I mean, here we have bruisers becoming completely immobile, and yet riot come along and release not only a hard cc champion, but a champion who makes the game a WHOLE lot harder to balance (because of the items upgrade passive).
I'm not hating on the new champion, but i think its way too early to release a champion like this.
SEKAI12 votesWhen Riot did just that last year (or 2 years ago), people complained that they don't release new champs and just reworking old ones.
It's really hard to satisfy contradictory conditions, if not impossible.
Painted Celt3 votesYep. There are different people who want different things. I personally want more champion releases, because they keep the game fresh and interesting. Other people, like the original poster, want fewer champion releases because they can potentially introduce chaos to the game balance. While some people dislike change (which is one reason the meta is so strongly enforced), others get bored easily and enjoy things shaking up. Riot is forced to find a balance between the two in order to appease the majority.
One thing to keep in mind is that fewer champion releases may not even significantly improve balance because the balance team is separate from the champion development team, and there are other factors like new strategies surfacing and item changes, etc. that will test the game balance. Some people would like for Riot to stop releasing champions, stop adding items, and to crush any new 'omg broken!' new strategy/cheese/meta-breaking that gets noticed so that they don't need to adapt. To me, that sounds like a stagnant and dead game...
SEKAI1 votesYes and no.
Riot would have to stop champ releases at some point once most of the lore and gameplay fantasies are adequately explored. It's not plausible for Riot to just release champs forever for many obvious reasons; this game would probably have to stop rolling the roster at 200 champs at most.
The game also won't just die once we are there.
........
I do tend to agree on the other aspects you've mentioned.
Painted Celt1 votesI think the only real cap on the number of champions that can exist is human imagination. Admittedly, the game as-is may be limited to a certain number, but the game is continually evolving. I can imagine that if this game lasts several decades and continues to develop and evolve that we could end up with 500-1,000 champions, just as the Nintendo brands have continually expanded their pool of characters, including over 250 Pokemon alone when only counting their first generation. There are differences between League champions and Nintendo characters/Pokemon, but there are also parallels.
In order to have continued expansion, some things will need to eventually change of course. In 15 years, balancing a pool of 1,000 champions with 1,000 items on 10 game modes may require the help of deep-learning AI to analyze statistics and provide insights for example. Also, there may become separate champion pools for different game modes in the distant future. This is all speculation and it's hard to guess at the distant future, but my point is anything is possible as long as Riot avoids stagnation. It could also be possible to continue to develop without expanding the champion pool past 200 champion, but we don't need to think that there is a reachable upper limit.
AirKingNeo1 votes???
Riot didn't do that last year.
bàn3 votesYes. We JUST got Kayn and Nugot (new urgot xd) a few weeks back. Riot digs themselves into these deep holes where champions need reworks because of these new gimmicky champs. How many unique champs have they killed with reworks just so that they can compete with the new champs? It's bullshit.
Modnar Erom3 votesOne needs to understand that Riot no longer "balances" the game (maybe they never did). It simply is not in their financial interest. Instead they just shuffle the imbalance around periodically to keep the game "fresh". Basically, that means nerfing some champions into oblivion and buffing others to OP on a fairly regular basis. The game will never enter a state where all champions are essentially balanced by design.
I Q1 votesPeople would get bored of league if it was always perfectly balanced, because you would never be able to add anything new, or update old things.
SEKAI4 votes[{quoted}](name=Hadóuken Jukin,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=4NPcwMco,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2017-08-15T16:46:03.008+0000)
People would get bored of league if it was always perfectly balanced, because you would never be able to add anything new, or update old things.
This is bulls.
Who the hell wants a game that's intentionally unbalanced?
Who gets bored of a game when it's balanced?
Who the hell believes that being balanced means there's less dynamics in the game than the otherwise? Do you think 20% of champs being competitive is a good thing in comparison to 90%?
Why do you think so many pros left Hearthstone, because you know, the game is utterly broken and UNBALANCED as all hell? And is too busy "adding new things/add better cards" and "update old things/nerf old cards"?
I Q2 votesEvery online ranked game that can be unbalanced, is unbalanced. There are top tier characters in everygame, league included.
If literally everything was perfectly balanced, the game would become stale extremely quickly, because the game would never change. There would never be anything new, any new events, nothing.
Hearthstone was TOO unbalanced, it is also a game of luck.
SEKAI6 votes[{quoted}](name=Hadóuken Jukin,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=4NPcwMco,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-15T17:01:41.808+0000)
Every online ranked game that can be unbalanced, is unbalanced. There are top tier characters in everygame, league included.
If literally everything was perfectly balanced, the game would become stale extremely quickly, because the game would never change. There would never be anything new, any new events, nothing.
Hearthstone was TOO unbalanced, it is also a game of luck.
Your logic baffles me.
If a game is perfectly balanced, it means literally anything is possible within the boundary of the game. It won't mean the game is stale, it will mean all sorts of crazy shit are all cool to do, because the game allows that to be viable. It means everything is changing different game.
Shoehorning balance means ONLY the favoured gets to be more powerful, which is the antithesis of being different, new or exciting.
What you're stuck in, is this fallacy that believes being balanced somehow means the bucket gets smaller. Here's the deal:
Imagine there are 2 buckets, both filled with candies. A balanced game is a bucket full of delicious candies, each and every single one of them. An unbalanced game is that other bucket that only has a couple delicious ones and the rest taste like crap.
The unbalanced bucket would change its content every now and then, but it will still be the same, only a select few are delicious and rest are terrible.
So yeah the balanced game is ""stale"" in a sense and in comparison to the unbalaned game, but the "change" is both entirely arbitrary AND NOT HELPING THE GAME. Because a bucket where only a couple candies are actually good is a shit candy bucket.
Just because you have to pick a choose which candy to eat in the second bucket as most candies in that bucket are crap, does not mean the first bucket is more "stale", it means it's a better bucket with more flavours, possibilities and quality.
The Pr0taku1 votesYour logic baffles me.
If a game is perfectly balanced, it means literally anything is possible within the boundary of the game. It won't mean the game is stale, it will mean all sorts of crazy shit are all cool to do, because the game allows that to be viable. It means everything is changing different game.
Shoehorning balance means ONLY the favoured gets to be more powerful, which is the antithesis of being different, new or exciting.
What you're stuck in, is this fallacy that believes being balanced somehow means the bucket gets smaller. Here's the deal:
Imagine there are 2 buckets, both filled with candies. A balanced game is a bucket full of delicious candies, each and every single one of them. An unbalanced game is that other bucket that only has a couple delicious ones and the rest taste like crap.
The unbalanced bucket would change its content every now and then, but it will still be the same, only a select few are delicious and rest are terrible.
So yeah the balanced game is ""stale"" in a sense and in comparison to the unbalaned game, but the "change" is both entirely arbitrary AND NOT HELPING THE GAME. Because a bucket where only a couple candies are actually good is a shit candy bucket.
Just because you have to pick a choose which candy to eat in the second bucket as most candies in that bucket are crap, does not mean the first bucket is more "stale", it means it's a better bucket with more flavours, possibilities and quality.
@Riot ^
Ahristocats2 votes[{quoted}](name=Hadóuken Jukin,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=4NPcwMco,comment-id=0003000000000000,timestamp=2017-08-15T17:01:41.808+0000)
If literally everything was perfectly balanced, the game would become stale extremely quickly
escuse me? 138^5 is over 100 000 000 000 strategies reduce it by half because you can play a champion in 2 or 3 lanes at best, if the game is balanced you would need over 10 years to discover everything
without counting new champs and new changes
ZephyrDrake1 votes[{quoted}](name=i am Rubick Sama,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=4NPcwMco,comment-id=00030000000000000001,timestamp=2017-08-15T17:17:47.453+0000)
escuse me? 138^5 is over 100 000 000 000 strategies reduce it by half because you can play a champion in 2 or 3 lanes at best, if the game is balanced you would need over 10 years to discover everything
without counting new champs and new changes
yep so many strategies... that will never be used. You do know that you can use those same amount of strategies now right? if you are adding new things tell me please how will the game be balanced? every single thing no matter how small you add will risk (and more often than not is going to) unbalance the game all over again.
SEKAI1 votesyep so many strategies... that will never be used. You do know that you can use those same amount of strategies now right? if you are adding new things tell me please how will the game be balanced? every single thing no matter how small you add will risk (and more often than not is going to) unbalance the game all over again.
You missed the point of game balance.
You can go 5 man mid in this game, but that doesn't mean it's a legitimate strategy supported by the game because it's balanced intentionally to now allow it (it will fall apart if the enemy team can stall the game for more than 5-10 min which is not exactly hard).
If we re talking about the absolute pinnacle balance if this game, there WILL be supports for pulling strats like that. And it WILL be used as a legitimate strategy.
Just because you may perhaps not personally use other strategies, it doesn't mean it's not present.
I mean, you're not even making much sense yourself. Between 2 assumed cases, one an utterly balanced game and the other not so, why are you so sure that a bigger game with more strategic freedom is "yep so many strategies... that will never be used", but IMMEDIATELY after that you defend the lesser game with less strategic freedom and general viability and say "You do know that you can use those same amount of strategies now right".
ZephyrDrake1 votesThis is bulls.
Who the hell wants a game that's intentionally unbalanced?
Who gets bored of a game when it's balanced?
Who the hell believes that being balanced means there's less dynamics in the game than the otherwise? Do you think 20% of champs being competitive is a good thing in comparison to 90%?
Why do you think so many pros left Hearthstone, because you know, the game is utterly broken and UNBALANCED as all hell? And is too busy "adding new things/add better cards" and "update old things/nerf old cards"?
hearthstone was going to lose people regardless, it's not a new player friendly game in the slightest. You are also comparing a CARD game to a MOBA... card games don't really balance old things, they just move on and add new cards. That is literally every single card game in existence. It is insanely rare for a card game to go back and "buff" old card. Hearthstone failed because it is horrible for new players, and old players don't really have much of an incentive to keep playing.
A game that is perfectly balanced means that you are pretty much unable to add anything new at all since even the slightest thing you add or change even if it's a bug fix can cause such a huge change that will unbalance the game. League is an ever changing game, new champions are brought all the time, new modes are made, balances are done everywhere. It changes every so often with patches. For you to try and balance a game like this and have it be the perfectly balanced is something that is nearly impossible since you change one little thing somewhere and it affects some other part of game balance to such huge degrees elsewhere. So you have to essentially constantly balance the game all over the place until you magically reach that perfect balance in which case it means "never touch anything ever again and wait for the game to slowly die away" People will eventually grow bored of it, people will eventually be hooked by the other more shiny game even if it's unbalanced. Perfectly balanced games are predictable and dull after a while, there would be zero reason for riot to even communicate with us at all.
You can pretend all you want about how a perfectly balanced game is the best thing ever but it's not something you ever want to see if you are someone who is constantly adding new things to the game
SEKAI2 votesA game that is perfectly balanced means that you are pretty much unable to add anything new at all since even the slightest thing you add or change even if it's a bug fix can cause such a huge change that will unbalance the game.
Refer to my "candy bucket" analogy in the other reply here.
Essentially, I ask whether or not you like a bucket pretty much full of delicious candies all at your finger tips to try at your own leisure, or do you want the other bucket that has about just as many candies but only a few of them are good and rest are bad as well as having its content change on a basis (so you also can't go back to taste that other delicious candy in this second bucket; well you could, but it won't taste as good as when it's delicious).
Anyone would say that the first bucket is superior. Because the second bucket is utterly limiting, and its "change" is arbitrary and only harming the enjoyment of the person eating the candy.
This is the same deal.
.............
People won't get bored of the game if you can tri-lane, double-jungle, all-mid, whatever and 90% of champs are competitive from the very get go. The fallacy you're banking on can only ever work if the said 2 "buckets" are of different sizes to begin with, where the "unbalanced" bucket's "tasty bits" are as much as the ENTIRE bucket of the "balanced"; which ofc, is nowhere near the case, because League won't just suddenly shrink its possibilities and dynamics just because it's actually balanced one day, it will only increase it. Why? Because there are more tasty candies in the bucket now. Why is this a bad thing?
What people will actually get bored by, is when you have to pray on a weekly basis that your champ don't get gutted again, or that your champ don't get so blatantly OP because of Riot's attempt to "make it fun" and your champ became permabanned (Zac knows that feel), or that you're playing the same team comp and general strategy over and over and over and over and over again because that's the only competitive way to play the game, that every champ only has 1 way to actually play them competitively and the rest are different degrees of troll-builds, and that champs' relevance where they rise to glority or fall to the ditch is mostly based on forced meta shifts (such as through item changes) alone.
I HIGHLY disagree with what you're arguing there.
ZephyrDrake1 votesRefer to my "candy bucket" analogy in the other reply here.
Essentially, I ask whether or not you like a bucket pretty much full of delicious candies all at your finger tips to try at your own leisure, or do you want the other bucket that has about just as many candies but only a few of them are good and rest are bad as well as having its content change on a basis (so you also can't go back to taste that other delicious candy in this second bucket; well you could, but it won't taste as good as when it's delicious).
Anyone would say that the first bucket is superior. Because the second bucket is utterly limiting, and its "change" is arbitrary and only harming the enjoyment of the person eating the candy.
This is the same deal.
.............
People won't get bored of the game if you can tri-lane, double-jungle, all-mid, whatever and 90% of champs are competitive from the very get go. The fallacy you're banking on can only ever work if the said 2 "buckets" are of different sizes to begin with, where the "unbalanced" bucket's "tasty bits" are as much as the ENTIRE bucket of the "balanced"; which ofc, is nowhere near the case, because League won't just suddenly shrink its possibilities and dynamics just because it's actually balanced one day, it will only increase it. Why? Because there are more tasty candies in the bucket now. Why is this a bad thing?
What people will actually get bored by, is when you have to pray on a weekly basis that your champ don't get gutted again, or that your champ don't get so blatantly OP because of Riot's attempt to "make it fun" and your champ became permabanned (Zac knows that feel), or that you're playing the same team comp and general strategy over and over and over and over and over again because that's the only competitive way to play the game, that every champ only has 1 way to actually play them competitively and the rest are different degrees of troll-builds, and that champs' relevance where they rise to glority or fall to the ditch is mostly based on forced meta shifts (such as through item changes) alone.
I HIGHLY disagree with what you're arguing there.
you can disagree all you want. Doesn't mean anything to me.
The Lexer1 votesNobody makes a game that's intentionally unbalanced. The fact is, it is impossible to perfectly balance a game. Yes, Riot sometimes makes the wrong decisions about balance, but I'm willing to bet not a single person can perfectly balance this game. Every change that is made screws up the balance somewhere else.
Also, if the game was the same every time you played, people would get bored a lot faster. This is one reason games slowly die out after they haven't been changed for a while.
SEKAI1 votes[{quoted}](name=The Lexer,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=4NPcwMco,comment-id=0003000000000002,timestamp=2017-08-16T01:47:09.164+0000)
Nobody makes a game that's intentionally unbalanced.
Riot does, whenever esports are concerned anyway. This is why "buff for worlds" is actually a thing in this game, as questionable as it sounds.
The fact is, it is impossible to perfectly balance a game. Yes, Riot sometimes makes the wrong decisions about balance, but I'm willing to bet not a single person can perfectly balance this game. Every change that is made screws up the balance somewhere else.
This doesn't mean the game can be hilariously imbalanced as it has been on and off for almost a decade. No one is expecting the game to be completely balanced, because we need to have realistic expectations. However, this does not excuse the fact Riot seems to have this faction in the balance team that is constantly and intentionally doing stupid shit.
The game's balance is not great, not by a long shot. It's actually quote bad. This doesn't even have anything to do with the realistic boundary of game balance, we're NOWHERE near that yet so please do not being that up.
This game has a long term and significant balance issue, and it can and has to be addressed.
Also, if the game was the same every time you played, people would get bored a lot faster. This is one reason games slowly die out after they haven't been changed for a while.
This is a fallacy, as I've elaborated in the other comments here. It's a fallacy that only works if the unbalanced game is vastly and several times larger in possibilities and dynamics than the other more balanced game, which is a stupid assumption to make especially when we're talking about one and the same game just its more and less balanced self. In this situation, it's a choice between 2 buckets of the same size where one is full of good candies while the only only has a few and the rest are crap.
There are no sensible person who would actually prefer the second bucket.
Games go into death spiral because of other factors such as infrequent updates, lack of contents, no feedback and communication from devs, the lack of sustaining playerbase population, technical limitations etc. Never because a game is more balanced, and somehow that itself is driving people away.
I never get how it is even possible to subscribe to the rationale that a more broken game is better, and that people actually prefer a game that's more BS and unfair to play, not even talking about wacky fun sandbox but competitive games. Because that is not the case at all. Come on.
Support Position2 votesYES PLEASE
BushWacker2 votesThere's to many champs now to ever be balanced...they created a monster that can no longer be controlled
DemiluniS1 votesThe balance state of the game was even worse when there were only 40 champions, your point?
Kloqdq2 votesCan we just talk about how Riot has different teams that work on different aspects of the game...?
Like how we have a champion development team AND a balance team? Champions need to get release to help make a profit and the game is balanced out the best it can with the numerous moving factors. League will almost never be balanced because as it always has been, when one thing falls out, new stuff comes rolling right in. You will always be at a state of the game having highs and lows and the champions will go up and down as it happens.
New champions do often shake things up but it's still good for the game. People can get attached to new champions and it draws people in or helps people stay interested. Ornn is just going to do the same as did Kayn, as did Urgot, as did Ivern, as did Galio, and so on.
Talking about Ornn for a second here, the item upgrades are legit like 20 AD or 100 mana. If you think that will break the game you seriously need to understand how effective that stat will be. You will legit hit some with 5 more damage. The only one getting a lot of benefit from it is APs with Deathcap and Deathcap is super ineffective right now.
Kyunsei1 votesThey used to have 3 teams on new champions and 2 teams on Rework, for next year they said that the 3 teams on new champion will now work on Rework too (and also new champions, but they will be less of them, I guess 2 for next year alongside at least 5 VGU and 3 GU)
Modnar Erom1 votesWho the hell wants a game that's intentionally unbalanced?
Riot. And the reasons should be fairly obvious. I don't want to go into too much detail here, but Riot's primary objective is to make money (sine qua non). It shouldn't be too difficult to figure out why they do what they do. Listen to any pro interview over the last 2-3 years when they are asked about balance.... They get it. You either get with the soup du jour or get left behind....
78971 votesThey need to release champs every two weeks again, I need more mobility champs maybe another yasuo or two kind of champ because edgy is cool!!!
Arakadia1 votesI'm tired of people saying bruisers cannot move at all in team fights. Someone literally said earlier, "You. Are. Not. Allowed. To. Move.".
Yes mercs suck, yes there are too many displacements and all that. But if brusiers were CC locked all the time, meaning no one else is getting CC'd, then they would all have incredibly low winrates.
TimX24968B1 votestry balancing a 10-sided see-saw with 140+ boxes of all different shapes and sizes and weights. then try to balance a game like this.
