disadvantage on top of being a comparatively worse player) if you fail to match it, or giving you bonus damage if you shoot in a particular pattern over a target but reducing your damage if you can't. We don't, though, because at some point a game has enough of a skill differential in it, and we're just stacking the deck by adding more punishing mechanics. That player who hasn't mastered the game enough to shoot in the pattern than grants bonus damage is *already* behind the player who can, and probably shouldn't be penalized more for that failure by also eating *another* penalty. League has a TON of these skill tests already, and I feel like all this does is further increase the learning curve, make the game less accessible (and longer at lower levels as players struggle to get items), and accelerate the "win-more" effect by heightening skill differences or poor match-ups. To me, the gold income in *League* provides a base level playing field that says "even if behind, I have SOME income without risking my neck, and, if we can hold on long enough, I may be able to equalize this in the late-game." I consider that a good thing, as being ahead already has snowballing advantages in *League* -- so much so that Riot has been looking to *cut* methods of snowballing for some time. *League* is also a game with a *ton* of areas for skill expression already: just in lane we have resource management, trading, minion management, warding, pushing vs. roaming, taking advantage of back timing, last-hitting, denying through trade threat -- that's a ton of places where a skilled player has an edge, and I'm not sure I see a good argument to also give them a further *numerical* edge on top of all of these advantages (and the numerical edge they already have). The balance is also already heavily skewed in favor of minion gold and taking action -- a minion wave is worth 105 gold, with every third wave being worth 165 minimum, for a net value of 375 gold every 90 seconds. In this time you'll have passively generated only 183.6 gold, meaning that objective-based incoming (discounting kills, Scuttle Crab, and objectives, all of which favor skilled play that can reliably secure these) is already worth *more than double* passive play. In effect, if you net +1 minion on your opponent each laning phase, you're about 15-20% ahead of them in terms of minion value. With the passive gold figured in, you're about 9 -12% ahead of them. In a stat-based game a 10% advantage is actually pretty big, and should be more than enough for a skilled player to take advantage of. ----------------------------------- In short, a lot of this posts feels to me that it effectively says "I feel like my game mastery isn't as useful as I feel it should be," and that's fine -- I simply don't think that the *income* system is the place to add that, and would instead prefer explorations that could put a team ahead through map control or other methods *without* furthering the more-difficult-to-pull-back-against stat difference between players. This sort of system -- to me -- would actually demonstrate mastery *better*, because it would be non-stat-based advantages that a skilled team would have to play around to secure that much-desired stat-based advantage, and the reward would be more tools to do that, rather than just a monetary advantage outright.
I really couldn't possibly disagree more. But I'll always say exactly why i feel that way, point by point, so lets get into it. The comparisons you give are gimmicks like adding noise to chess or making reloading a mini-game. Farming has been an integral skill in league since the games inception and anecdotally i have never once heard of someone's desire to make it less important. I do quite a lot of coaching, and while most of the people i work with are gold-diamond, I frequently work with people in silver. Last hitting isn't something they struggle with, for silver I mostly see 60-70 at the 10 minute mark, which isnt terrible by any means. It's not like dota where last hitting is tedious, requires serious focus and practice and it feels like a huge chore to get the mechanics of it down. >just in lane we have resource management, trading, minion management, warding, pushing vs. roaming, taking advantage of back timing, last-hitting, denying through trade threat -- that's a ton of places where a skilled player has an edge, and I'm not sure I see a good argument to also give them a further numerical edge on top of all of these advantages This is where you lose me. Everything you mentioned exists _because_ of it's ability to maximize farm. de-incentivizing farm makes all of those skills, which account for i would say without hyperbole 95% of what skill is in league of legends between bronze 5 and diamond 5. Trading and harassment is something done less with the intention of setting up a kill and more to do with forcing people to trade their health for cs, or their mana for cs. in addition to setting up a gank or slowpush into a dive, wave management exists to freeze out the enemy laner to deny cs, or slowpush into the enemy tower while playing ahead of the wave such that the enemy cant trade into your wave in fear of being chunked and dove and as a result loses 2-3 waves in the process. pushing vs roaming isn't a thing because pushing creates the roam window, it's not an either or, its a chronological ordering. back timings exist mostly such that you don't miss cs, etc, etc, etc. >that's a ton of places where a skilled player has an edge I don't think you understand that these skills are skills _because_ farm is important to the game, not in addition to it. If this was HotS, these skills don't exist, because farm doesn't matter. you don't care about harassment and forcing your enemy out of lane, you don't care about trading a melee minion for 2 autos onto the enemy laner. Laning prowess does not exist without farm being important, because laning _is_ farming and creating leads from it. Jungling revolves around farming too. I'm a big fan of champions that rely on a single skillshot to make the gank work, I've been an Elise, nidalee, lee, jarvan and vi player (not exclusively those, just some of my favorites) ever since i stopped maining adc in season 6. One of the most imporatnt things you learn in playing these champs is the idea that you throw out those skills when the enemy is going for the cannon minion, cause they _always_ greed for the caddy. Things like that no longer exists with farm being less and less relevant. >the balance is also already heavily skewed in favor of minion gold and taking action -- a minion wave is worth 105 gold, with every third wave being worth 165 minimum, for a net value of 375 gold every 90 seconds. In this time you'll have passively generated only 183.6 gold, meaning that objective-based incoming (discounting kills, Scuttle Crab, and objectives, all of which favor skilled play that can reliably secure these) is already worth more than double passive play. passive income as a percentage of total income isn't a valid metric of weighing the value of taking action unless you think the game should be played as literally going afk at your tower. What i mean by this is that it doesnt matter what % of your income is passive, you should be actively playing the game and interacting with it to try to gain an advantage... i dont think anyone would argue against that. > In effect, if you net +1 minion on your opponent each laning phase, you're about 15-20% ahead of them in terms of minion value. With the passive gold figured in, you're about 9 -12% ahead of them. In a stat-based game a 10% advantage is actually pretty big, and should be more than enough for a skilled player to take advantage of. Most of the back and forth here isn't going to be changed by any figure either of us bring up. I'm sure we play very different games and that influences our respective standpoints. I think my response to knightskemplar sums it up well and to add to end of the first paragraph: >On one side of the spectrum you have huge passive income where personal skill is unimportant and accrued leads are incidental. On the other side, you have no passive income and a single kill or cs advantage is all but immutably determinate of the outcome. Between those two i think there's an ideal ratio where skill and superior play is consequential without being determinate. I believe the current value of gold gen is significantly higher than this ideal. I think this reduction of X would have a % negative yield for the losing players that is a small fraction of the positive % yield for the better players. In other words, the better player gets to have a 50% better experience playing league while the losing player has maybe a 5%. That's what i think is attainable.
: This sort of makes me wondering about the plausibility of effectively *removing* Baron in favor of multiple Herald spawns, each of which is, effectively, only good for a tower or two rather than for 3+ minutes of hard advantage. Perhaps add on an effect after the 20 minute mark that grants champions and minions nearby bonuses or defenses while the Herald lives to retain some of that game-closing power. That might have the effect of making "Baron" plays less into "win the game in one moment" and more into situations where teams play around each other as one looks for an opportunity to drop the beastie and take advantage of it. It would also allow for some interesting split push shenanigans, which it seems like you encourage.
completely removing baron would result almost invariably in the good ol' ziggs xerath comps of season 4. If you aren't familiar with the old baron, (which was just a massive stat buff for your team) it didnt allow teams to really do anything a lot of the time and games were 50+ minutes very frequently. Multiple heralds is something i thought of and i think i wrote somewhere in here, but i think that would just make games an absolute slog. If you find yourself against massive waveclear you just have to wait for herald over, and over, and over again to get anything done on the map. Ziggs comps of old could defend 2 towers at once with his ult for a side lane and himself for another, add sivir to that and some anti dive tanks/supports and you have yourself an unbreakable line. Needing Herald for every single tower take could be as many as 6 heralds, which if we put them on a 5 minute spawn is 30 minutes past mid game. Also it wouldn't work in the sense that by the time another herald came up, the inhib you took with the previous herald has no already spawned. I think the redesign of Baron was fantastic in making it a siege tool to counter these problematic stall comps, but I think now it's brute force is too available too soon.
: I'll be honest: I feel this would make the highest levels of play even more dramatic (where a few hundred gold IS a really meaningful difference), extend the power of lane bullies, weaken characters with rough early games and, most importantly, harm the experience of supports and players who are not the best at farming. I'm not sure the benefits proposed here are worth the cost, as this would undoubtedly require a huge amount of core-level changes across the cast to compensate for power-wise.
Most of that I'd say is fair, as i agreed and addressed several of those worries in my own post. To address the additional worries: > harm the experience of supports and players who are not the best at farming. For supports, if they are where they should be at the moment, it's as simple as tacking extra gold generation onto their support item. For players who aren't the best at farming... well... that's kind of the point imo. If you aren't good at farming, you should get better at farming! The crutch of GP10 for players who lack a certain skill is a punishment for those who have put the time in to be good at last hitting. The intended outcome of reducing gp10 is to help differentiate the great from the good. > extend the power of lane bullies, weaken characters with rough early games I personally think league could benefit from less homogenization in terms of scaling, but that's another topic for another time. With the high diversity in setups you are able to go from Runes reforged in addition to the new options for stat bonuses i don't think the lane bullies will really see that huge an increase in power. If you're in a really heavy poke lane you could run double resistances, second wind, and d shield. I think forcing scaling champs into investing into surviving the early game when faced with an oppressive laner would actually be of benefit. If someone god greedy with their items and setups and got punished early game that's an example of meaningful choices, which is something that the devs have been trying to create for a long time. The relative standardization of income in league makes your setups less important, as you'll hit mid/late game no matter what. I have my doubts it would happen, but if it really does get too out of hand with early game champs, i generally think it's an easy fix, maybe some additional mana or hp regen for struggling late gamers, or a decrease in power/increase in cost of the component item spikes that lane bullies buy. The degree of polarization this change creates would be proportional to the income reduced. So if things were as polarized as you envision I'd think that it should be increased slightly until it hit that sweet spot between the positives and skill expression it encourages while mitigating the negative aspects to an extent. I think our discrepancy comes from the fact i didnt cite an actual figure. My post was meant to bring up the idea that there are many upsides to this change, and the downsides are things that already have mechanics mitigating them on live. A kind of "lets see if a reduction of X wouldn't bring more positive than negatives and go from there" with a case for why the positives are so desirable now. I think there does exist an ideal reduction of X that creates a much better game, what that ideal number is is something we'd have to find out together.
: There is a bit of a gap, imo, between "exposition" and "intended outcomes" We voted to approve anyway, because the analysis here is excellent, but did you intend to propose specific changes? Or are you leaving it as a vague "there should be less gold"?
On one side of the spectrum you have huge passive income where personal skill is unimportant and accrued leads are incidental. On the other side, you have no passive income and a single kill or cs advantage is all but immutably determinate of the outcome. Between those two i think there's an ideal ratio where skill and superior play is consequential without being determinate. I believe the current value of gold gen is significantly higher than this ideal. It's one of those things i really don't know exactly how to go about finding what's optimal numerically. But I had a thought i thought was of value that would be able to be discussed without a particular figure in mind. If pressed for a figure or a way to approach it. I'd likely start with a minimal reduction in GP10, maybe 5-10%, and work incrementally upwards until it starts to demonstrate some of the potential problems i mentioned. all and all though I think _any_ small reduction to GP10 would be a good thing, the figure is more than certainly up for debate.
: Question: How do you feel the minion changes coming with preseason will change the paradigm here? In the client, they say "minion health and movement speed scale much higher later in the game, meaning teams with a clear lead will spend less time stalled out by enemy waveclear or waiting for Baron Buff for the final push." Do you buy that? And if you do, do you still want baron changes?
I haven't seen the numbers on those, if mages don't wipe the backline in 1 spell and the frontline in 2 then it'll help a bit... maybe. The opportunity to simply AFK shove waves past river and ward North or West jungle will still be an option that negates risk, and I dont think it'd be a reach to say that's exactly what competitive play will gravitate toward. Why play with a 70% chance of success when you can assuredly get a 90% chance of success just by waiting a few minutes? overabundance of waveclear in League is a problem, but it's not really the reason that people don't siege in the mid game, its because mid game sieging just introduces variance into an almost perfect system to the winning team. The way you force them to create variance is to remove the insurance. The problem also extends to even games where you have this really large amount of dead time in the mid game. Everyone is hanging out near baron because they literally have to. Collapsing on bot lane split push as a jungle or mid laner means your team loses baron control and your bot lane has to check and likely die. Baron's strength just creates a stagnant mid game and minion health doesnt impact that. I don't see a way of getting rid of the dead time in the mid game that you see in most higher level games and just about every competitive game without delaying Baron's spawn.
Keyru (NA)
: Boards Moderation Discord Verification
Ukon3 (NA)
: A discussion on Baron Nashor
Something i was reminded of that i meant to include in this was how the existence of baron forces people to play a very risk averse style when the game is even. Only TP's can go bot lane and basically nobody is allowed past river unless you have total vision control, or your entire team with you, all because of the consequence a single pick incurs. The power it gives that early on just puts any even game on a razors edge as soon as it hits 20 minutes. A single pick means baron or baron control, and that leads to the "everyone hold hands lets not get caught" portion of the mid game that i personally find tedious and generally frustrating. The absence of this mid game "must have" objective power will allow even games to be competitive in a way that promotes personal skill expression.
Ukon3 (NA)
: Passive gold generation
This one got quite lengthy, apologies for that. In writing it i felt a necessity to talk at length due to how much a change to such a core mechanic would create. Also i kept thinking of new things as i wrote it, so I'm sure there's some disjointed statements in there that lack explanation or come across as rambling. please discuss and let me know where something needs clarification.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Hotarµ (NA)
: I think you meant to put this post in Memes & Games.
Meddler (NA)
: Quick Gameplay Thoughts: October 5
hey they implemented the pyke W change i told them to do, cool. that makes 5 out of the 5 things i've said to do being implemented into the game
Ukon3 (NA)
: How to fix pyke from being a unkillable stealth tank when hes supposed to be an assassin
another good thing to note is that pyke has the only ability that induces camouflage without a delay. his w is an immediate, on demand escape mechanism that promotes a tankier playstyle of e forward, stealth away, as opposed to stealth in, blow combo. giving his W a "dive" animation so to speak similar to a twitch q would help in creating a champion more towards what he is supposed to be.
Rioter Comments
: I don't think crit is a problem. Some people literally saying that the forums been saying to remove crit for 6+ years... in most cases the average player is incapable of providing feedback without an ulterior motive based on their role. If this game was designed like Dota i can imagine how upset the player base is. You get only 1-2 carries on the team. Everyone else is like a support-ish role. In reality this is a better design philosophy. In league everyone wants to be a carry. Furthermore just because a large group of people say something and agree on it doesn't make it right. Just because a large group of people think the earth is flat doesn't mean they're right (think reddit hive mind). But I digress. adcs doing the most damage seems pretty relevant for what they are a glass cannon class designed to do consistent damage. Mages burst, adcs perform consistent/high damage, tanks soak damage, mages do burst damage, control mages provide a mix between damage and cc, support provides utility (shields, cc etc), Junglers typically have a gap closer and provide x thing based on comp etc. Fact is regardless of how strong I am as an adc there is an assassin that flanks me I'm dead, if I don't bait out skill shots from ahri etc. I'm going to die. That doesn't mean rework adcs to be tanky. Regardless of a design goal that either nerfs or buffs a class someone will complain.
idk if people are misreading what i wrote or what the deal is... i literally didnt say anywhere to remove crit from the game. i said to remove it from only IE so that IE doesnt scale off of itself making it an optimal first pickup for ADCs. I never said anywhere to remove crit outright, just from infinity edge.
: > [{quoted}](name=Ukon3,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=7bO0Vkxg,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2018-05-02T13:24:51.673+0000) > > well you very obviously didnt read a single word of the post or pastebin lmao. Nope. Just saying you weren't the first to call for the removal of crit. Also calm down dude its an internet forum. Stop being so offended by everything. People disagreeing or just not agreeing with you is not a personal attack against yourself. Stop downvoting and attacking literally everyone and maybe your post will get more traction.
i didnt call for the removal of crit, you cant read i guess. im not getting mad at anyone, the responses are just nonsensical shitposts that offer nothing of value to a conversation, hence the downvotes.
: I mean. People have been calling for the removal of crit for as long as ive been on the forumns. And thats 6+ years.
well you very obviously didnt read a single word of the post or pastebin lmao.
: yeah no one really care lol cus League is still shit
not really. these changes should drastically change the early and mid game rotational meta in high elo and games will no longer just be a flowchart of success and failure conditions stemming from who takes first towerblood. this shift in adc powerspikes gives other lanes a chance to carry without being swapped into an unwinnable matchup. Tops and junglers have a chance of fighting back when ahead against bot laners who are ahead. Drastically changing strategic viability in high elo is going to significantly open up the game to more innovation and make the game significantly less stale, which it has been for almost 12 months at this point.
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
Rioter Comments
: ***
7am at the time of my post, they said they were aware of the bug at 5:45 their time. But thanks for your comment
ofart (NA)
: Yet Another Unjustified Corki Nerf Proposal (INDEPTH)
i mean its not at all an unjustified nerf if you play in high elo. corki destroyed this patch

Ukon3

Level 40 (NA)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion