Boards›Gameplay

When will game devs understand gradient systems are better than high contrast systems?

deadlychuck··8 votes·630 views

What i mean is comparing these two kinds of systems

High Contrast: a couple of mutually exclusive powerful options Gradient: many of individually weak options, which cumulatively are mutually exclusive powerful options

TL;DR riot shouldn't continue down this same path that the introduction of mastery keystones have set with the new rune system. Instead they should incorporate the new mechanics into the existing system or a system which distributes the power across many choices, to allow players to allocate the power of their champions to fit their play style instead of pushing players to adjust their play style to fit the champion they've picked.

Using the keystones as an example.

In the old rune system, the difference between going 18/12/0 and 17/13/0, was nowhere as severe a power loss as currently. Yeah you'd be changing something like 3% damage for something probably not as objectively powerful, but if you had some kind of particular play style in mind, you might be able to compensate for the loss of that power spike. We use to have a system which it was viable to go 12/12/6, for some champions in some situations. Yet now we're getting artificially created power peaks, with increasingly deep valleys between them. This is exactly what's going to be exaggerated even further with the keystone runes.

For all the complains people have about the current rune systems (except for the cost i guess), you have similar power peaks, but you have much more shallow valleys in between them. Currently, you might have a full tank rune page and a full AD rune page, but you're still capable of creating a tank/AD hybrid page without sacrificing substantial power spikes by failing to fully commit to a single path. Which has it's own useful situations and allows players to tailor their bonus stats to more appropriately fit their play style. (Excluding runes which are just mathematically terrible because riot does have some bias either in balancing or in attention)

Yes, the most mathematically optimal choices end up being the most most common, and some players will just copy from an online source which tells them the "most optimal" runes. However, you don't help those players by removing the gradient! They're not interesting in exploring it and will just continue to look up the most optimal keystone option online for their champion and probably never bother taking other options.

_You generally end up with a varying degree of one of these two approaches. _

  1. conform their play style to the champion's strengths and weaknesses
  2. conform the champion's strengths and weaknesses to their play style

Neither is right neither is wrong, but you end up driving people into more extreme choices of one of these two, when you remove the gradient between them. Though, as we've seen, people will tend towards what's lower risk, so you end up with a lot of people who shift towards the first choice as the better of two not ideal choices. But you can't support both of these extremes simultaneously, so the less popular of the two, loses development support.

##Here's how you fix something like this, but also continue to add such mechanics into the game.

Currently, in the mastery tree design, you have 6 tiers and 3 of those are "minor keystones", and then at the end you get a "major keystone".

Instead of having a single keystone at the end which gives you 100% of the keystone's power. You have multiple minor keystones along the path, which build up into the final major keystone effect.

First, Change keystones to be selected at the first tier of talents not the last and require 3 points for the full initial effect/power Second, return the ability to attribute multiple points at the same tier and make each tier require 3 points input to advance (but there is some merit in limiting it to 18 points per tree) I'll give an example for a keystone in each tree.

Fervor of Battle: Hitting Champions with basic attacks generates a Fervor stack (2 for melee attacks). Stacks of Fervor last 8 seconds (max 8 stacks) and increase your AD by 1-8 for each stack.

Tier 1: (keystone) Fervor of Battle - Hitting Champions with basic attacks generates a Fervor stack (2 for melee attacks). Max 4 stacks. 1-4 AD per stack. Stacks last 8 seconds. Tier 3: (keystone) Fervor stacks increased to maximum of 8. Tier 5: (keystone) Fervor of Battle - Fervor stacks give 1-8 AD per stack.

Thunderlord's Decree: Your 3th attack or damaging spell against the same enemy champion calls down a lighting strike, dealing magic damage to the in the area. Damage: 10 per level, plus 30% of your Bonus AD, and 10% of yuour AP (25-15 second CD based on lvl).

Tier 1 (keystone) Thunderlord's Decree - Your 6th attack or damaging spell against the same enemy champion calls down a lightning strike, dealing magic damage to the champion. Damage: 5 per level, plus 10% of your Bonus AD, and 5% of your AP (25-15 second CD based on lvl). Tier 3: (keystone) Number of attacks or damaging spells needed is now 3. Tier 5: (keystone) Damage is now dealt in the area around the champion. Increase scaling to 10 per level, plus 30% Bonus AD and 10% of your AP.

Grasp of the Undying: Every 4 seconds in combat, your next attack against an enemy champion deals damage equal to 3% of your max Health and heals you for 1.5% of your max Health (halved for ranged champions, deals magic damage).

Tier 1: (keystone) Grasp of the Undying - Every 6 seconds in combat, your next attack against an enemy champion deals damage equal to 1% of your max health. Tier 3: (keystone) Heals for half of the unmitigated damage. Reduced combat time by 1 second. Tier 5: (keystone) Increase damage dealt to 3% of your max HP. Reduced combat time by 1 second.

Then at those same tiers, you provide offer similar choices to what you have now. Where you offer other mechanics and passives as an alternative to the keystone empowering ones. This allows player to better decide how much they wish to commit to the a keystone's influence on how they're playing the champion.

Peronsally, i think you should be able to take multiple keystones, but in doing so, you're going to be sacrificing the total power value of each individually. As well, you could possibly bypass the 3rd tier or neglect the 5th tier, if you wished. Playing a dot mage or onhit marksmen? Well screw Tier 3 of thunderlord's you're have no problem popping it.

You might take both Fervor and Warlord's, but you would not have fully empowered versions of either. In fact, with this design, you could actually get all of the keystones, but they'd be very weak versions of the existing ones. Obviously idk how this kind of thing would be implemented into the UI, but that's a rather minor detail.

What it really comes down to, is not making any single point allocation, hold so much weight. This pressures players into only playing the most optimal options available. Rather than giving players the choice to take the less optimal ones in order to shift champion power to the degree they choose. Instead of the reassurance in knowing that their choices are going to be powerful*.

*so long as they toe the line

35 Comments

Teridax683 votes

Gradient options are more like the current, old rune system, and those aren't really the most popular precisely because the options do not feel individually impactful. On top of that, in order to have gradient options, your options need to be designed in such a way that they are able to gradiate, which takes out a lot of potentially interesting bonuses. The OP frames the issue of high contrast options as one of risk, but I don't think this has been the case historically, as practically every mastery has been popular at one point in time or another based on power and the meta. Furthermore, the issue with gradient systems is that they tend to get min-maxed, or at least adjusted in such a way that it inevitably boils down to the same, optimal setup. Also worth mentioning is that when you attach a gameplay effect to each gradient option, e.g. Fervor's stacking AD, Thunderlord's three-strike effect, etc. picking a ton of those risks generating a large, confusing soup of tiny, barely appreciable bonuses, rather than a smaller set of stronger bonuses that is easier for everyone to keep track of.

deadlychuck2 votes

I understand the perception problem with a gradient system, that each choice feels hard to appreciate, but I don't think that's of particular importance given that a player will still appreciate having a full page. Again, it's not about how much someone can value a single choice, it's about how much they can value the sum of their choices regardless of how many that might be. In fact, by reducing the number of choices is only a positive when they've been reduced for your biased preference. If they had instead just made the rune pages into a few big stat buffs instead of powerful mechanics, in the form of keystones, a completely different subset of the player base would be content with the change and the current one would likely be unsatisfied.

Though the idea of optimizing these systems is obviously going to happen. Those are the peaks. Removing the valley between each optimized peak doesn't make the peaks objectively higher, it just makes them appear higher.

It's not a question of risk, it's a question of power vs synergy. If your performance improves by 5% by focusing on say defensive power over offensive power on a champion, but you lose objectively 3% of your total power by picking a non-optimal mastery, then you still would see a net improvement to your particular output. The problem with reducing the number of decisions is that you end up forcing players to have higher performance increases to offset larger power losses, but that is heavily restricted by other parts of the game's design like champions and items.

~~Virtually no marksmen player will be able to offset the power disadvantage of taking GotU instead of warlords, through a change in performance. ~~

NO PLAYER, could offset the power disadvantage of taking a 12/12/6 rune page, over some combination of 18/12/0 or 18/6/6 page.

in order to have gradient options, your options need to be designed in such a way that they are able to gradiate, which takes out a lot of potentially interesting bonuses.

How is this true? I provided ways which options which were added by removing a more gradient system, keystones, could've been equally implemented into a gradient system. Yes, you'd have to slightly tweak numbers and such, but there is no reason that equivalent mechanics can't be broken down into their subsequent components and be constructed to full power.

This is really at the core of the gradient vs high contrast. Gradient systems have the capacity to include ANY kind of mechanic which exists in a high contrast system (simply decentralizing and dispersing the power), but the high contrast system feels better to **some ** players, because of the way it consolidates power into a 'single' decision. Yet, due to the game being very subjective, having all of that power in a 'single' decision feels like crap, if you don't like the decisions which have been given, but there are also far fewer now.

This isn't to say this is an all or nothing difference between the two systems though, you can have aspects of both (as the current system does), but you can almost always make a relative stated between two systems on which is more gradient and which is more contrast.

Teridax683 votes

{quoted}

I understand the perception problem with a gradient system, that each choice feels hard to appreciate, but I don't think that's of particular importance given that a player will still appreciate having a full page.

It is of importance, because the appreciation of having a full page is not the same as the appreciation of having a clear selection of gameplay bonuses in your favor. The overall mistake you're making here is that you're assuming League is a game where power is appreciated by quantity, rather than by gameplay, when in reality players really are much more able to see the value in a handful of bonuses than an equally strong spread of smaller effects. Dealing 100 damage every 100 seconds is not going to feel the same as dealing 1 damage every second, even though the two effects are, at least in terms of average damage, roughly as powerful.

{quoted}

It's not a question of risk, it's a question of power vs synergy. If your performance improves by 5% by focusing on say defensive power over offensive power on a champion, but you lose objectively 3% of your total power by picking a non-optimal mastery, then you still would see a net improvement to your particular output.

Then what you have is a solved game. If every incremental bonus can have its impact on your success quantified, then there is literally no sensible choice but to pick whichever spread of effects guarantees you the greatest chance of winning. Your system effectively ends up doing little except add more power to everything, and a whole lot of false choices.

{quoted}

The problem with reducing the number of decisions is that you end up forcing players to have higher performance increases to offset larger power losses, but that is heavily restricted by other parts of the game's design like champions and items.

I actually kind of agree with this, but to me this means making these choices bespoke to each champion, a la HotS/Dota 2 talents, rather than coming up with a system that would be just as liable to restrict its own design and that of the game's champions.

{quoted}

How is this true? I provided ways which options which were added by removing a more gradient system, keystones, could've been equally implemented into a gradient system. Yes, you'd have to slightly tweak numbers and such, but there is no reason that equivalent mechanics can't be broken down into their subsequent components and be constructed to full power.

What about Summoner Specialist? How can you realistically incrementalize being able to swap out summoner spells? Say what you want about the rune itself and the quality of the gameplay it provides, but that's the kind of effect that simply cannot exist in the environment you're proposing.

{quoted}

This is really at the core of the gradient vs high contrast. Gradient systems have the capacity to include ANY kind of mechanic which exists in a high contrast system (by power distribution), but the high contrast system feels better to **some ** players, because of the way it consolidates power into a single decision.

The reverse is true in both cases. Any gradient option can be made into a high-contrast choice, but the opposite cannot always happen, as is the case for an effect like Summoner Specialist, or some similarly clear-cut effect like "you get an additional item slot". High-contrast options like these also tend to be more appealing, because players in general are much more sentitive to high contrast than they are to incremental changes. Effectively, with high contrast you can make effects feel more powerful than they actually are in practice, and in an environment where power is often strictly budgeted, that is exactly the kind of benefit-to-cost ratio you'd want to have.

deadlychuck2 votes

Then what you have is a solved game. If every incremental bonus can have its impact on your success quantified, then there is literally no sensible choice but to pick whichever spread of effects guarantees you the greatest chance of winning. Your system effectively ends up doing little except add more power to everything, and a whole lot of false choices.

This is not at all what's gone on. This statement only holds true if every player would find the same bonuses equally useful to increasing their success, which i shouldn't need to explain, they don't. I think you're mixing up two different concepts here, mathematical ideals and player ideals. A mathematically ideal choice, might not be the individual player's ideal choice. To assume that the mathematically ideal choice is going to be the ideal choice for all individual players is how you create a higher contrast system.

Yet, this doesn't really "solve" the game except for at the extreme end of the game, pro play. Yet a lot of people are stupid enough to just copy paste choices used by pros, without considering the different circumstances the choices are being made.

a la HotS/Dota 2 talents

see here's the problem i have with that even, you're still forcing players into a situation where they have to conform to which ever way the power increases given the talent options given. I just want to point out, league's older, more gradient design is what took off, the HotS and Dota designs, manage equivalent results.

What about Summoner Specialist? How can you realistically incrementalize being able to swap out summoner spells? Say what you want about the rune itself...

Yeah the rune is completely shit and is going to heavily contribute to the destabilization of the game, making the collapse worse or sooner. All I've got to say about the rune itself.

Yet the method would be rather simple, because there are still a lot of variables. Basically any variable by which riot could nerf or buff something could be used in a gradient system.

% summoner CDR. Shard Count. Initial Shard Count. (Or ones riot hasn't made as clear) Spell potency. Initial CD.

(also, jw if you happen to know, wtf would be the interaction with the cancerous jungle item smite pre-request?)

Any gradient option can be made into a high-contrast choice

Oh yeah, and bullshit. There exists, theoretically, infinite points between two particular positions on a gradient (obviously that number becomes finite when you actually create a system with one). If you were to implement every existing option of a gradient system into a high-contrast system, you'd just have a gradient system.

I guess it could use some elaboration. You can reasonably add all high-contrast choices into a gradient system, while retaining it's existence as a gradient. You cannot reasonably add all gradient choices into a high contrast system, without it changing to a gradient. This is by nature of non-exclusive choices being multiplicative.

Jorencice1 votes

"making the collapse worse or sooner."

Sooo you already think they game is dieing and yet wasting your time on the forumns?

...You know what I enjoyed. Hearing people saying WoW was dieing in The Burning Crusade.

Literally 2nd expansion and people were already saying they could see it going down hill. I smile whenever i think of them 10+ years later as it still holds the #1 spot.

Tldr: Stop being a negative Nina.

deadlychuck1 votes

No i don't think the game is dying. I think it's destabilizing.

The riot devs are extending further beyond, and more, away from the core game mechanics. Riot has started treating the core game design as a hindrance rather than a asset, and have been maintaining their audience less by keeping what they have, and more by offsetting the lost players, by further moving away from the core game mechanics.

Jorencice2 votes

Except there's still a good amount of vets still playing. I myself have been playing since season 1.

And I haven't seen a single thread going. "If these runes come out in quiting the game" and the forums are nothing if not fatalistic. I've seen people saying they are going to quit because a single skin slightly changed color.

Most people actually seem excited for a little shake up of the systems and an easier barrier of entry to newbies.

deadlychuck1 votes

Yes a good amount of vets do still play the game. I've been around since early 2010.

However, if there's anything to learn from the history of a game like WoW, it's that the vets have a lot of sunk costs, and will generally leave at a very high rate in a small period of time. But when this occurs doesn't seem to be related to burn out, because there's no reason to think that a subset of the players would simply burn out on the game at the same time.

Fundamental changes to the formula of the game seem to encourage simultaneous departure of game vets.

Other games which have existed under a kind of perpetual development cycle have also shown similar trends. ARK is another decent example. Though you'd have to mainly look at unmodded versions of play, because mods can pretty much offset any changes made by the devs.

Jorencice1 votes

Yes. But this is no where near as big of a deal as anything the recent failures i.e ark and archage to name a few have done.

This is simply adding new options into the game. Which MAY increase variety or... Do absoluty nothing and everyone will still use cookie cutter builds.

deadlychuck1 votes

I agree, it could increase variety, but i don't think that it's simply a matter of "everyone will still use cookie cutter builds".

It's a matter of anyone who wasn't using a cookie cutter build, is now getting punished even more for not using one.

Because "everyone" is conflating only a subset of the player base which does do this. In WoW, not everyone used cookie cutter builds, but blizzard assumed that everyone did, so felt comfortable with enforcing the shapes onto everyone, even those who didn't prefer that exact design.

A little anecdote. I use to heal on druid back in Cata, but our raid group ran two druid healers. With respect to tank healing, i could only pull ~70% of the numbers that our tank healing druid could do. In respect to raid healing, our tank healing druid could only manage ~85% of my multi-target healing. Obviously there was some gear involved, i generally had lower which might have contributed to that 15% disparity, but given that we had the same abilities, simply having a very different spec resulted in us having very different ideal contexts.

In a more high-contrast system, the kind that they introduced in MoP, while I quite playing for particularly that change, the ability to control precisely how much I sacrificed my single target for multi-target healing was very much taken away from me.

Teridax681 votes

{quoted}

I think you're mixing up two different concepts here, mathematical ideals and player ideals. A mathematically ideal choice, might not be the individual player's ideal choice.

Except the player's ideal choice does not matter when the mathematically ideal choice is clearly established to be better. This is the very reason why rune, mastery and even item setups on champions tend to resemble each other from game to game, because those setups are optimal regardless of your personal preferences, and players largely go for what's successful over what they personally prefer.

{quoted}

Yet, this doesn't really "solve" the game except for at the extreme end of the game, pro play. Yet a lot of people are stupid enough to just copy paste choices used by pros, without considering the different circumstances the choices are being made.

The setup you are proposing does not change that situation, therefore it is doomed to run into the same problems unless you specifically suggest a means of making players express their own preferences.

{quoted}

see here's the problem i have with that even, you're still forcing players into a situation where they have to conform to which ever way the power increases given the talent options given.

The same can be said for the system you are proposing, as a player cannot choose a bonus unless that bonus has been implemented in the first place.

{quoted}

% summoner CDR. Shard Count. Initial Shard Count. (Or ones riot hasn't made as clear) Spell potency. Spell CD.

Affecting the spells themselves would be jimmying scaling into an effect that features none of it, which carries a significant cost of its own. Increasing the number of shards required to swap out summoner spells may sound like a gradient option, but in practice would not work out that way, as past a threshold you'd very quickly get into a situation where it would be too impractical to put points into that option unless you committed to it, much like crit.

{quoted}

There exists, theoretically, infinite points between two particular positions on a gradient (obviously that number becomes finite when you actually create a system with one). If you were to implement every existing option of a gradient system into a high-contrast system, you'd just have a gradient system.

I don't think this really answers the point I was making. What I'm saying is that, to take your example, you can easily extract the set of all integers from the set of all real numbers (i.e. high-contrast vs. gradient), but you cannot do the reverse. To pick something closer to League, when you're given 100 choices between 1 AP or 1 AD, you can easily turn that into a single choice offering 100 AP or 100 AD, but you cannot, say, turn a choice of an extra item slot into 100 choices where you get one-hundredth of an item slot. Many features in the game cannot be made gradient, ergo a gradient system is more restrictive in terms of what features you can implement with it.

Also, to clarify, I'm not saying you can replicate literally every possible gradient choice with a high-contrast system. However, that's not particularly important because the vast majority of choices in a gradient system tend to be false choices, as they're not optimal. Having a smaller set of clearer-defined choices allows many more of those choices to be made valid, as you have to balance around fewer variables.

deadlychuck1 votes

Except the player's ideal choice does not matter when the mathematically ideal choice is clearly established to be better. This is the very reason why rune, mastery and even item setups on champions tend to resemble each other from game to game, because those setups are optimal regardless of your personal preferences, and players largely go for what's successful over what they personally prefer.

Agreed, but what happens when the game changes in the future, and you happen to fall into a group which is heavily against the overwhelmingly optimal choices which don't align with your personal preferences? Why is it ok to screw over the people who fall into that category now, with overwhelming disadvantages for anyone who wishes to play differently?

...unless you specifically suggest a means of making players express their own preferences.

Why should a player be forced to express their own preferences? Why not opt for a system which allows for the expression of as many preferences as possible, but doesn't force players to follow a very small number of optimal 'solved' methods (E.g. No matter what you do, good or bad for more self expressive players, you'll always have mobafire and cookie cutters). There will always be players who will used the 'solved' methods of someone else, but you can chase away the players who want to express their preferences by not allowing them to do so.

The same can be said for the system you are proposing, as a player cannot choose a bonus unless that bonus has been implemented in the first place.

Yes, but again, every real gradient is finite. Only in theory can you get literally every option, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to provide as many to within reason.

Affecting the spells themselves would be jimmying scaling into an effect that features none of it, which carries a significant cost of its own. Increasing the number of shards required to swap out summoner spells may sound like a gradient option, but in practice would not work out that way, as past a threshold you'd very quickly get into a situation where it would be too impractical to put points into that option unless you committed to it, much like crit.

Yes, and this is where the balance of the game comes from, what would be the ideal values for the alternatives (which are more malleable). There's two ways to balance something that's OP, bring it down or bring the others up. And i never said all would be practical, only that all were points of possible iteration. Literally w/e part riot is planning on using to balance out the rune, could instead be used to iterate into the full effect of the rune.

they're not optimal

First, i want to get this out of the way. I think I've made it clear, optimal is a relative term. Failing to be optimal, doesn't mean it's invalid, unless you're going to assume binary success, which a game like league is not.

but you cannot, say, turn a choice of an extra item slot into 100 choices where you get one-hundredth of an item slot

Can you not though? Riot is surely attempting to do so (well I'd imagine this is a hypothetical not an actual rune, but I wouldn't be that surprised at this point). There must be some value attached to the mechanic. Else there would be no way to quantify it's relative power to another mechanic. In the case of an item slot, you might make it gold related or efficiency related.

Any kind of mechanic that they add into the game, presumably will have have some kind of quantifiable power value, else it will end up being impossible to balance. Even if it's not easily expressed as a numerical quantity, it's got to be some kind of reasonable method of determine a relative worth.

Teridax681 votes

{quoted}

Agreed, but what happens when the game changes in the future, and you happen to fall into a group which is heavily against the overwhelmingly optimal choices which don't align with your personal preferences?

I mean, if you look at the current rune system, most players simply stick to what works, and end up resenting the false choices they're given even more. I completely agree that players should be able to pick what's fun over what works, which is precisely why I think this is all the more reasons not to implement an incremental system, which would create a ton of those false choices and push even more towards statistically optimal builds.

{quoted}

Why should a player be forced to express their own preferences?

Wait, so you do want players to express their preferences or you don't?

{quoted}

Why not opt for a system which allows for the expression of as many preferences as possible, but doesn't force players to follow a very small number of optimal 'solved' methods (E.g. No matter what you do, good or bad for more self expressive players, you'll always have mobafire and cookie cutters). There will always be players who will used the 'solved' methods of someone else, but you can chase away the players who want to express their preferences by not allowing them to do so.

The problem right now is that players who do want to express their preferences over optimality are being chased away by the game's own playerbase, because if they pick anything other than a meta build they are considered to be trolling. Implementing a system with a plethora of possible choices, but only a few of which count as optimal, would only perpetuate that kind of problem. This is why I think the amount of choice in the game needs to be streamlined as much as possible down to valid choices, and if players want more options, they should be added on a case-by-case basis and should be worked on enough to be viable and healthy individually. Such an implementation would better fit a high-contrast system, whereas a gradient system is much harder to control.

{quoted}

Yes, but again, every real gradient is finite. Only in theory can you get literally every option, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to provide as many to within reason.

Not only does this not contradict my point, but it also doesn't really support gradient systems. If players want a radically new option, like a new summoner spell or the like, the only way to implement that is to add it to the game. With a high-contrast system, it's much easier to add that effect alongside other select options, balance it against them, and have it fit in without having to worry about a myriad of other possible choices it's competing against. No so with a gradient system, where anything you add ends up having to get balanced against literally everything else in the choice space that you have. In the end, choice systems force players to make tradeoffs, and wanting a little bit of everything makes that tradeoff much less clear-cut and impactful than one where each individual choice has major consequences.

{quoted}

Yes, and this is where the balance of the game comes from, what would be the ideal values for the alternatives (which are more malleable). There's two ways to balance something that's OP, bring it down or bring the others up.

Except League's own incremental scaling comes from its ability ranking system and the stat-based nature of items, and it constantly innovates by adding effects that are not incremental. For sure, an incremental feature is easier to balance, but there are already plenty of baseline incremental values like base stats and the like, and ultimately the choice between two customization options is meant to be one of gameplay, rather than one of statistical success rate. The reason why current customization systems are so rigid is precisely because there's no contrast between an effect as purchased by one champion or another, which leads to balance problems when an outlier synergizes too hard with it.

{quoted}

And i never said all would be practical, only that all were points of possible iteration.

Okay, but the only reason points of possible iteration are valuable is because they're supposed to make an effect more practical to balance. If it does not make it more practical overall, it's not achieving its core goal.

{quoted}

Literally w/e part riot is planning on using to balance out the rune, could instead be used to iterate into the full effect of the rune.

Time will tell, but if the rune proves too strong, Riot will likely act by balancing out summoner spells, and not necessarily the rune itself, precisely because it cannot be incrementalized. At most, it can have shards added or removed to the swapout requirement, and that can only be done within a limited window before it becomes impractical. For sure the effect will be difficult to change, but it might not actually be that bad for balance, particularly since the new runes compete with each other across different gameplay avenues, instead of offering the same effect in slight variations.

{quoted}

First, i want to get this out of the way. I think I've made it clear, optimal is a relative term. Failing to be optimal, doesn't mean it's invalid, unless you're going to assume binary success, which a game like league is not.

It is in League, though, as with any competitive multiplayer game. In a competitive format, if one option is stronger than the rest, it quickly gets picked by everyone, even if more fun options exist. It's why we have pick-or-ban champions, mandatory items and builds, and a meta in general in the first place. If you are to make a system of choices, each choice needs to be as successful as the others, otherwise a lot of players are going to end up feeling both deceived and disappointed.

{quoted}

There must be some value attached to the mechanic. Else there would be no way to quantify it's relative power to another mechanic.

Any kind of mechanic that they add into the game, presumably will have have some kind of quantifiable power value, else it will end up being impossible to balance. Even if it's not easily expressed as a numerical quantity, it's got to be some kind of reasonable method of determine a relative worth.

Not necessarily; the very reason those effects exist is to provide different kinds of power that are not equivalent to each other. Sure, ultimately everything can be quantified down to win rates, but that does not mean every aspect of the game needs to be incremental. As long as some part of the game can be incrementally fine-tuned, namely champions, it becomes possible to add high-contrast and non-incremental options elsewhere.

deadlychuck1 votes

I mean, if you look at the current rune system, most players simply stick to what works, and end up resenting the false choices they're given even more.

We are going to just continue to disagree on this point, because i think that what you can define as "what works" is a relative term that will vary based on the individual, with simply different portions of the population falling under different optimal and non-optimal preferences. Though you seem to think that any kind of non-optimal choice is outright false and therefore has no value in existing.

Wait, so you do want players to express their preferences or you don't?

Well this is a weird one. I want people to express their preference on how much they express their preferences. I want the mobafire copycats to be able to rip their build straight from mobafire and i want mobafire ignorant players to be able to play. Though, if you make the differences between the mobafire builds and the custom builds so large that play style and skill becomes irrelevant when compared to the raw power advantage an optimal build provides, then you've only allowed for one of those players to enjoy the game. But if you keep the relative power closer to the absolute optimized builds, then copycats will still be copycats, but you will not be overly punished for not being a copycat.

if they pick anything other than a meta build they are considered to be trolling. Implementing a system with a plethora of possible choices, but only a few of which count as optimal, would only perpetuate that kind of problem. This is why I think the amount of choice in the game needs to be streamlined as much as possible down to valid choices, and if players want more options, they should be added on a case-by-case basis

Yes, but the existence of this problem is from riot creating relative deeper valleys to the power peaks. The problem is that if you want to talk case-by-case basis, where do you draw the line on how many people need to want a new choice, to determine which should be added and which shouldn't, and how do you determine which new choices are desired, when you don't have the non-viable versions as choices in the game?

Okay, but the only reason points of possible iteration are valuable is because they're supposed to make an effect more practical to balance. If it does not make it more practical overall, it's not achieving its core goal.

It doesn't need to be practical to use, not practical to balance, as you said yourself said, "For sure, an incremental feature is easier to balance", for it's existence to be valuable. Riot still has a some of this in their current mastery system, though they assume you don't want the incremental choice because a single click is now used to allocate 5 points into a single tier, but you can still split the 5pt tiers between the two available passives.

Riot will likely act by balancing out summoner spells

That notion concerns me. If they start balancing summoner spells to balance the rune, then they'll be creating other balance problems (which will likely be even worse of an issue) for anyone who doesn't take the rune. Which is why i said they could give less potent versions of the unoriginal summoner spells, so that attempts to balance it would be less likely to bleed over.

In a competitive format, if one option is stronger than the rest, it quickly gets picked by everyone, even if more fun options exist. It's why we have pick-or-ban champions, mandatory items and builds, and a meta in general in the first place. If you are to make a system of choices, each choice needs to be as successful as the others, otherwise a lot of players are going to end up feeling both deceived and disappointed.

False. The option gets picked up by everyone the competitive players. League doesn't only exist in a competitive format. Ranked is a competitive format, but even in ranked, many people don't play for competition, they play for satisfaction, players pick their build from some combination of what's successful and fun. A player could have a 40% win rate with a particular build, but very few are going back over their past 10+ matches and checking their win rate with a particular build. Only when the other options are made nearly impossible be successful do the players who don't play for the competition start following the builds. They're doing so more begrudgingly.

In fact, I'd love to see probuilds or some website, do an experiment where they post a fake relatively weak build for a champion and give it a high % win rate. To see how community reacts and adjusts. I'd be willing to bet that a significant portion would just write off their losses, and assume the build to still be good, they're just not using it correctly.

As long as some part of the game can be incrementally fine-tuned, namely champions, it becomes possible to add high-contrast and non-incremental options elsewhere

This is where we seem to disagree, because you seem to think that weak choices make players feel cheated. Who should be in control over who gets to pick the increments? The game devs or the individual? If riot decided to start auto ranking up your skills as you level up, in accordance to the highest win rate build, then would that be acceptable? The same thing can then be extended to the power of runes/masteries.

You shouldn't be trading the freedom of choosing and number of choices for the reliability of that choice(s). Yes, some choices will be wrong in most situations, but that assumes that ALL situation will be most situations. It's only a small conflation, say 98% of circumstances to 100%. Although that's only an example of 1 situation, of which there are many.

Say you had a bell curve of situations, then a single standard deviation would contain ~68% of all situations (most situations). To then conflate that to be 100% of situations would be very inaccurate, neglecting almost 1/3 of all situations.

I'd even argue what makes you a skilled player isn't being able to preform that 68%, that's just a pre-request. It's knowing where you fall on a bell curve of situations, if you should go for that item 3075 on Ashe this match xD

Teridax681 votes

{quoted}

We are going to just continue to disagree on this point, because i think that what you can define as "what works" is a relative term that will vary based on the individual, with simply different portions of the population falling under different optimal and non-optimal preferences.

"What works" is not subjective though, as you can use statistics to support that, which Riot has used themselves to determine that rune builds are largely static and limited. You can insist that it's all down to opinion, but your own opinion is unsubstantiated, and plainly contradicted by facts.

{quoted}

Though you seem to think that any kind of non-optimal choice is outright false and therefore has no value in existing.

I don't, I just think that in a competitive multiplayer game like League, they may as well not exist, because the near-totality of the playerbase is pressured into always going for optimal choices. While I do believe that non-optimal choices are false and deceptive to the player, I think the solution to that should be to buff those suboptimal choices, except in a framework as complex as the one you're suggesting, any sort of proper balancing becomes practically impossible on a large scale.

{quoted}

Though, if you make the differences between the mobafire builds and the custom builds so large that play style and skill becomes irrelevant when compared to the raw power advantage an optimal build provides, then you've only allowed for one of those players to enjoy the game.

Okay, but this is the point I'm making: when you're in a competitive multiplayer environment, any kind of power difference gets magnified in the extreme, so really, if you have a system that is bound to have suboptimal choices, you're already agreeing to having all of those sub-par choices be deemed unplayable in League. By contrast, a smaller amount of much more impactful choices allows each of them to be controlled for much more easily, and thereby made viable.

{quoted}

The problem is that if you want to talk case-by-case basis, where do you draw the line on how many people need to want a new choice, to determine which should be added and which shouldn't, and how do you determine which new choices are desired, when you don't have the non-viable versions as choices in the game?

I mean, players can make suggestions, that's in part what Gameplay's for. Riot already determines what players want to see when they design new champions, and they already make the effort of looking for unexplored gameplay avenues, including by adding new masteries, so it's not like doing so in the future would be radically new in itself.

{quoted}

It doesn't need to be practical to use, not practical to balance, as you said yourself said, "For sure, an incremental feature is easier to balance", for it's existence to be valuable.

Okay, but as said before, ease of balance feeds into practicality. If an incremental feature reduces practicality overall, it is not worth having. Put another way, an incremental feature may be easier to balance, but if it also makes it much more difficult to do other important things in the game, to such a degree that it outweighs the positives, it is not worth having. Such is the case for the current stat-based rune system.

{quoted}

Riot still has a some of this in their current mastery system, though they assume you don't want the incremental choice because a single click is now used to allocate 5 points into a single tier, but you can still split the 5pt tiers between the two available passives.

This is actually a perfect example of how players prefer high-contrast choices to incremental options, as the near-totality of the playerbase puts all 5 points into a single mastery even when given the option of spreading their bonuses. The system you are proposing is already in effect, and it has failed in providing the combinatorial diversity of choice you are promoting.

{quoted}

League doesn't only exist in a competitive format.

Not all play is competitive, but League's metagame ties heavily into its competitive scene and is therefore itself highly competitively determined. You may like the game to be more relaxed and accepting of alternative playstyles (and I do too), but it's a cold, hard fact that currently the near-totality of the playerbase is driven towards statistically optimal picks and builds. If you have any suggestions as to how to change the overall player environment, I'm all ears, but that is a problem independent of the system you're suggesting, one you're going to have to address first before adding more suboptimal choices to the game.

{quoted}

This is where we seem to disagree, because you seem to think that weak choices make players feel cheated.

I'm not actually talking about choices here, as I'm specifically discussing balance and different balance levers in the game, so what you're disagreeing upon right here is with League's balance philosophy.

{quoted}

Who should be in control over who gets to pick the increments? The game devs or the individual?

This is a false dichotomy. Players can make suggestions and recommendations, but it is ultimately the game devs who control how the game is being developed. Choosing whether to tweak base stats or incrementalize mechanics is a degree of fine-tuning players cannot, and should not, be expected to direct.

{quoted}

If riot decided to start auto ranking up your skills as you level up, in accordance to the highest win rate build, then would that be acceptable?

I mean, personally I'm actually in favor of getting rid of ability ranks, as they offer little real choice in actuality, and tend to limit the design of certain effects. As long as it's presented as a choice system, though, denying that same choice to the player would make no sense. I'm failing to see what your point is here.

{quoted}

The same thing can then be extended to the power of runes/masteries.

Choosing which abilities to rank up first, and choosing which parts of the game to design are two very different spheres. Players can do the first because that's an option they're given, but the latter is the domain of designers, and while you can push for your own recommendations all you want, you still do not have the authority or even the right to personally determine the course of the game.

{quoted}

You shouldn't be trading the freedom of choosing and number of choices for the reliability of that choice(s). Yes, some choices will be wrong in most situations, but that assumes that ALL situation will be most situations. It's only a small conflation, say 98% of circumstances to 100%. Although that's only an example of 1 situation, of which there are many.

Okay, but the calculation you're not making here is evaluating the tradeoff between adding that tiny percentage of situations where maybe one combination might be better (assuming players know consistently when to capitalize on it, which is unlikely), and taking on the cost in complexity by implementing the vast and complicated system to support it. Such a tradeoff is not worth it, even if you go by the flawed reasoning that the value of choice is determined by the raw quantity of choices being made, rather than the actual impact of each choice.

deadlychuck1 votes

In fact, this is an off topic example of the exact kind of thing i'm talking about. (it's from some nontroversy about new FB emojis or some stupid shit like that ) https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/pri_50517358.jpg?w=620&h=397&crop=1

As you try to add every existing position of a gradient into a high-contrast system, you get multiplicative choices in the high contrast system, until it becomes an unnecessarily complex version of a very simple gradient solved problem. Literally you could reduce the number of emojis needed to very few, if they simply created individual assets. Yes, the user can no longer click on a single emoji for their family, but by clicking on 2-4 emojis and constructing the cumulative emoji, you've created a much more reasonable system.

If you try to generalize this problem, it's a matter of number theory and mathematical algorithms (i'll be it simple ones).

And there also exists a range of ways to design a system between a purely high-contrast system and a purely gradient system. If I've explained the concept clearly enough, let's call this it's granular value (moving forward). With pure gradient = 0. Pure contrast = 1.

Teridax682 votes

Is finer granularity valuable on its own, though? For sure, building a setup using incremental values leads to more choices, but are those choices all valid? What value does each individual choice represent over another? To pick an extreme example, if the entire rune system offered you the choice between only 2 options, but either option was equally valid, there would be no false choices. By contrast, the current stat-based rune system offers more possible setups than there are human beings on the planet, yet when you get down to the nitty-gritty only perhaps a few thousand even exist, and likely only a few dozen are commonly used. The amount of valid choices to total choices there is minuscule, yet the complexity of such a system makes it practically impossible to design with, because doing so would require accounting for all of those possible combinations of choices.

deadlychuck1 votes

I think you've got it wrong. It doesn't require accounting for all of those possible combinations, it only requires maintaining a system with rarely used combinations.

Though never used, or rarely used, combinations aren't inherently bad, they simply exist before they've been given a use. They might never be given an explicit use. But it's the fact that position exists to naturally be expanded towards, rather than artificially creating (or waiting on) a new one in a system with a high granular value.

Riot doesn't need to consider every single combination of items, they only need to consider a combination, if it becomes too overbearing on the game.

Now, as a result you will find that games naturally have their granular value trend upwards as they develop. However, i don't think that's grounds to then enforce the exact points of popularity at the time of changing the system, (hmm did it arbitrarily before but, for grammatical consistency, let's swap the numbering. Pure gradient = 1. Pure contrast = 0. sry for confusion), to a less granular system (again more contrast), in which they are virtually cemented as the only way for the game to progress in the future.

I'm fine with them changing the system if they find that it will not allow them to implement new mechanics which they feel will add to the game, but a new system should attempt to increase the granular value (again more gradient), in order to offset the natural tendency of continuous game development towards less granular designs.

Teridax681 votes

{quoted}

Riot doesn't need to consider every single combination of items, they only need to consider a combination, if it becomes too overbearing on the game.

Okay, but then that just means any combination can come out of the blue and become a problem, and because the amount of possible combinations is so vast, it's impossible to predict when and why that will happen. In addition, adjusting any combination would require adjusting at least one of the elements, which then affects a huge number of other combinations that may themselves have been just right before, and then find themselves disrupted. Effectively, you create a system of perpetual whack-a-mole where it becomes difficult to see problem areas and how to address them, as has been seen with the current rune system and its sweeping rebalances. By contrast, a high-contrast system can have any problem much more directly isolated and addressed, without it affecting the other possible options that compete against it.

It's also worth noting that game development has moved towards high contrast systems, and not gradient designs, with League itself being a prime example with its upcoming rune update. World of Warcraft similarly went from talent trees to one big option every few levels. Classes in general are a good example of high-contrast design, as opposed to Ultima Online-style systems where anyone can be a bit of everything on their character, and League itself is a good example of how giving player characters a little bit of everything, as opposed to well-defined strengths and weaknesses, leads to problematic design. Gradient design came from a time in game development where implementing and incrementing stats was much more economical than scripting new features each time, and to this day it remains an economical (at least in the short term) means of implementing choice and progress. However, now that devs can afford to express diversity other than through numbers, it's become a much better way of generating actual diversity of play, as high-contrast options means each one can radically alter your playstyle in a way incrementalized options simply cannot.

deadlychuck1 votes

I just want to go ahead and say, that a game of any granular value, isn't inherently better or worse. Different people will prefer games of a different value, but the larger the granular value, the wider the net you cast.

If the holes of a net are too large for some 'fish', then you can just as soon adjust the size of the holes as you can make a smaller net.

Teridax682 votes

{quoted}

I just want to go ahead and say, that a game of any granular value, isn't inherently better or worse.

This directly contradicts the title of this thread that you posted, though. In the end, what you are requesting is for the game's rune and mastery system, which is getting overhauled as we speak, to instead be turned into something with much finer granularity. What you're saying right now, though, is that it all boils down to preference: if the argument was that more players preferred incremental systems, then it would be a compelling argument for such a move, but as it stands it doesn't seem to be the case, as most players don't really value stat runes as a system, for example.

deadlychuck1 votes

Well

  1. More clickbait title is intentional.
  2. A game isn't inherently better or worse, you can have systems which are very granular but fail to provide a good gameplay. Just as you can have a game with good gameplay, but a very low granular system.

From the player's prospective the granularity of the game isn't necessarily inherently better or worse, but from the company's prospective it is, because the game become more attractive to more players.

Market value of a game is related to the breadth of appeal more than depth of appeal. More people playing for different reasons is more important than all of the people playing for the one reason.

Teridax681 votes

{quoted}

  1. A game isn't inherently better or worse, you can have systems which are very granular but fail to provide a good gameplay. Just as you can have a game with good gameplay, but a very low granular system.

You can have features that are flat-out poorly designed and that drive the game's quality down as a result, though. In a game where balance is on such a hair-trigger like League, a vast combinatorial system with many options that cannot possibly be accounted for properly lends itself towards that.

{quoted}

From the player's prospective the granularity of the game isn't necessarily inherently better or worse, but from the company's prospective it is, because the game become more attractive to more players.

Again, this is not true, as players at large tend to be drawn more towards big, impactful decisions, rather than tiny incremental ones, so really, implementing more high-contrast choices does tend to be inherently better for the playerbase.

{quoted}

Market value of a game is related to the breadth of appeal more than depth of appeal. More people playing for different reasons is more important than all of the people playing for the one reason.

This is also not really true. While having more customers can net you more revenue in the short-term, if those players do not derive a deep enough enjoyment of your game, they will eventually leave, and your product will lose value over time. Designing games for a broader market often (but not always) requires sacrificing commitment towards a style that may attract a very strong niche of players, so in practice it is often better to reach out to players you know are going to dedicate themselves to your game, instead of casting a wide net and hope the market bites. In League's case, popular as it is, it specifically markets itself towards a niche of hardcore, experienced gamers, and that has benefited it significantly. It's not going to attract the same people as Call of Duty, but it doesn't need to, because its niche is strong enough to secure a significant, long-term market share. Broadening its appeal to more casual players at the expense of its core playerbase would incur a significant risk for potentially not all that much payoff, and so would likely not be worth taking in this case.

deadlychuck1 votes

Again, this is not true, as players at large tend to be drawn more towards big, impactful decisions, rather than tiny incremental ones, so really, implementing more high-contrast choices does tend to be inherently better for the playerbase

No, players are drawn towards impactful differences of cumulative decisions, not necessarily the affect of any single decision. Some players which to have the control over fine tuning the impact of their cumulative decisions, while others don't.

It's not going to attract the same people as Call of Duty

lol calling bullshit on that. They're seem to be currently catering towards such players. It's a different genre sure, but the game is moving towards a moba equivalent of the player appeal that CoD has in the FPS genre.

Though realistically, what does riot have? A broad player base or a core player base? With how many players there are, you'd have a hard time arguing that riot didn't at least use to appeal to a very broad audience.

It's like world of warcraft, the thing that made it successful was it's broad appeal, not it's core appeal, because you don't now see 12 million players floating around MMORPG to MMORPG.

Teridax681 votes

{quoted}

No, players are drawn towards impactful differences of cumulative decisions, not necessarily the affect of any single decision. Some players which to have the control over fine tuning the impact of their cumulative decisions, while others don't.

Ultimately it's a bit of both, as players do want some fine-tuning in addition to big stuff, but they still largely prefer their decisions to have a clear, major impact, instead of just racking up points towards just having a lot of points. Riot knows this, which is why their new rune system has some massively impactful runes along with some smaller ones.

{quoted}

lol calling bullshit on that. They're seem to be currently catering towards such players.

How so? League is certainly neither the most accessible nor the easiest of MOBAs, and MOBAs themselves are a pretty tough genre.

{quoted}

Though realistically, what does riot have? A broad player base or a core player base? With how many players there are, you'd have a hard time arguing that riot didn't at least use to appeal to a very broad audience.

Quite the contrary, Riot started out as a small indie company who aimed for about 10k players tops, and only grew to the numbers they have today unexpectedly. Even now, while many players play League, these are still pretty hardcore players, and don't really overlap all that much with the demographic for typical AAA games. There are a lot of players into League's niche, but it's still a niche nonetheless.

{quoted}

It's like world of warcraft, the thing that made it successful was it's broad appeal, not it's core appeal, because you don't now see 12 million players floating around MMORPG to MMORPG.

I mean, you don't now because games have stopped making MMORPGs as often. Back when they were more common, they really did try to poach players off of WoW, and many succeeded, even if they never reached its level of success. I'd also argue that WoW similarly appealed to a very specific niche of fantasy geeks and hardcore fans of the Warcraft games initially, and maintained a strong core playerbase thanks to tough, yet deep and engaging high-tier content. It is only at this point that the game is trying to appeal to as broad an audience as possible, and this has been after a significant amount of player leak precisely because many veteran players no longer felt catered to.

i cant move wtf2 votes

Riot forcing me to make interesting and impactful decisions feelsbadman

deadlychuck1 votes

Yes, they did...

Choices which they could've provided to you without forcing it upon everyone.

Also minion block, feelsbadman

i cant move wtf2 votes

How do they offer the new rune system to me and not everyone else?

deadlychuck1 votes

Idk enough specific details about it to answer that.

But, this is why i provided 3 examples of keystones being provided with a less definitive power spike from allocation of a single point of a mastery page. Riot could've done it, but they didn't.

We the players don't know how new mechanics could be implemented into old systems until riot has already replaced the only systems with the new ones. At which point, it's probably too late, because many players and riot unreasonably see any kind of regression as inherently bad. As if any development was a positive force on the game.

i cant move wtf2 votes

Okay let's make it opt in. I'll take channel flash and berserk and you can use the old runes then we're both happy.

deadlychuck1 votes

Better idea. Let's have you get those runes, but it will require all 3 of your quintessences slots and all quintessences will be getting a buff (because these new runes are objectively more powerful than the raw stat bonuses).

i cant move wtf1 votes

That's literally how the new rune system works. They have stat increasing keystone runes along with the others.

deadlychuck1 votes

From my understanding keystone runes are all mechanical and stat runes fall under minor rune slots.

i cant move wtf1 votes

Nope. Maybe do some research before jumping to conclusions.

deadlychuck1 votes

Ok, well there is a reason i used the existing mastery keystones as the example in the OP not the unreleased runes.

I'm not jumping to conclusions, i'm speaking of a topic which is applicable to the new rune system, not exclusively about it.

More from Gameplay

3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay764 comments
7,167
votes
3 Refunds per season, upvote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay156 comments
3,510
votes
UPVOTE FOR URF
Gameplay606 comments
2,440
votes
Yes plz.
Gameplay456 comments
1,721
votes
3 Refunds per season, up vote if you want 3 refunds per season.
Gameplay114 comments
1,716
votes
When is ANYONE at riot going to address the awful new player experience?
Gameplay634 comments
1,383
votes

More by deadlychuck

Really hate how riot's design has actively discriminated against passive methodical play styles
Gameplay122 comments
116
votes
I don't even know why i play this game anymore
Gameplay112 comments
106
votes
@riot, if you're not gonna buff AP
Gameplay83 comments
86
votes
I'm very confused by the new mastery Battle Trance
Gameplay49 comments
63
votes
PSA: If an ally is behind
Gameplay21 comments
45
votes
People acting like they're just now noticing that Zoe Q is pre-rework nid spear...
Gameplay34 comments
34
votes