Top-down Champion Design vs Bottom-up

Toastey··2 votes·642 views

My friend brought up an issue that may be what plagues the last couple seasons of new champions: Riot is engaging in what seems to be top-down champion design rather than bottom-up. This means Riot is trying to create an interesting character FIRST, and then trying to build a kit and mechanics around that concept. Once that's done, they toss some half-assed, retconnable (and entirely ignorable) lore on top of it and call it day.

Now what's bottom-up design? You start with a kit and mechanics, balance that properly against all the other champs and items in the game, and then you build an interesting character out of that kit. As somebody who went to school for this shit (ie game design), one of the first things I learned was that character design comes wayyyyyy down the pipeline. Core mechanics come first. Balancing comes first. Fun comes second. Design comes third. Execution is what ties it all together. Riot seems to be doing it in the opposite order: design, then fun, then balance. There's even a quote somewhere out there from Morello (head of balancing, as I recall) that said he tried to think about fun before balance, since he thought that balancing with just balance in mind made a boring game.

Don't get me wrong, these are great designs and great characters, for the most part. However, when Riot makes kits based on character design rather than vice versa, it means that they end up creating obnoxiously broken champions with obnoxiously broken kits that don't mesh well with the rest of the game. Then, in order to save face and a bit of PR (not much, but some), instead of just flat-out reworking the new champion's kit, they're forced to simply continuously nerf the numbers on the problematic kit into the ground until they're satisfied that it's barely playable. A good example is Rek'sai. She was blatantly overpowered on release with unparalleled map mobility, tons of damage (sorry Phreak), and a borderline game-breaking sonar ping ability--and all of this cost absolutely nothing, as she's manaless. Riot's response to this was to destroy the numbers on her unburrowed Q, along with (surprise, surprise) eviscerating the AP scaling on her burrowed Q so that AP Rek'sai (read: alternate, for-fun build paths) was no longer viable.

2 Comments

Talamare1 votes

Completely disagree

I believe that you should have a concept in mind then design around that concept

So if you say, I want an Archer What type of Archer? ... Slow and Methodical, takes takes their time hunting their prey What would be some ways that they would accomplish this? etc etc

I personally think its

Design -> Mechanics -> Fun -> Balance

As far as recent champions being poorly designed, First of all we can assume every champion by CertainlyT is poorly designed. Secondly, Rek'sai was definitely balanced around a mechanic first then the design was tacked on...

Toastey1 votes

People go to school for game design for a reason (or they learn firsthand in the industry). If every game went "design -> mechanics -> fun -> balance", every game would be poorly balanced and difficult to tweak and patch. Getting stuff down the pipeline in game design is difficult and requires a lot of people working a lot of hours (and not getting paid enough). It's not the same as sitting on your laptop and messing around in Unity.

A better way to design an Archer class is to create a wide and varied skillset and allow players to choose their methods as they see fit (without allowing them to select too few or too many skills or powers). Of course, that's for a PvE archer in a PvE game.

What about a PvP archer? What about an archer that has a character behind the mechanics? If you want to create an archer, you take a look at the warrior, the paladin, the lancer, and the mage, and think, "Against whom would the archer be strong? Against whom would the archer be weak? How would the archer fit into my game?" Once you've figured out that he'd do well against the warrior, go even with the paladin and the lancer, and be weak against the mage, you can start laying down the balancing.

Paladin > Lancer = Warrior > Mage > Archer = (loop back to paladin) Archer = Lancer, but Paladin > Lancer Archer = Paladin, but Mage > Paladin Lancer = Warrior > Mage, but Mage >Paladin

Now you can start designing characters.

The slow and methodical archer requires precise shots at range, making him strong against the reckless and up-front warrior. The paladin's armour allows him to tank the archer but is too heavy to allow him to get close to the nimble bowman. The lancer's more calculated spearwork may allow him to get close enough to strike, but he is at as much risk as the archer. The mage, being more cunning than the archer and skilled in the arcane, can easily best him in a battle of wits. He can also melt the paladin's armour with his magic. That being said, the mage has a frail body, and is thus weak against the stronger warrior and lancer. The warrior and the lancer, on the other hand, are weak against the paladin, whose armour rumbles with hearty guffaws as he brushes aside the blows of sword and spear alike.

See how I've decided how to balance first, which then enables me to paint a picture of the characters as they relate to each other? Thinking of design first also makes it easier to escape the simple rock-paper-scissor pitfall of balancing and counterplay. I've created a complex web of relative strengths and weaknesses using only 5 classes. I can change character designs at any time and still keep my core mechanics. However, if I base everything on a character design, I cannot change my mechanics at any time and still keep my character design.

It's better to set rules and design with your rules in mind than it is to set a design and then try to restrict your design with rules.

More from Gameplay

More by Toastey