Fundemantal disagreement with the idea of an ever changing game

DarkinPrime··1 votes·971 views

I am not opposed to the game having small changes here and there, but the reason any game stands the test of time is its consistency...people play for life because they can count on the game being the game. Such as chess or texas hold'em.

Those games are not like league, but the idea still remains---why should players keep REINVESTING their time to learn a game they already learned because things change? It grows tiresome.

The changes Riot makes to attract new players could easily be also making many players quit. So they trade old players for new players, in a never ending process.

I think that the integrity of the game can only be preserved if changes are less frequent, small and done grudgingly.

And the changes should be made within the confines of a defined metric, that I don't believe Riot has. They look at little imbalances, interaction flaws...and adjust based on those, which creates the need for new adjustments.

The game is all over the place every season because they aren't grounded.

There should be metrics that define an ideal state, and it should look something like:

1)Average game time is X. So adjustments on the game map, minions, gold etc can only be made as long as that average remains at the ideal time 2)Pick rates must remain between x and x %. So changes to champions that cause them to be played very little or too much will show themselves to be wrong. 3)Ban rates can be no more than x%. 4)Late game champions can win no more than x% of matches that end under x time 5)Early game champions can win no more than x% of matches that go longer than x time

etc etc.

This guide rails would keep the game much more diverse, as more champions would have be more viable in more team comps in order for these numbers to be met. That would make the game more fun and more interesting. The changes needed to achieve this "balance" would be more easily identified.

INSTEAD it seems that Riot leaves popular champions unchanged who are quite toxic and unfun to play against simply because they are popular. If old Aatrox was one of the most popular champs, they never would have said shit about his kit being toxic or bad for the game. That was just the excuse and the reason why they aren't really ever doing to touch Yasuo Jax and others.

6 Comments

Eleshakai3 votes

I mean, it's perfectly reasonable to not agree with the concept of an ever-changing game... but Riot has chosen the design philosophy of an ever-changing game, so if you have a fundamental disagreement with that, then League is simply the wrong game for you.

Eleshakai1 votes

{quoted}

https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/UKbdRPkA-let-me-explain-something-to-you-players-moderators-and-rioters-about-changing-a-game-too-much

That post explains my position better

My response is still the same though...

Riot has chosen their balancing philosophy, and a lot of players like it.(Although most of us agree that during the early part of this season they went a little overboard on the change) If you don't like the concept of what they're doing... and it bothers you on a fundamental level, you may wish to move on and find a game more in line with what you're looking for.

DarkinPrime1 votes

That's fine. And I will move on, but I think they are wrong for doing it on multiple levels. The market will prove it out in the years to come one way or the other.

Kyaza1 votes

issue is Riot tries to balance around whats fun to interact with. they dont have some overarching meta. otherwise you would never succeed on some champs. however they need to balance the fun for both sides. Yasuo may feel opresive to lane against but there are clear ways to shut him down. same with Jax, therefore making it fun for the Yas pplayer if they can get ahead. while still giving the person playing vs them plenty of counterplay.

DarkinPrime1 votes

There were ways to shut old Aatrox down too, quite easily. But that didn't matter.

More from Gameplay

More by DarkinPrime