an idea on balancing champions for S10

TortillaThePun·Nov 14, 2019·1 votes·1,343 views

What if all champions had a cost and teams can only get a certain amount of points. This way Riot could purposefully have strong champions that cost a lot of points to get on a team and then the rest of the team would have to sacrifice by getting other weaker champions. This could also be used as a means to balance certain champions that are hard to balance. This is also similar to how Counter Strike works were the guns themselves aren't really balanced by comparing them to other guns but they are balanced by cost. This could also lead to interesting dynamics in pro play especially if a team could use unused points from say game 1 to be used in game 2.

5 Comments

JamareeNov 14, 20191 votes

Two problems with that, people coming to a consensus on their champion's strength and number and people not wanting to be punished for wanting to play their champion because they are strong. What about those people who stuck with champions when they were weak and are only now getting punished for sticking with them through thick and thin now that they are strong, how is that fair?

TortillaThePunNov 14, 20191 votes

the game is about teamwork and stratetgy in the first place. People already get punished for picking certain things but with this method if you pick something that's weaker that allows your team to play stronger things and if you pick something stronger then that itself would make you happy. Also I say stronger and weaker but it's not like Riot would intentionally make one star champions that are more useless then season 2 supports.

Also it would be a benefit to people who stick to champions through thick and thin because even if the game stays with the same champions and balance as now the only difference is that it would be a benefit to your team now to be good at a champion that would be considered weaker or less costly. This could also help people who want to play certain roles that in certain seasons can't be played because the meta doesn't fit them. For instance assasains or tanks which in certain seasons might not be as viable because there weak but if they have lower costs associated with them when there weaker then it wouldn't feel as bad to play something that's not in the meta.

The only thing I could see bad is if Riot had a hard time placing good costs on champions and gave low costs to broken champions and high costs to weak champions so that people who would usually play the weak champions would feel super punished for it and would get flamed by teamates and people who would pick the broken champions would also have the low cost to help there teamates get even further ahead. But as good thought is put into costs I feel like there is no downside to it.

JamareeNov 14, 20191 votes

{quoted}

the game is about teamwork and stratetgy in the first place. People already get punished for picking certain things but with this method if you pick something that's weaker that allows your team to play stronger things and if you pick something stronger then that itself would make you happy. Also I say stronger and weaker but it's not like Riot would intentionally make one star champions that are more useless then season 2 supports.

That's a real nice thought process in theory but most people aren't willing to do that. Most people aren't willing to hamstring themselves just to make others happy, there is a reason why supports (unless one gets released) is one of the least played roles in the game. Most people don't want to be that pushover for others.

Also it would be a benefit to people who stick to champions through thick and thin because even if the game stays with the same champions and balance as now the only difference is that it would be a benefit to your team now to be good at a champion that would be considered weaker or less costly.

Right until their champion gets a buffed or the meta shifts in their favor, is deemed too strong and they suddenly are once again...being punished for maining their champion.

This could also help people who want to play certain roles that in certain seasons can't be played because the meta doesn't fit them. For instance assasains or tanks which in certain seasons might not be as viable because there weak but if they have lower costs associated with them when there weaker then it wouldn't feel as bad to play something that's not in the meta.

Again, nice thought on paper, doesn't work in practice because of the multiple elos which elo would we even bracket this concept around?

But as good thought is put into costs I feel like there is no downside to it.

You say that until all main champions get high costed, you can't play them, and then you would complain about the system.

TortillaThePunNov 14, 20191 votes

well it would make first pick a nice thing to get again. Sure you wouldn't always be able to get your favorite stuff everygame but that's true even now. It's also true in Counter Strike it kinda sucks when you don't get what you want but I think there's a way to make it super fun when you get what you want and for it to not be bad if you don't get what you need. This could also be better supplemented if Riot added the MMR system into pick order again like they did in the past where first picks on the team were the people who had the highest elo. Then this gave the lower people less reason to complain about having a game they might not enjoy as much. In the end this is a team game and there's no reason to play a team game if there's no actual team aspect to the gameplay. I feel like the game suffers because people think of the game as more of a 1v1 rather then a team effort so everyone plays the game like a 1v1 and through that lense people play how they feel is the correct way to play and then they get mad when there team does other things or there plans don't work how they want them to. I think this is a good way to make the game more team oriented and in a good way. Not every single person can have the funniest or best position when playing a team game like a Moba and trying to make everyone special has made it where no one is special and people just get angry at each other. I think it would be a good direction for the game to play around the first pickers in solo que and to have those players be the highest MMR people in that current game so that it wouldn't feel like your supporting a garbage teamate or something.
you keep saying people would get punished for having there best champion buffed I feel like it's not really a bad thing to complain about your champion being to strong.
They can litterally base it of the same way they do it now plat and higher. In lower elo these things litterally would have about no noticeable effect because there not good enough for champion pick to matter to a high degree. Then if Riot wanted they could theoritcally have the costs change automatically for differnt elo's based on winrate in those elo's
that only applies now. Just like how people can get away with only maining adc or top lane now when in the past when there was no positional Que you had to know several positions. If they took away positional Que people would complain for a while but eventually they would learn multiple roles again. The same could be said for champions are in a bad spot you would just learn champions that aren't in a bad spot and you keep working off the assumption that having a higher cost champion is a bad thing you would still be able to play those champions fairly often in solo que especially if you get one of the early picks. Then it also wouldn't necessarily feel as bad to be a later pick sense that would give you the ability to better counterpick.

In the end a lot of these things also depend on the cost discrepancy for champions as well like your assuming some champions would be super high and others super low and the low are basically useless and the high are untouchable God's or something. Which Riot if they wanted I guess could do that but there really are many ways to do it. They could have the champions barely have any cost different but the effects be just enough to impact the game slightly. You say things like on paper or theoritcally things might sound good or bad but I feel like maybe it's you who doesn't seem to think that maybe your own criticisms only sound good on paper. We don't really know unless we try what is actually good or bad to a 100% degree, but I do know that it seems to be a highly agreed upon thing that every season should have massive changes and people seem to think it's good for the game and if it's so I feel like this would be a good change to try. Though maybe my idea really isn't as good as I would like to think but I think it's a good idea to try and criticisms are good to try and make the idea better but I just hope you don't shut it out of your mind completely even if you think the idea isn't entirely fleshed out or has some flaws.

JamareeNov 14, 20191 votes

{quoted}

well it would make first pick a nice thing to get again. Sure you wouldn't always be able to get your favorite stuff everygame but that's true even now. It's also true in Counter Strike it kinda sucks when you don't get what you want but I think there's a way to make it super fun when you get what you want and for it to not be bad if you don't get what you need.

You aren't considering the flip side is the problem. Sure, it's great for first pick, and horrible for last pick. Why should they be punished...just because.

This could also be better supplemented if Riot added the MMR system into pick order again like they did in the past where first picks on the team were the people who had the highest elo. Then this gave the lower people less reason to complain about having a game they might not enjoy as much.

In what world would they complain less, if anything, they would complain more because they are far more likely to be shafted for not getting to play what they want to play?

In the end this is a team game and there's no reason to play a team game if there's no actual team aspect to the gameplay. I feel like the game suffers because people think of the game as more of a 1v1 rather then a team effort so everyone plays the game like a 1v1 and through that lense people play how they feel is the correct way to play and then they get mad when there team does other things or there plans don't work how they want them to. I think this is a good way to make the game more team oriented and in a good way.

And you think placing an arbitrary number on who can and can't be picked would lessen this? It would make it worst if anything, people would start bitching about how their teams refuse to spare enough points to let them play what they want. It would become MORE dog eat dog not less.

Not every single person can have the funniest or best position when playing a team game like a Moba and trying to make everyone special has made it where no one is special and people just get angry at each other.

Yeah... they can, but not forcing them into a shit pool of champion choice?

I think it would be a good direction for the game to play around the first pickers in solo que and to have those players be the highest MMR people in that current game so that it wouldn't feel like your supporting a garbage teamate or something.

Fuck the last pick though, good idea, that is a marvelous way to get people to enjoy themselves, that is a great way to make players start off in a good mood.

you keep saying people would get punished for having there best champion buffed I feel like it's not really a bad thing to complain about your champion being to strong.

I don't think you understand how your own system idea works. A champion is weak, they are low in points, the player sticks with them and masters them anyway, the meta shifts or they get buffed, their point total increases thus making it less likely for them to get their champion ie, punishing them for sticking with a champion.

They can litterally base it of the same way they do it now plat and higher. In lower elo these things litterally would have about no noticeable effect because there not good enough for champion pick to matter to a high degree. Then if Riot wanted they could theoritcally have the costs change automatically for differnt elo's based on winrate in those elo's

Champion picks don't even matter until Diamond anyway.

that only applies now. Just like how people can get away with only maining adc or top lane now when in the past when there was no positional Que you had to know several positions. If they took away positional Que people would complain for a while but eventually they would learn multiple roles again.

Do you think that is what will happen? Do you think Hashinshin wants to learn ADC, do you think Tyler1 wants to learn top, do you think IWDominate wants to learn mid? Do you think Qtpie wants to learn jungle? Fuck no, people don't want to play things they don't want to play, it is why autofill is so hated. I don't know what dream land you live in where you think people are just going to magically get better at other roles because they didn't before, it is why people faked being afk at champion select back in the day when they got a role they didn't want, why people dodged back then and still dodge now when they get support or whatever autofill they don't like.

The same could be said for champions are in a bad spot you would just learn champions that aren't in a bad spot and you keep working off the assumption that having a higher cost champion is a bad thing you would still be able to play those champions fairly often in solo que especially if you get one of the early picks. Then it also wouldn't necessarily feel as bad to be a later pick sense that would give you the ability to better counterpick.

People don't want to be forced to play champions they don't want to play and roles they don't want to play, how do you not get that?

In the end a lot of these things also depend on the cost discrepancy for champions as well like your assuming some champions would be super high and others super low and the low are basically useless and the high are untouchable God's or something. Which Riot if they wanted I guess could do that but there really are many ways to do it.

I'm not saying low tier picks aren't good, I'm saying forcing players to do things isn't a good idea. Forcing players to just play champions that might not be comfortable with is a bad idea.

You say things like on paper or theoritcally things might sound good or bad but I feel like maybe it's you who doesn't seem to think that maybe your own criticisms only sound good on paper. We don't really know unless we try what is actually good or bad to a 100% degree, but I do know that it seems to be a highly agreed upon thing that every season should have massive changes and people seem to think it's good for the game and if it's so I feel like this would be a good change to try.

Because you are only seeing the good sides of it without seeing the problems and introducing a system like this is going to lead to far more negatives then positives. You can't just force people into things and expect it to just work, when has that EVER worked in the history of ever?

I'm also tired of people whining about things that would "make the game better" then fucking disappearing when it turns out the ideas they championed and demand turn out in ways they don't want and refused to see, or even better yet, were told what they were going to be like and were like "Nah, it won't be like that, it will be great." and when that downside happens are NOWHERE to be fucking seen when it falls to shit. We are literally seeing that right now with autofill which only came into place because positionals took hours at higher elos for players to be found because people didn't want to support, but anyone who told people this before hand were called idiots and the people who begged for positionals seemed to have "magically" disappeared and a system like this would be just another case of that.

Though maybe my idea really isn't as good as I would like to think but I think it's a good idea to try and criticisms are good to try and make the idea better but I just hope you don't shut it out of your mind completely even if you think the idea isn't entirely fleshed out or has some flaws.

I'm shutting it down because it's a bad idea.