A well-balanced game doesn't get stale from 'meta'.
Riot flipping the game on its head every once in a while is just a sad attempt at them covering up their balance shortcomings.
#IT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE GAME.
Start balancing, stop making massive changes to the game, specifically jungle, in an attempt to distract from current issues.
Dynikus11 votesA well-balanced game doesn't get stale from 'meta'.
how many games have been relevant as long as league without going through any major changes?
Ahristocats32 votesWhat OP means is that a balanced game gets years to be stale, if you have 100 balanced champions and 5 players it makes you able to play 100^5 different combinations
the thing is that riot for no reasons does massive changes IN EVERY END OF SEASON, sometimes it's for the greater good, sometimes it's just for the lulz like the jungle of season 7
Ralanr3 votesDid you know that private prisons cease to function without prisoners to fill them up? There's this lovely little debate going around about how prisons steered from being rehabilitation centers that turn criminals into better citizens of society.
What does this have to do with league? Simple: The paycheck. If the game is balanced then there is little reason to toy around with it from a developer end, which cuts down on the jobs of some people (I honestly don't know what the people behind balance changes and introducing new gameplay changes to league do at their job when they aren't doing that. But if their job is basically adding in stuff or balancing the game, then it needs to be done at a somewhat consistent pace in order to gain your paycheck every week (though I don't know how Riot pays their employees. I'm assuming it's a monthly salary).
This causes problems in the game, but it also keeps people in work as there is no money in a perfect product (or rather, there is no way to keep a consistent paycheck in a perfect product).
Ahristocats8 votesThen you stop working around league and create a new game that's how it works friend
at least before doing changes that aren't needed, balance the game first then try to add things
Ralanr3 votesSurprised Riot hasn't actually released any new games beyond that board game.
But seriously? Stop working with their biggest source of income and release a new IP to keep a consistent cash flow? That's an incredibly risky move in the business world despite game companies making new IPs (though sequels are also very common, just look at Uncharted, Halo, Assassins Creed, CoD, Battlefield etc).
Take a look at the two gaming "giants" Valve and Blizzard. Valve hasn't produced a new game in a long time and their lack of certain sequels has become a cornerstone of memes. Then we have Blizzard, who basically ran off of three IPs for a long time with few games representing them (WoW and Starcraft were basically their lifeblood) before diving into a new IP that they had to restart before ever releasing (though Titan would probably not have been as successful as Overwatch since the MMO is kinda losing its luster). Then there's also HoTS which runs off of Nostalgia.
Speaking of Nostalgia, excited for the new Zelda? Or what about whenever the new Mario game comes next? Nintendo basically runs off their nostalgia now and rarely do any new IPs get much traction.
Why create a new product when we have a stable cash cow? It's not that Riot isn't trying to make new games, but making a new game isn't suddenly going to stop them from their constant changes and updates to league since that was one of the original hopes for league: a game that keeps getting updated.
Ahristocats2 votesyou asked me a question, and i answered
If league becomes balanced (no clue if it will happen once) riot can make an other game instead of imbalancing it
but even then, they imbalance the game harder when the game is already imbalanced
Ralanr1 votes[{quoted}](name=Dr Sona x Rubick,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=QEpgWHXv,comment-id=000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2017-03-02T15:07:21.201+0000)
you asked me a question, and i answered
What question?
If league becomes balanced (no clue if it will happen once) riot can make an other game instead of imbalancing it
Even Icefrog changes a balanced game. As shown satirically through this webcomic:
http://www.nerfnow.com/img/1834/2894.png
but even then, they imbalance the game harder when the game is already imbalanced
Seems like all competitive online games do that.
Ahristocats2 votesI have no issues with changing a balanced game
i have an issue with changing an imbalanced game instead of adding useless changes riot SHOULD balance league first, the jungle changes were unneeded
Ralanr4 votesExcept by changing a balanced game, you basically make it unbalanced with the quickest balance solution to be taking back the changes in the first place.
WoonStruck4 votesIt depends on the changes.
Riot likes to make large, sweeping changes, sometimes for no reason at all, that upset the state of the game so drastically that you'd think every person that handles gameplay at Riot is unqualified for their position.
Take a look at Blizzards changes between each expansion of Starcraft or Starcraft 2. They're much more sound 'large' adjustments to the game and its meta.
ChaoticPinecone2 votesTo be fair, while Starcraft did had very few "large" adjustment's to the game and its meta, it also prevented them from actually having an impact on the state of the game.
I mean, Adepts were OP for 2 years after multiple nerfs. The earlygame Adept harass-to-win was the pinnacle of Protoss play for years.
Shaco Psycho4 votesSorry to point this out to you, but your math is wrong because you can't have 5 of the same champ on a team unless its a special game mode.
The correct probability is 100x99x98x97x96 for a game with 100 balanced champs and assuming only a single game mode. Or more concisely written as 100!/95!
That equals a tad over 9 billions combinations. But, there's another flaw with your logic, and that's assuming all of those combinations are practical. A team of 5 jungle champs is not practical, often not fun, and I haven't seen it a single time in my life. I have seen a team of 5 mid laners in draft, but only once before and so only a single combination of it.
Assuming a non-troll team comp, and assuming those 100 champs are split evenly over the 5 roles (20 champs per role), then the actual probability becomes much less. Obviously the actual numbers are different, and there are flex champs, but we're dumbing this down for an estimate.
Instead, the math becomes 20^5. This means there's only 3.2 million possibilities now. That's still quite a few possibilities, but yet again, there's another flaw to your logic. Assuming Riot doesn't make any major balance changes anymore, there would still be a set of 3 or 4 S ranked champs per role, all the way down to F ranked champs. Think of what Urgot is to the ADC role. I would say, for 100 champs, it's fair to say that 20 of them are hardly ever played at all and thus should be ignored in our calculation of what is a reasonable probability to expect. After all, this isn't an ideal world.
If 20 champs are barely used (1 in 50 games or less) then we can assume that means 4 champs per role. If that's the case, the math becomes 16^5 which is a shade over a million possibilities.
Now, this is all good and fine, except we've still ignored that a few champs make up the vast majority of picks at any given time. Think of Jhin in the ADC role this season. I believe I read he's picked in more than half of the games.
The million possibilities I just calculated previously assumes an even pick rate among all champs for each role. However, anyone with any substantial league experience knows that's not the case. I think it would be generous to estimate that only 10-15% of those million possibilities are seen very often.
That means roughly 100 000 to 150 000 possibilities. Even this number seems too high as I can't count the number of times I've seen similar team comps.
My point is, in an ideal world there are 100!/95! possibilities of team comps. However, League has a meta and there will always be champs better than others no matter how hard Riot tries to balance their champs. Unfortunately this isn't an ideal world, and if Riot doesn't change things up here and there then the game does get stale. I don't agree with massive changes, but mid level changes are fair game. I mean, I managed to reduce the idea probability by a factor of 90 000 just by taking the 3 most obvious factors. I didn't take into account fun aspects, item aspects, tower strength aspects etc. etc. Those aspects would only lower the number of reasonable possibilities further and further.
Melvear6 votesThat's the point though. If you stop making large changes that serve no purpose, and focus on changing the tier lists from God, S, A, B, C, D, F to something like S, A, Niche, you would have large amounts of possibilities and you would not get a stale game.
What if riot was to focus on making half the roster for each role "generalist" champions, meaning they're ok to good in pretty much any comp, and then make the other half more niche picks with more blatant strengths and weaknesses to create more focused comps. I feel you'd get a game that is "always" fresh because of the sheer amount of possible comps you could create.
To me, that would be the ideal world, and it's something they should strive for instead of adding crabs and plants and birds to "spice things up"
Shaco Psycho1 votesI agree that changes that serve no purpose have no purpose being in the changelog. Believe me, I was the biggest proponent of not adding jungle plants. To this day they feel gimicky and often back fire more than they help. What's one way to know that a junglers on their way to gank? Seeing the vision plant spread over you :P.
I'm also not a fan of changing respawn timers all the time. Making one camp spawn before the others is enforcing a singular jungle route, they should all spawn at the same time.
I also agree that Riot should strive to balance the overall state of champions.
That said, there will never be an ideal League of Legends. Ideal is a theory which can never be practical. Unfortunately that's just how the world works. And, as long as that's the case, there will almost always be a better champion for each role. Perhaps this discrepancy won't be as obvious with a more balanced game, but it will always exist. I mean unless every champ has an equal amount of DPS, mobility then one will always have more pros than cons when compared to the others. And being realistic, this isn't possible in League of Legends without dumbing it down so far that the game becomes boring.
Unfortunately Riot will always have control of which champions are in meta or are the best at any given time.
Yormaughm3 votesUnfortunately Riot will always have control of which champions are in meta or are the best at any given time.
You nailed it. Something I've noticed years ago that many players seem to not understand. Riot doesn't "enforce the meta" which is a super hot topic right now. But these changes to balance and gameplay are made soely so that they can basically do just that.
Unless they have a meta that THEY understand, they actually can't balance the game at all, at least not in a reliable way that meets their self-imposed timetable (which I think is partially what this thread is trying to imply is the problem; the timetable.) Back in the day they'd release patches as needed, tweak what were obvious problems. Now they patch once every two weeks on the button, often allowing stretches of garbage strats and unbearable gameplay because "oh well we'll fix it in 14 days or less."
The thing is, they can balance a game around certain changes, chiefly to things like jungle timers and items.
Have you noticed since smite started getting items exclusive to it, how much that affected the game? How many of those items were really really imbalanced? Remember "the cinderhulk meta?" Remember sated devourer? Supports used to have items they were basically supposed to buy, but now you'll straight up get reported if you don't full build the same 5 items as a support with the only difference being which starting item you go with for your particular character of choice (and if you get that wrong, also reported.) I got yelled at for not going Targon's on Blitz in a bot game once....IN A BOT GAME.
This, like it or not, is what a "meta" is. It's the expectation the community has as to how a game will be played and unfold, it's is rigidly enforced by the community, but Riot makes the changes they make because it allows them to enforce it "behind the scenes." They can steer the community in a direction that allows them to balance the game the way they want to, all the while allowing them plausible deniability. "But the community enforces the meta, not us" they'll say. Except they know EXACTLY what they're doing when they introduce new items into the game and basically lock certain items to certain roles, and sadly, they STILL underestimate the effect these changes will have.
Once upon a time League of Legends was a game of organized chaos where anything was possible. Now it's a clockwork Wizard of Oz charade being engineered by a man behind a curtain. Choice is an illusion in this game, and that's by design. Recent hot topics should be illuminating this to anyone who hasn't figured it out yet.
Shaco Psycho3 votesHave you noticed since smite started getting items exclusive to it, how much that affected the game?
I wrote a thread about a topic similar to this last week. Over the last 3 years Riot has dug themselves a hole. They used to have to balance 100 champs and the items to go along with them. But, now they've added modifiers for summoners (Smite items), a bunch of different types of buffs (Drakes, Rift Herald, the old jg camp buffs from the previous two seasons), vastly stronger masteries, terrain alteration (Taliyah, Talon, Plants). All of these extra variables only makes it harder for Riot to try to keep the game in a reasonable state of balance. They've made their job harder not easier. Much harder imo.
Back in the day they'd release patches as needed, tweak what were obvious problems. Now they patch once every two weeks on the button, often allowing stretches of garbage strats and unbearable gameplay because "oh well we'll fix it in 14 days or less."
I'm not sure if this is a result of them getting bought or what. It seems the problems have gotten worse ever since they got bought out.
To draw a parallel, the same thing happened to Minecraft. Small, community centric, compamy releases patches when needed. They got bought out by a big company (Microsoft), whom I bet imposed time table requirements and long term planning, and now it all feels staged and no longer about community feedback.
I can't be sure this is what happened to League of Legends, but the automated bans and the useless responses from support staff I've seen posted on the boards seem to indicate it could be true. The reworks feel like they've planned on a calendar for two years ahead of time, and none of the item changes/balance updates really feel spontaneous anymore. Riot is focusing too much on data and numbers and not what the players are actually saying.
Obviously there's values to data, numbers, and statistics. There's also value to AI (Like the one they use for the report system). But, there's also value to listening and being willing to provide meaningful conversation and actions as a result of conversation.
I rarely see Rioters on the boards anymore, I rarely see people have positive experiences when contacting their support anymore, and I rarely see the changelog reflecting what myself, my friends, and others on the boards are feeling. As you said, they gotta stop sticking to a balance schedule, and balance according to what is desired.
For example, the latest keystone changes on PBE blew my mind. There's literally no reason (or desire) for them to do what they're doing to Warlords bloodlust and bond of stone. I hadn't heard anyone out of my friends or the boards complain about those two masteries for quite some time, and their suggested fixes are weird and convoluted. Meanwhile, they continue to ignore the issues that seem to be brought up on a weekly basis.
Once upon a time League of Legends was a game of organized chaos where anything was possible. Now it's a clockwork Wizard of Oz charade being engineered by a man behind a curtain. Choice is an illusion in this game, and that's by design. Recent hot topics should be illuminating this to anyone who hasn't figured it out yet.
Probably the best analogy I've read about this. The people at Riot aren't idiots. They're sneaky to some degree. They know the game unlike any players do, and if the players can see the consequences of the changes they make, then we would be fools not to assume that Riot does too.
It's almost like traffic signs. Traffic signs don't enforce whether you follow them (The police do), but they sure push everyone in the intended direction. Obviously, the the police is the community, and the traffic signs are Riot.
The last thing I'll say is if Riot justifies the changes as preventing staleness, then why are they so insistent on removing game modes like Dominion, Draft, etc.
venomous frost11 votesstarcraft 1
LankPants4 votesSSBM. Released in 2001, one of the largest competitive fighting games to this day. The game's architecture means that it's impossible to patch or update at all, it's the exact same game as it was day one out of the box.
Nickssaa4 votesDota 2 recently had the 6.88 patch, and it was the last version in the decade long 6.xx version line. IT WAS OUT FOR 6 MONTHS AND IT DIDN'T GET STALE.
Ahristocats5 votes6.88 was the weirdest patch ever
you had heroes like omniknight and shadow demon going from unknown for 5 years to pick/ban and nerf targets Dota2 for some reasons has meta shift without patches
Faceroll Tactics1 votesDota had existed for a lot longer than LoL, Because of this people have a much deeper understanding of the game, how counters work, all the best synergies, etc. People who play league have nowhere near the same knowledge, people have been perfecting their ability in Dota since WC3. Therefore, patch notes in league serve as a basis for what's strong, people look at those notes and form an opinion. In Dota, people are so intuitive that halfway through a patch they doscover a broken combination that flips the meta without a singe balance change
SadKill1 votesLeague is 3 years older than dota 2, Now as for Dota 1, that's older by far.
WoonStruck1 votesDotA 2 is DotA 1....
They are almost exactly the same game, just a new engine.
SadKill1 votesLet's just refer to it as DotA then, why bother say 1 or 2.
WoonStruck1 votesBecause most people don't know that and it ends up creating pointless tangents in many cases.
Faceroll Tactics3 votesThis^ I'll change it to Dota for consistencies' sake though
Risen294 votesI agree. Throughout it's retail history, Dota 2 has been much more stable and slow going when it comes to nerfs.
Nerf/buff cycles should never be a way to artificially inject diversity into the mix.
Sometimes you just need to wait for the players to make their own shift and try something new.
Dota 2 had more of a sense that there was something new to discover and try. You hadn't figured it all out. Just when you thought hyperfarming wombo combo teamcomps were the unbeatable meta, next year you see pick and split pushing dominate by exploiting the weaknesses of the former. Then when you think the later is dominating, you see early hyper-aggressive strategies exploit the vulnerabilities of the pick and push style. But hyperfarming teamfights counter hyper-aggression, which is why it was originally favored.
[{quoted}](name=Dr Sona x Rubick,realm=EUW,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=QEpgWHXv,comment-id=000000030000,timestamp=2017-03-02T14:53:59.605+0000)
6.88 was the weirdest patch ever
you had heroes like omniknight and shadow fiend going from unknown for 5 years to pick/ban and nerf targets Dota2 for some reasons has meta shift without patches
That's partly because the very definition of the word meta is misused. Meta is from the greek meaning "above". Metagame is a term that is used to refer to strategic decisions based on things that are outside of the game itself - ie. decisions that have nothing to do with the relative power level of your options.
For instance: Knowing that a certain strategy is common, you may pick a particular hero to counter it. This is a reaction, not to that particular hero being particularly more powerful than others, but only based on what the prevailing "metagame" is of certain strategies being preferred over others.
In M:TG, for instance, the metagame was used purely as a term to describe what kinds of decks you were likely to face at one local versus another. The power difference of the cards hasn't changed, but merely the preference of the people in a particular area has, so you respond your deck and strategy with that preference in mind.
The same reason is why you can have different metas, preferences for styles and strategies, in different LoL regions.
Papa Andrei1 votesMeta= Most Efficient Tactic Available
Risen291 votesMeta= Most Efficient Tactic Available
You're just parroting what you've heard, and haven't done even basic research on the origin of the term "metagame".
Meta is not an acryonym of that phrase you gave. That phrase was invented much later, and more recently, and has nothing to do with what "metagame" really means.
http://www.wordnik.com/words/metagame
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=metagame
Metagame has nothing to do with the game mechanics or the balance of the game itself. Metagame is about reading and responding to the people who play the game.
For instance: A purely data driven analysis of the game would lead you to conclude that a particular Dota hero is not that powerful, but it's the International and you know you're up against an opponent who is unusually devastating on that hero for some reason - so you will ban it. You are making a strategic decision based on the people you are facing, not based on the game itself.
People in LoL routinely misuse the term meta.
Papa Andrei1 votesBanning that Dota hero is metagaming, using things outside the game to affect what is in the game.
Doesn't mean META is not a valid acronym. Thats like stating any word made after the creation of the English language doesn't actually exist because it wasn't there in the beginning.
Risen291 votesBanning that Dota hero is metagaming, using things outside the game to affect what is in the game.
You're still misuing the term. Banning is a feature of the game itself.
What you choose to ban can be determined either by hard factual analysis of what is strongest with their team comp, or what is strongest against your comp, or it can be determined by knowing the playstyle and preferences of the opposing team - in which case the later is metagaming strategy.
Doesn't mean META is not a valid acronym.
It's not a valid acronym as far as the real meaning of Metagaming is concerned. It has absolutely nothing to do with what metagaming has always meant.
Just because you make up a new acronym for POTUS that means "pie-eating on terminal unitarian ships", doesn't suddenly make it a true meaning of the presidency - It actually means "president of the united states", and has for a long time. That doesn't change just because someone is ignorant enough to create a new meaning to an acryonym that already had meaning.
Papa Andrei1 votes[deleted]
Risen291 votesThere is no definitional difference between metagaming and meta, they refer to the same thing. Meta is just shorthand for it.
You're now trying to invent a difference between the two words in order to try in vain to hold on to your inaccurate use of "meta". But you have no etymological basis for your claims, and thus no proof of it. As I already said, you're just parroting what you've heard and haven't attempted to do any basic research for yourself. To make it worse, rather than admit your mistake, you try to defend it by making up some lame excuse about meta and metagaming having different definitions. Completely absurd, you should be ashamed at your lack of ability to honestly deal with facts.
Nickssaa2 votesThis is one of the side of effects of not having class based hero designs. Since the heroes are designed around certain synergies and mechanics without putting them in a role, this creates a meta where heroes are viable in multiple places, and even though a hero might be nerfed, pros will always find another playstyle that they can use. Lets look at Sand King, GabeN's favorite. After his burrow strike and sandstorm was dumpstered due to a shift in the metagame, he was put under a rug for a while. During the later parts of 6.88, pros managed to start working more with caustic finale because of the increase in popularity of illusions, and both his winrate and pickrate skyrocketed and now hes a top tier offlaner.
HeeroTX2 voteshow many games have been relevant as long as league without going through any major changes?
Every. "Real". Sport. In. The. World. Are there rule changes? Sure, they come something like once every DECADE or two. Heck, baseball has been practically the same game for over a hundred years. I realize technological changes can make the desire for video games to look and feel "better", but if the game itself can't make it more than a few months without constant changes, then Riot's thoughts of having an "enduring" eSport are frankly laughable.
Ralanr4 votesReal world sports have the best engines to sort out bugs though. It's called Reality.
Not xPeke2 votesWhat do bugs have anything to do with balancing a game?
Ralanr1 votesAnimation canceling for one.
Not xPeke2 votesbut what about all the other balance problems that could be easily solved? it has nothing to do wth bugs really, they need the game to be unbalanced so people buy skins and champions when they are FOTM. I'd rather believe this is the reason than they are lazy and unable to balance the game.
Ralanr1 votesHas the thought, "Balance is actually difficult" ever occurred to you?
WoonStruck5 votesConsidering they balanced far better with a more inexperienced, less organized team, not to mention all of the broken things in the game at the time, that argument doesn't really apply.
Balance gets worse and worse every season.
Ralanr1 votesConsidering they balanced far better with a more inexperienced, less organized team, not to mention all of the broken things in the game at the time, that argument doesn't really apply.
Balance gets worse and worse every season.
This just in: The game with over 130 champions is in a worse balance situation than a game with 40 champions.
Almost like adding more stuff makes it all harder to balance.
Not xPeke4 votesthat's a good point I admit.. but the balancing issues right now are so obvious, alot of the new champions and successfull reworks have been extremely overtuned.
THAT'S my point. It can't be that hard to realise the numbers are too high, a kit is overloaded, etc. And the other stuff I mentioned. So yeah.
Ralanr1 votesAnd everyone seems to think Riot can change everything in a single hour based on how much people complain.
Or maybe they aren't trying to make a perfectly balanced game in the first place.
Not xPeke3 votesI'm not asking it to be PERFECTLY balanced.. I'm not deluded, I know it's not fair or realistic to expect it to be like that. But there is a limit.
Some things just shouldn't have made it to the live servers.
Some things shouldn't stay in the game in that state for more than one patch. Etc.
You can't deny this.
And nobody expects Riot to change everything in a single hour. Not at all. But there are on-going issues that go on for whole seasons and even overlap through-out different seasons. That should not be acceptable from a company, a game, as big and famous as this.
There's a difference between not wanting to make a perfectly balanced game, and apparently not putting much effort to balance it all.
And the issue arises because they try to balance the game for the randomers like us and for LCS at the same time. They have to choose one and stop hiding behind excuses.
HeeroTX3 votesReal world sports have the best engines to sort out bugs though. It's called Reality.
Bugs != "Massive changes"
These are not "bug fixes": Changing dragons Jungle plants First turret gold Weakening Turrets
And plenty more. Even if I'm just going to concede that Riot needs to continuously add champs to keep things fresh and that THAT adds balance issues (second point definitely being true, especially with how unbalanced the new champs usually are) that still doesn't change the fact that Riot has made MANY "unnecessary" changes presumably to keep things "fresh" despite the whole host of issues that are still unaddressed.
If nothing else, why not take ALL the people tasked with any role and require them to spend at least 10 hrs of their work time checking reports and dealing with TOXIC players. That is not something where you can say "different skills" but it IS something that would benefit greatly from having HUMAN eyes looking at it (since it can't "perfectly" be automated). Think of how much trolling you could cut down if ACTUAL Riot employees actually spent a portion of their day dealing with reported players. And it could literally be done by ANY employee, even a f'ing intern, it just needs people to make an informed "judgement call".
Leaf on Bush2 votesThats what i was thinking... the changes keep the game fresh and interesting.
I am always excited when a bigger patch hits live. I probably would have quit league long ago without all the updates, reworks and new champions.
