Boards›Gameplay

Tee-ball champions are the source of major balance issues, it's time to evolve them.

Coletrain1·1/31/2015, 8:17:13 AM·4 votes·1,140 views

I've noticed that all anyone talks about on these boards are the superficial surface-level issues that arise from deeper conflicts in popular game design philosophies. So I want to try and frame the balance discussion as it truly exists, and this goes right down to the fundamental problems of game design we see today. It's important to note that the easy thing to do is to attack Riot. I've always viewed this approach as inherently flawed because it assumes that one side actually knows how to solve the issues at hand, and if they aren't solved then it's because Riot is somehow ignorant of the problems. The point is that we both want the same thing, incredible gaming experiences. This may be starting to sound like a useless post of neutrality, but I actually do hold a firm stance on this issue. I believe that neither Riot, LCS players, or the overall playerbase alone can actually understand how to evolve a design philosophy over time. I believe that each of the 3 perspectives are pieces of a picture that can't be understood or debated on with only 1 or 2 of those pieces. With this in mind, I tried to fit the pieces together myself in order to come to some conclusions about the balance debate. I'll try to explain these conclusions in this post.

Unfortunately the financial risk involved with developing a game has led the industry to a situation in which game developers feel the need to create artificially low barriers of entry. This results in a rewarding experience right from the start, which greatly helps with initial sales as well as short-term growth of the playerbase. Unfortunately these experiences are ultimately very shallow, and will therefore limit the potential for player retention as well as eliminate any possibility of longer-term growth. I think Riot understands this concept, which is why we are seeing more champions that have a very high skill cap. Crucially, it needs to be understood that champions with a high skill cap will inherently come with a high skill floor. Some may try to debate that last point, but in my experience it has always stood to be true. The truth about champions like Lee Sin is that they have as much potential to be completely useless as they have potential to feel "unfair".

This feeling players have of certain champion's kits being "overloaded" can be more accurately described as other champions being under-loaded. I call these "Tee-ball champions", implying they serve as the introductory experience for LoL. Whether or not this is good game design depends on whether you're asking the accountant or the lead developer. Tee-ball champions are a fantastically cheap and efficient way to teach players the fundamentals of the game, and I can't blame a fledgling start-up developer for using this strategy. Some would suggest an updated tutorial system that could replace these introductory champions, while I would argue that this can literally be the worst way to introduce players to your game (as a general rule). Watch Egoraptor's "sequelitis" video on Youtube for a better understanding of this concept. I actually believe things like Riot's champion spotlights are on the right track, but also question the actual necessity for a lower barrier to entry in the first place. Surely you can't have an impossibly hard learning curve if you want to retain new players, but there is definitely a balance to be had.

What Riot doesn't seem to understand is that having these garen-esque champions in the game actually limits their ability to evolve the game over time. I envision a future of game design in which multiplayer sequels are far and few between. EVE online and the recent visual overhaul of Summoner's rift are proof that this game design philosophy of continuous development is vastly superior (within reason). Despite my love for science fiction I personally hate EVE online, but the fact that such a tedious game can remain so popular really emphasises how strong this philosophy of evolving and continuous development actually is.

Ultimately I believe all players would like to be able to play champions based on the appeal of their character design, without having to worry about whether or not they are handicapping themselves in ranked play. For example I absolutely love Ashe, mainly because she reminds me of my nostalgia for my experiences playing the elven race in the classic MMORPG Lineage. She does have one skill that has depth to it which is of course her Ultimate, meaning she isn't actually the worst case of this "Tee-Ball champion" theorem. Another example of a champion design which really appeals to me is Garen, my god what a waste of good art and voice acting he is. I would absolutely love to "master" this champion, but of course everyone knows there's nothing really there to master. It's simply frustrating that I can get so incredibly bored with a champion who's character design otherwise appeals to me. As a competitive player, I thirst for deep gameplay experiences and I do truly understand the meaning of the word "meta". The term meta can be applied to the overall broad team strategy, but it can also be applied to the way LCS players dodge skill shots. It can simply be described as "We think, so they think, so we won't", or "We think, so they think, so we won't, but they they might consider that, so we we WILL!" if you want to get into 4th and 5th level meta.

The problem we see with champion variety in both soloque and LCS play stems from the thought process of "Do I want to win, or do I want to play the champion I like". Rarely do the two choices coincide, so the end result is that champions are choosing us, instead of us choosing our champions.

I hope someone at Riot reads this and seriously considers my ultimate argument, which is that these "Tee-ball champions" are now serving as nothing but dead weight to the game. It's crucial to consider this argument from the perspective of game evolution. Just as we see terms like "Web 2.0" and "Web 3.0", I believe we have entered an era of "Game Design 3.0". Unfortunately it's difficult if not impossible to design a champion that rewards mastery of the kit while also having a low barrier to entry. If every champion was designed like Lee Sin the game would have an incredibly steep learning curve and probably wouldn't be as popular as it is today.

So what CAN replace these "Tee-ball champions"? This is a very difficult question to answer. I would first actually ask if they are even necessary, can we really have so little faith in new players (especially kids) to want to learn and challenge themselves. I do think the champion spotlights are a good start, but I also think Riot could consider hiring pro players to do official commentaries. It really seems as though it would ultimately be a leap of faith, unless Riot has some ideas that I haven't considered.

No matter what way you slice it, I honestly believe people who say they feel frustrated when playing against champions like Lee Sin are looking at the issue from the wrong side. In actuality I believe people simply feel frustrated that their favorite champion doesn't have the same potential for high level play, I know I personally do. Finally, I would argue that many people simply don't have the mindset for competitive play. There are many who argue against fast-paced mechanical skill in games, and instead argue that emphasis should mostly be placed on overall strategy and decision making. Personally I think this is a huge cop-out for those with pseudo-competitive mindsets. Those who are quick to blame the game for being "too hard" or "too intense" are also most likely to be the same kinds of players who are quick to cry "elo hell". Mechanical skill, strategy, and quick decision making. I believe all three of these aspects being combined are going to result in the most incredible gameplay, especially from a spectator's perspective.

"LC$ big plays" is a recurring trope derived from the argument that Riot is purposely leaving certain champions overpowered for reason of profit. This is of course a completely ridiculous and immature argument. Riot wouldn't be where they are today if they had such shallow decision making.

For those who have ever followed the Starcraft 2 scene, here is a little humour for you: If Terran is to Vayne as Zerg is to Thresh, then surely Protoss must be akin to Garen ;). Now tell me, how can you possibly balance such a game? The answer is that you can, but you have to take such extreme measures that you risk inadvertently limiting the overall depth of the game.

Riot, the visual updates to summoners rift and many classic champions are simply amazing. I think it would be fitting for you to consider evolving the strategy of LoL to match the new look. I believe this can be done by adding complexity and increasing the skill caps of older champions. From my perspective, it appears that the extreme skill cap variability is limiting your ability to balance the game.

7 Comments

DisasterSola1/31/2015, 10:09:48 AM2 votes

Can we get a TL:DR? Im not being rude - you clearly have a lot to say and enough knowledge on the subject to sound credible - but you write an essay like i do. With a great deal of exposition and fluff. Can we get one to two paragraphs in summary, please?

UberAffe1/31/2015, 10:07:02 AM1 votes

I have nothing to add to this other than a comment in hopes of attracting attention from riot.

Knight Devout1/31/2015, 11:43:28 AM1 votes

What I think need balancing is the distribution of champion by skill level. Do you think that Zed/Thresh/Lee Sin level is the ultimate goal you should strive for? Well, bring more champions to that level, rather than nerfing champions who rival them by brute strength.

Sephyrias3/31/2015, 4:16:03 AM1 votes

I can agree on this, though I might have to read it 2 times again later this day to fully understand your mindset and maybe put some criticism to it, but my thoughts are similar.

Well I think I should note first that I stopped playing League of Legends I think one or two month's ago and it's difficult to say if I miss it. To understand that I should also quickly explain why I quitted: I realized that I can be a lot more successful with champions that I do not like at all than with my favorites, killing every creative motivation. For example: Why should I bother mastering Diana or Azir, when I could also just pick up Fizz and one/two-shot everything just by clicking on them? Same or even better results for less effort. Well (Ap)Fizz got nerfed, so maybe another example: I tried to get good enough at playing Aatrox and Diana jungle. Especially Aatrox, for about 1/2 year or longer, tested all kinds of builds and skill-orders. But when I got frustrated that other junglers were more effective in pretty much the same situations, I tend to try the other side of the medal: Do the "meta"-picks - Xin Zhao, Udyr, etc. The result was humiliating - While I had to be incredibly careful, alert and plan every move as Aatrox, I could just go no-brain with xin and just jump into 2v1 situations just because I got a few kills and be a complete bully. - Which I was pretty much never able to do as Aatrox or Diana (jungle). I completely wasted my dozens of hours on trying to be creative and do something that fits my playstile and preferences. So I asked myself: Why keep playing? You already know who's going to have the higher chances of winning in champ select, unless one of the players has bad luck and got matched against a lot better enemies or someone is a secret pro, but those matches are rather rare.

So I used my new time to play another game that really hooked me up: the Dark Souls frenchies. It's difficult, fair and it allows lots of creativity. And it's PvP is funny to compare to League of Legends. Of course, within that comparison are major issues, for example is League of Legends a teamgame where the main goal can or should be objectives, not killing the enemy player, but it's way of balancing the PvP is interesintg: Both players have access to abilities that could potentially make them invincible, if always perfectly used (for example: parrying, rolling (doding with invincibility frames)). Players can be creative in their character builds, weapon choices and all that stuff and of course, it also has it's balance issues, but because you can for example parry every meele attack or dodge every single projectile, it all comes down to who is better at outsmarting the enemy player, having the better mechanics or the better rescource management.

This seems fimiliar to the League of Legends PvP mindgames of outsmarting the opponent, better usage of pots or cooldowns and the "big plays". But not every champion can do those "big plays", especially not the Tee-Ball champions with low mobility or abilities to juke their enemy. If you take that to a Dark Souls duel, it's like taking away your ability to dodgeroll. It handicaps you incredibly much and sometimes it comes close to a death sentence. A very pictorial comparison: Vayne vs. Ashe with every autohit beeing a skillshot like in Smite. Kinda obvious who is going to win that duel.

But Riot could never just addapt the Dark Souls way of balancing - something like giving every player 2 set summoner spells: A short ranged flash and a Quicksilver Slash on a 2 second cd or something like that. It's fun to imagine, but would be way to chaotic and doesn't fit into League of Legends. To be honest, I doubt that there is a real solution to the balancing problem. Riot can't just rework every old champion so that they all have a high skillcap now or buff them so that they are able to compete with the skilled players that use high-potential-champions, then no one would use those anymore. (I think that's currently the case when it comes to some of the junglers like Xin or J4 for example, rather difficult champions get a bit out of favour). What Riot is currently trying seems to be to put all easy-2-play champions on "medium success", while granting those with more potential also more space to fail or get too strong, as you mentioned earlyier

The truth about champions like Lee Sin is that they have as much potential to be completely useless as they have potential to feel "unfair".

This leads of course to LCS-players or most other high-rank-players to either use the high-success-promising low-potential champions or the difficult ones with really high rewards but also risky downfalls.

It's questionable if that's the right way to go, I think rather not when they even have problems at reaching the (also questionable) situation as described above.

But what would be an alternative?

Another comparison to Dark Souls: Using a rather "underpowered" low-potential champion that cannot compete with high-potential or using the difficult-to-use-but-not-rewarding-ones comes close to using joke-weapons in Dark Souls like a Spoon or a Broken Sword Hilt. Many people recognize this and some of them tend to rage at you when picking the "almost-joke-champions" in ranked. Because, let's be honest, you can't deny that there are champions that are just too weak. Maybe not like ward-evelynn, but definitely weaker than some of the common ones.

Matthias91193/31/2015, 4:46:59 AM1 votes

That's an interesting thesis you've got there, but I think you're playing up the degree to which competitive players can't play champions of their choosing. There are players who main obscure champs all the way up to Diamond tier. Urgot won an LCS match last week. (Urgot!)

Unless you're really serious about trying to hit the top of the Ranked ladder -- not exactly a relevant goal for 99.99% of the player base -- player skill and knowing how to work together as a team matters a lot more than individual champion selection.