Why ARAM needs a Recall option

Khanzax·Apr 23, 2019·1 votes·1,260 views

Before we get our fingers into action, let me get this straight: Aram does not need or should allow for infinite recalls at any given time.

HOWEVER; Many, many games of ARAM, I have lost because a certain player was playing incredibly well. This sounds contradicting, but it is exactly how Riot designed ARAM. Players in ARAM are, in the current state of the game, rewarded for dying. They are also punished for dying on a killstreak, since they give their gold reward to the enemy team. Dying is the only way of gaining items by spending that hard-earned gold. This is a core feature of ARAM, and should not be changed.

HOWEVER: A player should be allowed to recall as long as the ENTIRE enemy team is dead. Why? Players care about their KDA, or are scared to give shutdown gold to the enemies. This in itself is fairly logical, but it loses many games of ARAM without the player knowing its his fault. A player that plays the game really well shouldn't be expected to run headfirst into the enemy turret for that 'FREE BACK', as it goes against anything league has learned them. The reasoning behind all 5 enemies dead for a free recall is simple.

IF ALL 5 OF THE ENEMIES ARE DEAD, THE PLAYER COULD HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THE SAME RESULT BY RUNNING INTO THE ENEMY TURRET. If all 5 enemies are dead, there would have been no way for the players to gain the kill reward for someone running into the turret other than possibly a lost Teemo Shroom. Allowing the player to simply recall when this scenario plays out, makes it so that people unfamiliar with the suicide strategy in ARAM, are still rewarded for taking out the entire enemy team.

WHY IS THIS A GOOD ADDITION? ARAM naturally has very low death timers. The only way for a player to recall, is when ALL enemies are killed shortly after one another. When this finally does happen, a player that plays really well, should be rewarded for his playstyle rather than punished for not dying a single time (which could now even be seen as trolling) If a Soraka player manages to go 3/0/28 and this causes him to lose the game, something is slightly flawed right?

TL;DR ARAM PLAYERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO RECALL WHEN THE ENTIRE ENEMY IS DEAD TO PREVENT PLAYERS WHO PLAY WELL AND REFUSE TO DIE FROM LOSING THE GAME WITH GREAT SCORES.

4 Comments

usul1202Apr 23, 20193 votes

On the flip side, no recall is a very strong anti-snowball mechanic, when the fed person dies to back it gives the losing team a window of opportunity to come back in the game. With one sided games being much more frequent in aram, I think that having a window to fight back is a good balance lever.

KhanzaxApr 23, 20192 votes

{quoted}

On the flip side, no recall is a very strong anti-snowball mechanic, when the fed person dies to back it gives the losing team a window of opportunity to come back in the game. With one sided games being much more frequent in aram, I think that having a window to fight back is a good balance lever.

You have a valid point, but its not as black on white as you make it out to be. The losing team barely gets an advantage from killing the fed person, other than the gold and a very short moment to fight without this player around.

However, when a player is that fed, You are better off not killing him at all. I forgot to state this in my original post, but a smart Aram player will leave the fed person alive at all costs, and the fed person, thinking about his Shutdown, will never think 'Oops I have to rush into them now'.

The enemy team does not really benefit all that much from the fed player dying; it will bring him back with 2 full items and all of a sudden the game completely turns into a massacre.

To prevent the game becoming like this by purposely dying (Intentional feeding as RIOT calls it, which is also punishable) giving the player the option to recall when all 5 enemy players are dead is the 'perfect' (aka best possible) solution.

The question you need to ask yourself is: "how often is one of the teams completely off the map?" and the second question: "How often did, during that time, was a player so fed he should have inted, but did not?"

Both of these answered 'yes' is very rarely, however, the times that they do occur, they made enormous impact on the outcome of the game. The game no longers becomes "did I play well' but "When is the best time to throw myself into the enemy team".

You say that the fed person dying is a chance to come back, but remember what I said before; If the entire enemy team is dead, the exact same result can be obtained by dying to the turret, as no one can touch you to obtain the kill. The only difference here is; people who don't understand this strategy will also be able to go back and the game becomes more focused on playing well rather than timing your deaths.

Sorry for the long reply [sg-zephyr]

usul1202Apr 23, 20193 votes

It is a temporary advantage, but it is infinitely better than the absolutely 0 advantage you get if they back. The fed person doesn't have to wait 15 seconds or whatever it is for kill credit to drop off, and they don't have to wait the death timer, completely nullifying the gains. There is no window of opportunity to 5v4 with a recall in place.

Aram has a significant lack of anti-snowball and I think this is a good one to keep in.

KhanzaxMay 1, 20191 votes

{quoted}

It is a temporary advantage, but it is infinitely better than the absolutely 0 advantage you get if they back. The fed person doesn't have to wait 15 seconds or whatever it is for kill credit to drop off, and they don't have to wait the death timer, completely nullifying the gains. There is no window of opportunity to 5v4 with a recall in place.

Aram has a significant lack of anti-snowball and I think this is a good one to keep in.

You are right, but you are solely looking at the problem from the team that plays against the 'fed' player. Thing is, it is wildly unfair for a team to lose a game because someone knows how to dodge skillshots or avoid dying. Something has to be done about the fact that games are lost because players 'die too late' Yes, the enemy deserves a chance to come back, which is why its only acceptable when ALL ENEMIES are dead. There is no '4v5' when the enemies are all dead. The only difference is that a single player will be completely removed from the game damage-wise if he does not die, which is punishing the player for playing well. Even locking the player in a stasis-mode for 10seconds after backing is a better solution than forcing the player to understand he has to die.