League of Legends: True Successor Thread

Discussion in 'Now Playing' started by WinterAyars, Aug 10, 2011.

  1. Aesa

    Aesa Well-Known Member

    Again, I agree with your design premises, however:

    All 4 champions you listed have abilities that I could have used as an example instead of Zeus ult (which is definitely not "too interesting/difficult") for something beginners do not use optimally- Karma is a prime example where you actually have to look at the numbers and it's still unclear what you should be using Mantra on, much much more unclear than Kunkka ship IMO.

    Just by the way, Renekton's W always stunned without Fury (unless you mean in beta testing). The fact that you mention that also makes it confusing whether you want abilities to be more or less accessible, since W stunning only with Fury is definitely less accessible to beginners.
  2. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    FUCK , what did I miss? I'm the only one that has NO FUCKING IDEA how to counter ryze?
    CWheezy likes this.
  3. Cauldrath

    Cauldrath Member

    1. For melee: build a little MR (helpful for anyone against him, of course, especially with his flat mr shred), survive the initial burst, jump on him and kill him.

    2. For long-ranged: Poke him repeatedly from long range before he can root you.

    3. For assassins: He's tanky DPS. Go find a different target.

    4. Avoid 1v1s.

    5. Cleanse/QSS the root if it messes you up, do your thing.

    6. If he gets a lot of armor/mr, get a Last Whisper or Void Staff. If he doesn't, get flat shred/pen and, if you are going to be tanking him while you deal your damage, life steal or spell vamp.

    Still one of the best Dominion picks, though. Definitely ban-worthy. Really, though, with the way he's designed, outskilling him isn't really an option - you have to outmath him. MR is the clear winner here, countering his natural flat shred and his spell vamp.
  4. Leartes

    Leartes Well-Known Member

    So basically you say, if we remove all buffs from Kunkkas ship, up the damage and stun a bit it becomes a better ability simply because it is more simple ?
    I don't think simple = elegant. Simple can lead to elegant, but in this case simple means high variance, hit and win or miss and lose as in lose really really big. Not sure if this is elegant. Roling dice for the win seems pretty simple and elegant by that logic.

    But I think other simple examples are even more funny. Like Zeus ulti - for your information, it is like Karthus ulti without channel and gives vision of the targets. WTF everyone uses it like Karthus ult to mass kill steal but it is so much better to use early.
    Even simpler Lion or Lina Finger of Death/Laguna Blade. An ability as simple as it gets, it only deals damage. Guess what people do ? They kill-steal the 300 hp guy with their 650 hp nuke as a support hero. Like everyone does it except very high lvl players on somewhat coordinated teams.

    I think those simple abilities are in a way worse than the ship because you use the ship early when you are far away and have a chance to hit it, then you are happy and satisfied when it lands AND you did it right. Even if you are the only one that got the buff, you did it right.
    Simple nuke, everyone does it wrong and the sad part is - they feel good doing it wrong -.-

    Anyway what do you think of items like urn of shadows ? You have a limited amount of charges and every charge can be used to heal an ally or nuke an enemy. Good/Bad ?
    In the heat of combat it is close to impossible to evaluate the optimal usage but using it to some effect is damn satisfying.
  5. Uthgar

    Uthgar Member

    Discussion kind of took off towards a more interesting direction since I last read:

    - Defintely think slowing down the endless onslaught of heroes can do a world of good. Someone mentioned Karma and Udyr as unique and interesting heroes worth having, and I agree. Last two patches we have Ari and Fiz, who are essentially slightly different versions of the same hero. By continually adding more heroes, they increase the burden of knowledge and have to stick to silly rules like "unique skills that have dual purpose are too complicated"... sorry not a fan of that philosophy. Rupture was one of the more unique skills in DOTA. as a player I get excited learning new things, figuring out how to deal with them, and then how to optimize them. The correct decision is to make more unique skills and less redundantly similar skills that have different graphics and slight differences from their counterparts.

    - On to optimization of skills: Optimization need not be complex. Ryze for example actually is a great example of such a character. People say there is one true ryze build but this is misleading. Of course, you must have Odin's Viel and FH, but the order in which you get items varies immensely from game to game depending on a number of factors. In fact, very few characters have such variation in their items depending on factors. Ryze also has optimization in the form of how you use his skills. Its up to the player to figure how to do the most damage as fast as possible; ideally its q w q r q e q w q... almost anything should be dead since you can chain cast this due to his passive BUT in some situations you need the R sooner or the E sooner and subtle changes can lead to big gains. Again, not saying ryze is complex, but he is deceptively simple.

    - I am glad SR is becoming more fast paced, and maybe I would like to give it another shot... just not now. I feel I will always find Dominion far more interesting. The shame is that its lack of support has made the game a graveyard of the same players and infinite que times. Tactically, dominion is much more interesting. It also bypasses meaningless ball juggling tests (farming is one imo). I am very disapointed with the way dominion was handled to be honest.
  6. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    Lol, point taken. I was thinking of early game in SR, to be honest. Too many people think SR games should basically be decided by the 20-minute mark. So the counter to Ryze becomes "stay out of bind range... then ignore him and watch his team surrender after complaining that their worthless mage has 0 kills at level 7".

    I think the biggest change they need is to just add ranked. Honestly, I play SR a lot because I know because I'm better than my current ranking, and the fact that I tend to either not play heroes than can carry, or play heroes that can only carry very long games puts me at the mercy of the masses. But I still want to finish that climb to a non-hidden rank value.

    In Dominion, it seems like teamwork and understanding items/champions that counter other champions is even more important. And so it's even more depressing when solo queue teammates are terrible, without the benefit of at least seeing that I'm getting closer to level at which players are decent.
  7. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    I think a real trap that people fall into with skills is skills that are only inwardly interesting are still given a pass rather than a critical look.

    Udyr is a fun hero, but I think he may fall under that trap a bit. Basically Udyr just comes off as this moving ball that does all this stuff more or less for his own amusment and optimization without your interaction. There's no real control or influence over his stuff other than not standing next to udyr, silence is effective on him, and he's kinda tanky. So you (kinda) learn all this things about Udyr to understand him, but then more or less end up saying, "Alright I guess I won't stand near Udyr if I can help it" because there's not all that much depth in how his abilities play out. (FWIW I still like Udyr and his playstyle. I think his combination of the bad abilities still works out alright because of the type of role he's intended for, but he is a great example of a hero that feels obfuscated. There would be many other ways to make a hero that has a mix of tankiness and damage without having skills nearly that complex.

    Kunkka's ship is complex, but it can affect how you want to play things out. You know that getting CLOSER to Kunkka can reduce the effectiveness of his ship, that you can gain an advantage by initiating when Kunkka is at a different angle than his allies, or that you can account for the debuff in how you pick/kill targets. So while it's complex it makes interesting situations.

    I think simple complexity (both inwards and out) works best. Death Prophet's ghosts are a great example. They behave very differently from a standard AoE:
    -Fixed Maximum possible DPS that can be focused to single targets or less effectively spread out
    -Deals less damage to fleeing opponents, but as much/more to chasing opponents
    -Deals physical damage (not really something that relies on them being ghosts)
    -Allows to harm towers
    -Heals death prophet at the end of the duration

    In a lot of ways it's a simple spell. DP makes ghosts and you kill DP or get away from the ghosts otherwise your team is taking lots of damage oh and DP heals at the end of the ghosts. That tells you most of what you need to know, but the finer points of the skill has a lot of flexibility and finer details. If I'm playing DP do I chase a hero that's running away, but low on HP or should I turn and focus instead on dealing larger amounts of DPS to targets still in the fight? When do I escape a fight at low hp vs hoping my ghosts return before I die? and so on.

    So it's a somewhat complex skill, but not all that difficult to grasp and the complexities are exposed for an enemy to take advantage of (delayed heal, ghosts doing less dps when you run from them, etc.), but not so much that it's mandatory to know the complexities to do alright vs it.
  8. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    Dual purpose skills are good for the game, as is Shock for MTG.
    People don't like Maokai ultimate and I find it crazy. It's a skill with a high skill ceiling that is amazing gameplay. I love maokai. The fact that how to play the skill optimal is really hard is what makes him fun and interesting. It's not a high dexterity move, nor is maokai. (unlike say nidalee or leblanc), that add a lot of decision. we should be praising Maokai ultimate and asking for more, instead of even thinking it's unsatisfactory.
    If I want actions to be obvius and it's a matter of executing them. I may as well be playing Osu.

    Some skills are RETARDED instead like say Trundle bite. WTF is that. Why is that even a skill? We definitely need more maokai ultimate and less trundle bites. Some skills are there for the purpose of having an active skill than because it's something good to have. The LOL idea that you have to be pressing a key every second for a champ to be fun is retarded.
    Dota has many in Sven, Leoric, and they were among my favorite champs, and many feel the same. But worse when many of these ability have no decision involved like Wukong stick hit I don't know why they are even there.
    Gon and Logo like this.
  9. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    ^^Just play Kassadin... you'll learn to love anything that makes your opponent click more.

    More seriously... I would say that the more abilities there are in the game, the simpler they need to be. It's hard enough to just remember what everyone's ult even is, much less figure out any complicated counters you need to perform or know multiple uses, and their relative importance.

    If LoL wasn't adding a new character every 2 weeks, I might agree with you WaterD. But given that they are doing that... I don't know. I mean, this whole discussion is so far from my actual complaints about the game anyway.
  10. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    I prefer 40 well developed chars. I agree with you. But we have 100. I still prefer 100 interesting chars than 100 bland chars.
  11. acidile

    acidile Member

    I'm a huuuuuge fan of the uniqueness of dota skills, and obviously there are way too many hero releases etc. etc, but do you realy think that the 'use lots of moves' heros are less fun and worse design-wise than their dota counterparts? Really feels like nostalgia to me.

    Like, compare the gameplay of playing sven in lane vs playing brand in lane. I LOVED trying to optimize the 3 stuns that you actually have mana to use in lane as sven, but I reallllly think laning in a game with heros like brand and cass and lead to MUCH more fun and interesting situations than any dota lane matchup.

    LoL just rushes hero releases to make the IRL dollas, which leads to a huge gaps in design-quality from release-to-release, and dumb power-creep. You have stupid shit like Xerath, awfully designed unfun hero that has to be broken for anyone to play him, but also a bunch of really cool heros like maokai, ori, lee etc.
  12. WinterAyars

    WinterAyars Member

    I think the optimal number of characters is in the 20-25 range. I am guessing this is quite a bit lower than what most people would pick, though.

    Riot's business model is clearly damaging the game as a whole. I don't know how much money they're making, or whatever, but this really seems pretty ridiculous. Imagine trying to come into this game now--you'd have to play so much just to get what's currently in the game, let alone keep up with the hero spam.

    Sven and the like were clearly really fun characters, and a lot of people liked using them. Of course, DotA also has Invoker, a character with 10-14 skills depending on how you count. That said, i think the best character ever designed in any of these games is Karthus. He's a pretty extreme design, but really amazing nonetheless. However, Riot is on-record as being opposed to that sort of "simple" design straight up. Their stated goal is (or was) to have all characters with four usable skills. This clearly doesn't happen (ie Kassadin really only has 3), but it's pretty clear that "four" is the target.

    (Edit: In other news, people are making some pretty awful posts in this thread. What the heck happened?)
  13. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    Yeah Karthus was awesome. Really most of the near original heroes were awesome and decently well designed (anivia, annie, Malphite, Amumu, Ashe, Sivir, and at times Soraka).
  14. Majidah

    Majidah Well-Known Member

    I think they still get some hits, fizz seems fun (despite the obviously silly release of 9tails right after), and he has diverse builds, you can even jungle pretty effectively with him. All 4 skills work etc. So it's possible to do it, but yes the game is sort of bloated now.

    I remember way back in the day one of the things the dev who used to post here who's name I can't remember said was that they planned to split format at some point and have "Type 1" and "type 2" like in magic with non-overlapping heroes. I think that's probably not going to happen, but now would be a good time for it.
  15. ryzol

    ryzol Member

    I would prefer a champion every month, with balance patches every 2 weeks. A champion every 2 weeks is silly. As soon as you get used to the new champion they introduce a newer champion who you need to learn.

    I think they've done a decent job with power creep. Some champions are stupid strong on release, but they nerf them fast. I'd say about 3/4 of the champions released in the past 2 months were weak to moderately strong on release.

    The only champions that I think are stupidly strong right now are Skarner, and Xerath.

    The two worst designed champion IMO are Veigar and Leblanc. Veigar punishes AP carries for doing well. Veigar's ultimate has no counter play.

    Leblanc is this bullshit character who wins her lane by a stupid amount. She's an anti-carry with super strong burst which casters cannot live through. However, teams with Leblanc tend to lose the game because she is bad late game. Playing against Leblanc isn't fun. You know she will kill you and there isn't anything you can do about it. However, it doesn't matter because your team will probably win the game.
  16. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    ^^I disagree about both Veigar and Leblanc. I mean, Veigar you accurately described. He's a late game magekiller where most mages in the game are early game powerhouses. That's a valuable type of hero to have. The counter is getting your team better-positioned so he can't hit the opponent he wants with his ult.

    Leblanc's even simpler... just tower hug and retreat to heal if you're ever under 50% health. It feels weird in comparison to the way LoL normally works... but as you said, she can farm as much as she wants and still be useless lategame, so you just let her, and then you catch up later. Playing like that, anyone with a bind or stun tends to kill her easily. Everyone feels safe tower-diving with her because of her two part flash, so you just disable as soon as she goes in for a kill, and she's dead.

    Now... as for actually playing effectively as Leblanc, I don't know... there's a reason she's bottom tier right now. I think she's not completely ineffective if you learn to do things like chain+ultchain in teamfights for a double bind, flash+ultflash for good escapes. She's got a fun skillset, she's just too skewed towards high-damage plus no health right now.
  17. Aesa

    Aesa Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't say bottom tier as she's been banned/picked in multiple games at both of the two biggest recent tournaments (WCG and MLG), whereas over 50% of the champions were not seen in a single game.

    But there are a lot of things you can do vs Leblanc, e.g., opening with 13 HP pots will pretty much guarantee you won't die during laning phase for a mere investment of 455 gold- sounds like a lot until you compare it to the fact the other team made the investment of picking Leblanc.
  18. Eji1700

    Eji1700 Well-Known Member

    I think the simple issue is that riot has multiple reasons to release hero's at a stupid rate-
    1. Money
    2. Competition.

    Dota had years to build it's roster to the level it's at now, and most hero's took 6 months to a year before they were introduced, and then have still had years to be balanced. It's allowed a lot more time for them to smooth things out and work around things that aren't fun(old naix, pudge, original dirge, old bloodseeker, about a million other examples) and turn them into things that are.

    Disregarding things like rupture, knukka's ult, or mana burn as "bad design" is silly. Especially for the reasons given. There are many many scenarios in dota where you're just dead, but none of them are unavoidable, or if they truely are they usually do get nerfed(nerubs mana burn...). Half the joy of the game is knowing there's more long term decisions to handle things and different ways to deal with it. Don't want nerub to mana burn you? Lane against someone else, it's not a 1 on 1 game. Make your picks with that in mind. Buy a sapphire crystal since it's stat based. Multiple solutions to a problem they claim is crippling. Likewise if you don't want to die a horrible death to PL then don't let him farm diffusal blade. Lol doesn't allow that kind of answer and it's a dynamic that kills a lot of the team strategy.

    Nothing has bothered me more than knowing that if a carry's starting to get fed there's practically fuck all i can do about it besides try to out farm them. In dota at the very least I can call for a gank before they get their BF sword equivalent, but in LoL since they don't want anyone to get their feelings hurt you've got no way of stopping that. There's this coddling mindset that is hugely detrimental to the game.

    Hell the mindset of "veigers ult has no counter" is fucking shocking to me. In dota the counter to something like that(finger of death or laguna blade) is don't fucking let them hit you with it. Kill them first, make him waste it on a support tank who's already blown their skills, use illusions, whatever. Hell a lot of those options are available in LoL, but i feel like people don't even bother to think about them because instead you just fall back on the "quick buy more MR" which turns the game into a farm fest.
  19. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    ^^Mostly extremely good points. I think this is wrong though:

    First off, ganking is effective in LoL. You are denying them farm time, maybe significantly less than you would in Dota, but it does matter. But more than that, the answer to LoL carries isn't to try and remove their effectiveness entirely. It's to play around them through good positioning and targeting in team fights. Same as the counter to Veigar we just discussed, heck, he almost is a carry anyway.

    I think overall the fact they allow farming like that is what makes the game work. Bad lane matchups that can't be overcome because you don't happen to own the heroes that would do better aren't game-deciding. It makes certain elements of the game, such as item choice, possibly less dynamic. But it works, and I don't think changing that would really improve anything.
  20. ryzol

    ryzol Member

    Veigar's ult isn't a problem in teamfights. It's a problem in the laning phase. If you stomp Veigar and build AP items Veigar does big damage and can burst you. If Veigar stomps you in the laning phase Veigar buys AP items, does big damage and can burst you. It's lose-lose until teamfights happen.
  21. Shiri

    Shiri Well-Known Member

    Firstly, the four active skills thing is only dumb because for some reason they don't seem to want to diversify. We have TONNES of room for heroes with really interesting skills, we know this because DotA has them and they are eminently copiable. Also HoN, who for a long time had (has? haven't been keeping up) much better hero design than league. I'm entirely on board with WaterD that we need less trundle bites (this stupid "reset attack timer" gimmick isn't actually offensive itself, but it's a ridiculously overused crutch for "riot can't think of an interesting skill so they add this again and pretend it adds nuance") and more Maokai ults.

    Secondly, I would have pegged a different reason for disliking Leblanc. On paper her ult looks really interesting. You would have to think about whether the extended silence, extended bind, or repeated flash is more useful. In practice this doesn't happen, though, because you just WQREW for maximum damage and then are back to safety with the enemy AP dead. Also I find her a bitch to play with because the real challenge is pressing the buttons fast enough rather than quick thinking, but I can't really complain about that since those heroes are in the minority, same as with micro heroes in DotA that I hated playing but don't object to in limited amounts.

    EDIT: And I'm not too sure about Karthus being great. People seem to hate him a lot because if he gets any items (which he will, because he farms really well and gets tonnes of kills) you eat so much goddamn damage from the R, which he WILL get off EVEN IF YOU KILL HIM INSTANTLY.
  22. CWheezy

    CWheezy Well-Known Member

  23. unentschieden

    unentschieden Member

    Since the other points have been adressed I´ll try this one:
    Riot makes a conscious assessment about what a mechanic adds to the game against what it "takes away". I´d argue that is a better qualification compared to "creativity".
    Mana burn as mechanic is frustrating since it´s binary, either it locks down the victim completely or it does nothing at all, either because the target it non-mana or has a lot mana due to items, skillset or bluebuff.
    Secondly Riot deemphasises picking as victory factor compared to other Moabs for 2 core reasons: the unlock champion bussiness model and the fact that poor Team/lane setups are a VERY frustrating experience. The picking "gameplay" isn´t great enough to accept cases where 40 minute matches are complete chores.
  24. Leartes

    Leartes Well-Known Member

    In lower level games picking doesn't matter much since games are decided by who fails least.
    In higher level play picking is a very entertaining part of the game - at least in my opinion.

    Mana burn:
    Mana burn in DotA works well because everyone has mana and even if you don't shutdown your opponents abilities you still deal bonusdamage. I think it is fun to play with and against because it is not gamebreaking and it shuts you down far less than any disables (hex, stun etc) - in a way mana burn is one of the weakest disables in the game, even weaker than silence.
    In LoL it is different because of the different ressources heroes use. Outpicking a mana burn hero by going energy based hero sucks imo because the mana burner neither gets bonus damage nor the disable, he just loses everything. In DotA manaburn is a strong disable vs low mana strength heroes and a good damage amplifier vs high mana intelligence heroes and therefore always viable.
  25. ryzol

    ryzol Member

    How do you play ranged AD on dominion? Do you need a teammate to follow you around and peel?
  26. CWheezy

    CWheezy Well-Known Member

    You get farmed and then you own everyone
  27. unentschieden

    unentschieden Member

    These are two extremes. But even if the playerbase is binary bad picks happen to the good players. One fundamental aspect of competitive games in general is that the winner is uncertain at the beginning of the match. Picking changing the odds is fine to a degree (which increases with skill level).

    Manaburn isn´t a bad mechanic (just) for balance reasons. Thankfully LoL has standarts regarding disables since removing gameplay is a negative trait in general. If it´s short enough there can be counterplay though, like "baiting" a stun in a situation that the enemy can´t follow up on.

    You can come up with a scenario where one guy being unable to use his abilities is fair, maybe the "manadrainer" doesn´t get to use his stuff either. But how would you make that enjoyable to the victim?
    It´s easier for a mechanic to be fair than it is to be fun.
  28. Leartes

    Leartes Well-Known Member

    Let us break this up more. In DotA there are 2 kinds of manadrain relevant to this discussion. Those are an active mana burn ability like nerub, the satyrs in the forest and the necronomicon minions have. Then we have passive manaburn on hit. I consider other mana drain mechanics minor since they only apply in special cases, are rarely used or similar (lion mana drain, silencer, obsidian destroyer stealing your int or pugna ward).

    Now active mana burn only applies to nerub early (or doom eating a satyr early). Here the burn is a nuke as much as a disable/harrassment tool. Also the user has to pay mana making it not strong on doom and costly on nerub (he needs lots of mana reg if he wants to keep mana for stun). Not sure how the consens is on nerub being fun to play with or against but he is definitely not my worst enemy on most heroes. Also getting manaburn via necronomicon should be fine because at the stage of the game where you get it people have too much mana for you to burn it all.

    Therefore the main offender seems to be passive manaburn, either as anti-mage or via diffusal blade. Anti-Mage is the only hero with passiv manaburn available early during the laning stage and he is imo fine. He is melee, easily harrassed and avoided. If your lane is strong/threatening enough he can't do anything. If your lane is weaker you can't do shit anyway. (Trilane morph kills you as easily as trilane antimage kills you, so what - also it is mainly used as damage amplification and not so much for the disable) The only lanes antimage shuts down are melee strength farmer with low manapool and even they can work around the burn with a soulring.
    The other part is diffusal blade and its interaction with images/manta style. Lategame diffu+manta kills most casters easily but not due to mana shortage but due to damage - and other items would do as well. Fast diffu might shut down some lanes if it wasn't so expensive and if it would leave you thin like paper.

    Now most of those arguments are on balance but I think many can be used for fun as well.
    Manaburn is critized for being unfun since it can leave you disabled for a very long time. But I think in reality it happens rarely because most manaburn options are only available after the laning stage where you either have items to refuel your mana (bottle, stick, soulring, arcane boots or similar) or you can go home easily (fast movement with boots, possibly dagger, forcetaff, yasha etc or tp) or your manapool is big enough so that it only serves as damage amplification anyway (most farmed int).
    Then it can happen early in about a handful of matchups but both are fine and fun imo (nerub and anti-mage are melee and not too strong on their own early).

    Finely being able to use stuff is not the main point, it is more about doing stuff that matters.
    Like fighting for 2 min with spamclicking abilities is not as satisfying as doing a well timed chaindisable.
  29. unentschieden

    unentschieden Member

    It´s funny that you say that after explaining how manaburn as a mechanic can be made completely ineffective via items/counterpicks. That is the criticism to manaburn as a mechanic, either it´s frustrating to the victim because it shuts him down or to the user because it does nothing.
    Manaburn is bad because the correct counterplay makes it nonexistant. In LoL the mechanics that work like that are stealth -> oracles (getting reworked) and dodge -> sotd (being removed).

    Arguably also "Bucketbrigade" chainstun -> cleanse/Qss but it´s not supposed to work.

    There is a difference between the amount of damage and manacosts available in Dota and LoL imho. Dota has more damage and manacosts relative to HP and manapool than Lol but also more regeneration options. This results in more "hit or miss" encounters especially in the bought up chaindisable example. That is VERY frustrating to experience since the only gameplay from the victims perspective is to watch yourself die.
    LoLs high totals with (relativly) low regen leans more to consistently strong play instead.
    But that is also a difference in taste about what amounts of attrition vs. execution are the best overall for both players.
  30. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    I think manaburne is not frustrating, but completely unintersting mechanic, I dont think it adds anything to the game, so I really don't mind the hate to a mechanic that doesn't add anything in the first place.
  31. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    @Leartes: You're still making the mistake of trying to explain how the entire situation is reasonable for high-level players how understand what's going on.

    The actual problem with manaburn is that a new player that doesn't even necessarily know that their opponent is stealing their mana ends up standing around, getting told by the game that they can't use any abilities. That's boring and unfun and makes people quit. By your own admission it's essentially irrelevant 9 times out of 10 at expert level play anyway (i.e. is not being used as a disable... and the damage effect can be obtained by giving characters a different option for damage). So why is it good to have???
  32. Leartes

    Leartes Well-Known Member

    It is not like it does nothing, you missunderstand me here. If you manaburn the shacker/sven/insert manadependant strength hero down to zero as anti-mage he can activate soulring to do exactly one ability. Alternatively they can stay back and let you farm to not get burned. Therefore it does change gameplay and it has strategic choices (fast soulring or am I confident to not get owned by mana-burn ? do I roam and not see the anti-mage more than 10s ? etc)

    Finally even if countered completely by items it does big bonus damage (like a mid tier item) and therefore adds a lot to anti-mages midgame carry abilities making him much more interesting than just letting him farm until very late when he has enough damage by items.

    Not sure if dota really has more regenerative options. I think only damage is higher compared to defensive stats. So yes it comes down to hit or miss high burst situations and lots of kills. Not sure why this is bad.
    If you are mid or high level player you understand that you were out of position (as the victim) if you are low level player you are killed in lol as well (except when you manage to flash away ... -.-)

    Anyone will only make that mistake once. I mean you get ult killed by karthus more than once and it feels you can't do anything about it (when you actually can). It is much easier to understand not getting hit by someone is a good thing than not getting hit by some global ability that comes out of nowhere.
    I think you make it too easy on new players, no chaindisable because it can get them killed (just tp out when they don't disable), no harrass, no abilities you don't understand intuitively right away and no frustrating abilities. You end up with a game where you can't kill anyone while it is much more fun to kill stuff and get killed every few minutes. Like imo a good game has a kill every 1-2 minutes (1 per min is better).
  33. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    I think passive manaburn is bad for reasons stated before. Mostly that it's an unlimited potential of removing mana from a target which can easily leave them without mana options (see something like Anti-mage who can take off 300-400 mana quite fast once farmed). A targeted mana-drain works a lot better since it has an upper limit on the damage it can do and is mitigated easily by larger mana pools that occur naturally later on in the game.

    Anyways in Lol it's moot and mana burn is probably 100% bad since not all enemy heroes have mana.

    But one point, and why I quoted unent, is I disagree strongly with the bolded statement. I think disables are WAY more interesting than damage. If you are disabled you may be momentarily incapacitated, but you're not dead. Death is the longest disable in the game. More to the point though, when things are weighed heavily towards damage combat is about mathematical calculations. Combat situations are a lot more fluid and dynamic. I think disabled base combat reduces the slippery slope idea of your hp = your combat power. Being able to team chain disables or land a clutch disable can really help to make a low hp hero still effective in combat. Anyways it's mostly a rant, but I think disables get a bad name in games. Most likely because some games use too long disable durations for what's good in PvP (like WoW), but a game like DotA that relies on 0-4 second stuns works beautifully with disables.
  34. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    I agree with temporal disables being good for the game. But I can't really complain much about. I think lol has a lot more disables than back in the day.
  35. Shiri

    Shiri Well-Known Member

    I just want to say that how BS stuns are has a lot to do with how easily you can be killed in them. In League of Legends, you can sometimes die in the duration of 2 stuns. In DotA you can die in the duration of 1 channeled one easily (bane elemental comes to mind.) In BLC, if you take damage during a stun, -you wake up-. So stuns are free to be 3 seconds long and have damage and even other riders like lifesteal attached on an 8 second cooldown and the tempo doesn't suffer for it.
  36. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    It's channeled which means Bane needs allies to actually get a kill which means you should have allies near you which means they should be able to interrupt the channel effect.

    Plus it's his ult and all....

    You could argue a channeled disable or channeled 1 target disable is bad, but that's a different argument. Even more so for Void's channeled AoE ult.

    I really don't feel like any stuns in DotA feel all that BS to me. The abilities that feel BS tend to be more things like Emerald Warden's (HoN) wolves that when activated will chase you down if you are within 2000 (I think) range even through fog. Basically things that seem to not play much into positioning or other skills.

    Maybe Valk's arrow with the upper limit of 5 seconds, but it's dodged so easily in most situations it doesn't seem like a problem.
  37. Shiri

    Shiri Well-Known Member

    I don't have any complaints with bane elemental just like I don't have any complaints with maokai ult or kunkka ship. The only time there's potential for a problem is when newbies are completely locked out of a fight because they're stunned right up until they're dead. The point I was making is that duration of stuns isn't the only factor here, you don't have to have much shorter stuns like in League because there are options like making CC a "control" thing rather than a "kill more efficiently" thing, as in BLC. That said, that's only for MOBAs generally, BLC is all teamfight all the time so the same effect wouldn't be as good in League because of the way everything's set up.
  38. Cauldrath

    Cauldrath Member

    Personally, gameplay-wise, I'd rather get hit by something that reduces my damage and movespeed by 50% for 4 seconds than something that stunned (or, worse, suppressed) me for 2, even though they would have a similar effect. Did Zileas ever talk about stuff like Warwick and Malzahar's ults with relation to antifun to fun?
  39. plumlum

    plumlum Well-Known Member

    How'd you do?
  40. Leartes

    Leartes Well-Known Member

    Agree I prefer getting hit by slow and debuff as well. But not because of some strange fun reason - I think slows are more unfun than stuns simply because slow usually lead to a slow death where you run around permaslowed until you finally die after 20s of running while knowing you can't make it. Rubs it in much harder than a fast clean death. No I only prefer slows because they leave me the option to flash over a wall or if I play dota I can burst the enemy with all I got and hope for a returnkill.
    It is a massive difference if I can attack an enemy initiator with stun or with slow. With stun I can kill him and dominate until he respawns with slow he will just do his combo and potentially wreck my team (at least force them back to heal afterwards).
  41. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    Slows leave you open to still cast spells which means it's not the same at all. It allows you to do many things like slow your opponent or blink away (as mentioned). If it's -magic damage as well as physical then it's WORSE than a stun in some ways because it leaves you open to blow your cooldowns without dealing damage, if it's not then it only affects a fraction of the cast. I really don't see any compelling case for restricting disables. The only argument seems to be new players find it unfun because they, "can't do anything", but that's simply a problem of player education, something MOBAs across the board are awful at.
  42. unentschieden

    unentschieden Member

    No amount of "education" will change the lack of counterplay when someone is stunned 100->0. The victim of a chaindisable is nothing but a chunk of HP, no skill in any of the MOBAs is challenging to hit or time against a target that can´t move, attack or cast.
    The very basic model for an encounter is both partys get to use their abilities and the side that maximised the effects of their abilities and minimised the effects of the enemies wins. Chaindisables remove the victims ability to minimise and thus also the challenge in maximising.
  43. PeterBB

    PeterBB Member

    @Laertes: Lack of possible counterplay is one of the main definitions of "anti-fun", in the LoL sense. That's one of the main things that the developers bring up when they discuss whether a particular ability is anti-fun.
  44. Leartes

    Leartes Well-Known Member

    And they do it rightfully so!

    If you are in the position to get chaindisabled and killed without your team capitalising on the fact that the opponent blow all they have on you, then you're badly out of position and deserve to die no matter what.
    Heroes that can be completely out of position and survive even ganked 4v1 are a pain to deal with and bad for the metagame. Just remember the morph/dusa farm metagame of 70+ min games with 10 kills - it sucked. There are more hard to kill carries like Weaver at the moment and he is very very unfun to play against. Imo a worse offender than Lion or Rhasta therefore I think defensive skill might be more unfun than stuns - I mean in terms of a sum over all fun aspects minus all anti-fun aspects (same problem with old vanguard making everyone tank).

    Stun is a neccessary tool as long as you don't want to give higher damage nukes that kill heroes before they can press a key or remove most defensive abilities.

    I agree it is unfun for a beginner to get chainstunned to death, but beginners don't play vs competent teams that can properly chain their stuns. Beginners should play other beginners so they don't get raped and as soon as they are no total beginners anymore they should learn about positioning and understand their mistake when they die.

    It is like saying there should be no combos in a fighting game because it sucks being hit two times for leaving an opening a single time.

    Maybe fog of war should be visually pronouced stronger so that new players pay more attention to it and realise faster that they are in an unsafe spot ?
    Logo likes this.
  45. Cauldrath

    Cauldrath Member

    The thing is - this is a game commonly played with random PUGs. If I initiate combat (or, worse, someone initiates combat on me and I attack them while they are out of position) and immediately get chain disabled, then A. my team capitalizes and wins or B. my team runs away and I die for no reason. Either way, I'm sitting there doing nothing for the entire duration and I just get to hope for the best.

    This is actually worse because you are more likely to get chain disabled when the enemy team sees you as a threat and there isn't much you can do to stop an entire team that is out to get you. Sure, they should get mauled when they all run past your entire front line to get you in the back, but they'll still likely get there. Sure, while they're focusing down my tank or tanky dps in the front, the carries can happily sit in the back, doing their mad deeps. This is, of course, assuming they don't all scatter like leaves in the breeze. Either way, doing better means less time to play, even if it does mean your team should win.

    This is also a huge turnoff for people in fighting games. I don't like being in or doing a long combo and I have a friend who would refuse to play me in MvC3 because even the most basic lmhsmmhs combos take so long to complete.
  46. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    Yeah the combo thing is awfull anology i hate combos in fighting game so so so much.
  47. CWheezy

    CWheezy Well-Known Member

    I won, and am now world champion
  48. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    I think Cauld is making up situations more or less. It's incredibly rare for you to be in the best possible position you can AND be chain disabled for 100% of your health. In fact, by definition, if you're able to get chain disabled you are probably in a bad position. If you are an initiator you likely have a stun or tons of survivability, in fact both are more or less requirements for being a initiator. If you are anything else you're going to position in a way so that the entire enemy team can't hit you. So when playing well it's rarely an issue of being chain disabled. When playing poorly you might get caught and die by chain disables, but that's still an education problem.

    So basically the complaint seems to be that if, in a team game, people want to ruin your day by focusing you at the expense of their team's success they can. Well so what, there's like 100 ways for people in a MOBA to ruin your game.

    I would love to see videos of skilled players getting chain disabled without making a positioning mistake.
    Leartes likes this.
  49. Waterd103

    Waterd103 Well-Known Member

    If you got chain disabled without moving two options could happen 1. You got caught oop 2. The entire team died and you did 1 for 5
  50. unentschieden

    unentschieden Member

    You don´t see it because any CC in LoL rarely exceeds 2 seconds and players can pick up cleanse and QSS. Remember the discussion isn´t "less CC in LoL" but "why can´t they make a 7 second AOE CC ult in LoL, Dota has stuff in that direction".

Share This Page