What makes a rework "successful"

metaworldpeace10·Nov 3, 2014·33 votes·8,608 views

Title. I think this could be an interesting discussion. What makes a rework more successful? What makes a rework a failure? Should all reworks be approached the same way? What type of rework should take priority, the Urgot rework/relaunch or a small gameplay update for a champion?

My personal opinion is that the Xerath Rework was the best rework done to date because of the strong communication line between the community and Riot. Also, the changes weren't rushed and well thought out, the process took a while to complete, but the finished product has been nearly perfect.

I'd like to see a discussion on the matter :) post your thoughts!

114 Comments

Sire HippingtonNov 4, 201416 votes

it depends on the case. in Case of sion, the rework prettymuch is a new champion, as sion had no real identity befor(gameplay wise)

For most reworks, the aim should be to preserve the identity while get rid of unhealthy playpatterns, and usually adding more depth and coherence on dull kits, or adding better balancing levers.

Most champoins that get reworked either lack a core identity and have no coherent kit(sion), or they have unhealthy patterns and are nearly impossible to balance as they end up either to weak or to strong(kassa)

I don't think the aim off a rework has to be an already balanced champ, but an champion with a coherent and fun(for playing as and against) kit and the needed levers to more or less easily get balanced However, if a champion is out of balance after a rework(especially up), those levers have to be used instead of abandoning the champ. It's also very important to revision failed reworks.

in order to get an idea of the core identity, there has to be comunication between riot and players, or a cassio rework hapens(riot saw her as hyper singletarget dps mage, the players saw her as the poison mage)

serpensortia1Nov 4, 20144 votes

Agree with all but the especially up part. It can be just as frustrating to know that your favorite champion will never be able to compete with other champs in a similar role as it can be to have one champ being the best of everything in an entire class of champs. Buffing champs that are "fun but weak" is just as important as nerfing OP champs, just not as urgent. If Riot notices a champ that is fun to play but too weak, they should start working on buffs as soon as they can.

Also, the first champs to rework should be those with either toxic playstyle or just plain boring playstyle. Champs that are already fun, just with not many balancing options, should be left alone at as reasonable a power as they can make until boring champs are fun to play as and toxic champs aren't frustrating to play against, regardless of power.

GD goldtitanNov 4, 20143 votes

Agreed. Communication with the community is key. It's fairly frustrating to have to adapt to a completely new kit on a familiar champion.

Learn34Nov 4, 20142 votes

I disagree with your statement that Sion had no gameplay identity. He simply had two distinct, common identities, which was not a bad thing. Some people played Sion AD, and these often went into the Jungle. Others played Sion AP, and these usually went Top or Mid. The real problem is that the community was not willing to look into ways to combine those two disparate play styles, thereby making full use of his hybrid kit. It could be done, but sadly the community has long since stopped being willing to but any real thought into how they build their champions: they build straight AD or straight AP, without any consideration of what's best for their champion. At the same time, the dearth of hybrid items makes building hybrids that much harder (especially the lack of a hybrid penetration item). That's the hybrid problem in a nutshell. But I digress.

RiotVeshNov 4, 201411 votes

"AP/AD" are not gameplay identities. AP sion's identity could have been summed up as "Reliable targeted stun with additional magic burst" which is not really acceptable as your core identity in today's LoL roster. AD Sion could have been summed up "Crazy lifesteal melee with a targeted stun to close on you" which also doesn't interact in ways we are comfortable with.

If I say "AP mage with a targeted CC," is old Sion the only champion that comes to mind? Does he do unique interesting things that other champions can't do? Does a game with Sion in it change the way you play/think about the game (playing with or against) in interesting and deep ways that that cause you to make decisions? We didn't feel that the very simple and shallow gameplay "identities" of previous Sion held up to the bar that we think makes a champion compelling.

Being a Hybrid isn't a gameplay identity either by the way. "I do some physical damage and some magic damage" isn't a compelling gameplay identity. "Your resist item buys are slightly less efficient against me" is not a fun or interesting strength to have and doesn't present the enemy with any compelling choices. Chances are, they will buy more of whatever resist they need for the rest of your team.

(Not saying champions can't deal both magic/physical damage in the context of a greater kit, but the idea of a 50/50 hybrid is itself not a standalone gameplay identity).

KoboldNov 4, 20143 votes

Vesh I would like to ask you a question then. Riot has stated they don't want to force players into building certain ways but this is not entirely the case as has been stated during the Sion AMA where it was told to us that he is a Tank and that is it which is a giant divergence from what he was before (AD Melee carry, AP bruiser).

Now I ask you is it ok to completely destroy what the champion was before?

Take the Cass rework there were two very different builds and styles to her and one was destroyed for the other. The reason I ask this is Gangplank has a rework coming up and I fear the same will happen to him where he will be removed from his versatility and PUT in a role with no real variation available. An example of GP's versatility is he can be build as a Melee ADC (all crit + damage), a bruiser (TF,Crit, and tanky), or a full tank (IBG/TF, full tank) to even a AP off build. There is also the point in that like pre-rework Sion he is AD/AP. GP is also a moderate skill champion in that to use him to his full effectiveness one must know melee orbwalking, AA resets, How his W works in Knockups, and especially counter building as he is generally weaker than his lane opponent post level 3. Gangplank is a champion I have put my heart and soul into learning to the point he is 1/6th i believe of my games played. I am afraid of changes to him but I am more afraid of him being turned from a champion that gives the players choices in how they play him into a no choice character who is forced into a role and the rework called good. Eyejoker would probably make a better argument than I can but I believe I have explained some of my concerns with the current rework policy.

Learn34Nov 5, 20142 votes

You forgot GP's potential as a support XD I realize that it's kinda troll (though so is AP GP), but the aura-like AD steroid and significant slows make for great laning aid, and body-blocking a thresh hook only to orange-away is hilarious. Additionally, using Q in tandem with Targon's lets you heal your Marksman (or -woman) from relative safety if low on health, and Remove Scurvy can help with recovering from an exchange. Finally, it lets him side-step the fact that he's often outclassed by newer champions of either the Melee Carry or Bruiser classes.

RiotMorelloNov 5, 20146 votes

ohai

To speak on Sion:

Building different stats to get different results is something we think is cool, but it does not take priority over gameplay values. In fact "meaningful choice" is specifically-worded. Choices aren't good on their own, but if they create real gameplay opportunities, then we want to create and support them.

Sion's item choice gave you a two-button character with a low skill cap and bad counter-play. I'd call that "not meaningful," even if it is cool.

It is OK to destroy what a champion was before, yes. It must be done very deliberately, and with a lot of reasons why that's the right decision, but the champion's current identity is not the leading priority. That the champion has a cohesive identity is, and if the current one can be supported, then we'd like to.

We also think of the missed opportunity space of a champion if they have poor gameplay patterns. So while Sion is a new champion, he's the fully-realized undead juggernaut. We think that's true to Sion's "space," even if it's not the same as the previous version of Sion.

So keeping things that exist and respecting player investment matters, it just doesn't matter more than other things - and I think that's the right call. If we valued that most highly, the game would grow stagnant really quickly, and not have any opportunities to live and evolve.

As for Gangplank, he's fun to play, but if he's strong, you pretty much can't be beat. If he's not strong, he's just weak and useless. I don't know how to resolve that without big changes.

NVDaxNov 5, 20143 votes

As for Gangplank, he's fun to play, but if he's strong, you pretty much can't be beat. If he's not strong, he's just weak and useless. I don't know how to resolve that without big changes.

cough Speaking of Gp changes Morello, any news on them? Please... Like, pretty please? I don't want another season of Gp being suck-tastic :(

MerxamersNov 5, 20142 votes

it feels like this is saying "We don't like to force players to build champions one way, but we're going to force you to build champions one way, and when we do it to Gangplank you're going to LIKE IT." :/

Old Man TeetoNov 5, 20142 votes

As for Bruiser's, they're fun to play, but if *they're *strong, you pretty much can't be beat . If they're not strong , they're just weak and useless. I don't know how to resolve that without big changes.

What I read.

Learn34Nov 5, 20143 votes

You're right, a champion's primary damage stat is not a gameplay identity. That's not what I was saying in the slightest, and looking back at the comment I see I could have better elucidated what I meant by leading with the playstyles, rather than the primary damage stat those play styles involved. I was pointing out that the community generally chose to play him either as a mage with strong wave-clear and a solid stun OR as a heavy-sustain fighter/carry (the latter was all I ever saw of AD Sion), and built him either pure AP or AD/AS/Crit accordingly. But the main reason he was played in those two disparate ways was because you could not readily harmonize them given the available itemization options. If Sion players could have gotten everything they needed for the old Sion in six items, they would not have felt the need to play him in two, different ways which almost completely ignored different halves of his kit. And that's a tragic loss, because his kit was a proper Bruiser kit:

A solid, single target CC for gap-closing
A shield to help soak up damage (that it dealt damage if it held was a cool, added bonus).
A mixed offensive and defensive steroid, which required both a bit of thought (hurting yourself on every attack rose that stakes of aggression) and skill (missing a last-hit with E active really smarted relative to other bruisers).
Another mixed offensive and sustain (which can be seen as both a defensive and offensive stat) steroid in his ultimate. Even better, though, was that his old ultimate helped his teammates. He popped that thing in a team fight and he'd be healing all the other folks with him in the front line.

That is a beautiful kit. But even with his innate health gain, he still had to build like a bruiser, i.e. half damage and half tank, to fully utilize it. An armor item, merc treads, and another MR item (probably FoN on Sion) were the standard back in the day (although not as common now). That left you with three items to grant up-front AP, AD, Armor and Magic Pen, and attack speed (because you needed some extra AS outside his ult). It isn't possible to get all that in three items. Hell it's tough to get that in four items. It has always been, and I suspect always will be, so even though it'd be pretty easy to provide the necessary items.

I can't do anything about you and your colleagues' disdain for the heavy-sustain & in-brawl team healing components of Sion's old kit, other than disagree with it. I already submitted a critique of the new Sion in a feedback survey a couple days ago, as well as copying it into a board thread. So you have my thoughts on what he is now.

All that said, thank you for taking the time to respond to my original comment.

StoanadinNov 5, 20142 votes

Vesh, thank you for taking the time to chime in. It is helpful to hear Riot's perspective on this topic more broadly. I wish you could explain what would make the community's AoE DoT vision for Cass toxic to the game, but I have a feeling it would be flamebait.

-For the record, I get my rear handed to me if I try to play current Cass, when I could play as her before. I just feel she may have been too good at zoning, especially if they reworked and focused in that direction like many propose.

WereScribNov 4, 20147 votes

I think it should be based on this: If this is a rework of an underplayed champion to increase play and viability.

I.E. Sejuani Trundle Heimerdinger Karma Twitch Evelynn.

The criteria should be based around. Does it increase play? Does it alienate people? Some are resounding successes. (Eve, Heimerdinger) Others are mixed. (Karma, Trundle both alienated fans mostly due to a lack of care about the champion being obvious on Riot's side, but were generally good reworks mechanics wise or glorified QoLs in Trundle's case) Others are failures in the longterm. (Sejuani's winrate has been lower then pre-release since her rework was nerfed, while having an easier and more forgiving kit.) Finally there's objective failures and what seems like a colossal waste of time (Skarner.)

Then there's reworks of champions with much maligned, hated abilities or who have kits that are simply harmful on the game as a whole. I.E.

Rengar Nidalee Kassadin Sivir (original) Master YI Gragas

Most cases, these are problem champions that are overplayed due to their strengths, so reducing their players isn't a huge problem. Nor their viability. However it shouldn't ~~gut~~ them. Even still, most don't have fantastic winrates. They're often one-trick ponies used to abuse the game.

These are mostly successful. The exception is Nidalee has been a case of Riot repeatedly ignoring AD Nidalee, balancing her around AP Nidalee, causing the entire problem with Nidalee's toxicity in the first place with these decisions, and then was shocked that AD Nidalee came back when they reworked Nid into an assassin-bruiser. Without even solving the problems her kit had in the first place, often making them worse then they were before.

Pika310Nov 4, 20147 votes

For a successful rework, here are a few aspects I believe are important:

Listen to the players, especially during testing. If 95% of the PBE is saying you're doing something wrong, don't ignore them or do the exact opposite what they're suggesting.

Don't abandon the champion, if you aren't making adjustments no matter how minor, nothing's going to get better.

Don't make blatant nerfs unjustifiably, if the champion is too weak, buff them. Don't redirect power from elsewhere.

Math exists. Use it.

If players are still complaining weeks after the fact, you did something wrong. Don't ignore them, they're going to keep pointing out your failure no matter how many months.

If a champion already has counter-play, don't give them even more. You're just going to make them in-viable.

Don't lie to your players, unfulfilled promises are propaganda.

Don't claim internal stats are better than player observations, this is libelous.

PS: I hope Fearless reads this

Learn34Nov 4, 20143 votes

I love you're pointing out that math exists, although I feel it should be written out more like this: "MATH EXISTS. PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD USE IT! HIRE A SCORE OF MATH MAJOR OUTTA COLLEGE IF YOU HAVE TO!" Because every aspect of this game which riot has control over can be modeled by a system of equations. So long as Riot continues to subjectively balance every aspect of the game, especially Champions and Items, we'll always have the same problems with reworks and FotM champs that we see now.

I would disagree with you comment on internal stats VS player observations, for the same reason proper application of mathematics is a superior balancing process to highly subjective balance: player accounts are anecdotal, whereas Riot has a direct feed on all statistical data regarding this game. Anecdotes are far more compelling than statistical analyses, but they can't paint an accurate picture of any system as vast and complex as LoL.

RaptameiNov 4, 20143 votes

Because every aspect of this game which riot has control over can be modeled by a system of equations.

If that were true, you could make a diamond level bot that didn't need any human interaction.

Also, Vlad once lost nearly 5% winrate after a ruinous nerf... except Riot had withdrawn the nerf before the patch went live and it only existed in the patch notes. This indicates that about 5% of a champion's winrate is related to teammate morale. You can't exactly account for that.

Learn34Nov 4, 20143 votes

I said every aspect of this game which Riot has control over. That means maximum possible gold income, gameplay mechanics, skillshot geometry, the value of any given skill, etc. One way to parametrize much, if not all, of the game is via gold. Every stats is worth so much gold, and as AD directly equals physical damage dealt per attack, damage of any kind also has a gold value (that of AD). Every ability modifies how a champion scales with stats, gives them bonus stats for a set duration, deals damage, etc. Even things like CC, skillshot geometry, invisibility, etc. can be evaluated as providing a certain amount of gold every CD (aka gold per second). So long as Riot defined the ways these abilities, effects, etc. were evaluated abstract from any one champion (that is to say, equally), they could model every champion and calculate how that champion best scales, where and when their power spikes are, etc.

As to creating a god-tier AI: Yes, you could, but such an AI is what's at the forefront of modern AI R&D. There's a piece in Wired that cleanly describes it for us non-Computer Science majors. (http://www.wired.com/2014/10/future-of-artificial-intelligence/)

Sire HippingtonNov 5, 20141 votes

the problem with such value based balancing is that it poorly acounts for interaction between mechanics and those values. Getting all possible interactions for those values would requiere a insane if not impossible equastion system given how complex the relation between all those things are in a moba, especially if u now add playerbehavior ontop(which is a huge part of the game)

Learn34Nov 6, 20141 votes

I'll reply to both of your responses in one go. As someone who's generally concerned about the existence of free will, I have understood the fundamentals of chaotically deterministic systems for a while. es, any multiplayer game, when you take into account the player actions, is an incredibly complex system. So is driving a car, or modelling the airflow over a 3D structure, or highly refined stress analysis on even a relatively simple structure. Yet me already have computer programs (in the case of the latter two) that perform those calculations, and an AI that can do the latter. We use computers to model chaotically deterministic systems already, and an AI to control the LoL bots would be no different. If LoL ever becomes the kind of phenomena that chess is, I would not at all be surprised if an AI was developed to test the ability of AI to beat humans. If the designers thereof wanted to make their job easier, they might make separate, autistic AI for each class. But ultimately combining them would be a relatively simple matter. It's just a question of economics and interest. Doing that would be a major effort of software engineering, cost shit tons of money, and require a whole lot of dedicated computer hardware.

Mathematical modeling is the best way to account for the interaction of champions and underlying game mechanics. What it wouldn't do is what the AI(s) described above would: model player choices. And this is fine, because - and I cannot stress this enough - balance has nothing to do with player choices. A champion is balanced based on what it brings to a game, the time frame in which the champion brings it, and how hard it scales off of input gold. Modeling how a champion best puts it's gold income to use allow one to tweak and shift that best practice to align with how one wants a champion to best utilize it's gold income. I'm not proposing Riot try to create an AI akin to Deep Blue; I'm proposing that Riot define a concrete, mathematical basis for their game so that they stop subjectively balancing their champions and instead say "It is balanced, y'all are just doin' it wrong. And here's the math to prove why we're right." They start be defining a value (I'll say gold value) for every champion statistic: max health, attack delay, the various types of CC (i.e. an Entangle effect is considered to bring X gold per second), etc. Then develop mathematical equations which model every mechanic in the game in their most finite form, i.e. a function to define a geometry-targeted, circle-AoE skillshot (think Eye of Destruction), with inputs of projectile speed, projectile trajectory, damage (if any), CC (if any), CD, Range from champion to AoE center, AoE radius, visual indicator (if any), etc. Each of these inputs would, in turn, have a defined, concrete value. Rather than use "id est" again I'll just put the elaboration in it's own sentence. Every type of visual indicator would have an equation to model how it contributed to spell's gold value, *but this equation, and the value derived therefrom, would be independent of the spells it might be used on. To properly balance a game, one defines each aspect of that game which the developer has control over (and this does not include player action) abstract from every other aspect, but in a consistent manner. Then you combine them. That's how one model's any system.

Sire HippingtonNov 6, 20141 votes

I'm 100% sure they have a mathematical basis for balanceing, but it only gives u a startpoint, not a usefull resultat as u can't hard value things like aoe, projectile speed, Windwall. The power of most things is relative to what is already there, leading to chaotic systems there 1 change affeckts so many parameters that u hardly can keep track by other than observation off the system - which would be playtesting.

For example, u say everything has a gold value, and each champion would have the same total goldvalue. U could make an champion with 1hp, 4spells that deal 1 damage, and take the remaining value for 1000 attackrange and insane base ad. Going by value based math, such a champ would easily be balanced, but any one with a common sence could tell u such a champ is bullshit.

also, someone would have to decide what gets what value, how a function to determine a certain value would look like etc. So the value-definition would just be as subjektive. There does no overlying rule exist on which prettymuch all humance over the cause of serverall millenia agreed like u have for physics. Ever rule u determine for balancing/gamedesign is subjektive, as their is no scientific basis to it. How would u develop an equation for the value of braums E? The only way off fiding out how much impact it has and how valueable it is overall is gathering sufficient data, ehich needs a huge amount of testing and observation, which in this games means it needs huge numbers of games beeing played with braum in every potential constelation off items, champions and playerskills. There for every potential funktion for a value can only be estimated, which wouldn't really differ from estimating the value itself.

The ultimate goal of games is to deliver an experience(usually involving fun), which happens within the mind of the player. The mind is so far byond comprehension for humans that u can't hope to fin a mathematical funktion that allowes u to creat experience or fun as u wish. U could have a mathematically perfectly balanced game by giving everone one single champ with a set item builtorder that is the same for everyone and a totally axes-symetric map. It simply wouldn'T be fun at all, as the ultimate goal is not a perfectly balanced game, but a fun game. Math can give u a good statingpoint, but nothing more. The best friend off a gamedesigner stays experience+gutfeelings.

LuckyRedenNov 3, 20145 votes

I think a successful rework would mark 3 things. 1: the champion recieves much more play in higher levels of the game due to a higher skill cap. I think xerath is a good example. 2: The champion's win/pick rate improves. 3: The community is involved.

So yes I think it is safe to say that Xerath's rework may have been one of the best, but Twitch's wasn't bad, neither was Ryzes. I think after the dust settles on Sion and Cass we may have some strong champions. Soraka still needs quite a bit of work. Viktor, while it wasn't much of a rework, was a good rework. Rengar's minor rework is another example of a great rework, really balanced him out.

AbodyHUN666Nov 3, 20141 votes

What do you think about Gragas? I personally like it in jungle.

metaworldpeace10Nov 4, 20143 votes

What do you think about Gragas? I personally like it in jungle.

I honestly really likes the Gragas rework for multiple reasons. 1) the rework, for the most part, kept his identity intact. 2) the rework eliminated the toxic play style of being able to nuke an entire back line with a single q/r combo. 3) the rework shifted his burst damage power into his strong CC and empowered auto attacks, forcing him to engage in danger. I think the Gragas rework was one of the most successful gameplay updates to date.

GD goldtitanNov 4, 20142 votes

No... His Q only physically slows, rather than working against attack speed. E is on a lengthy cooldown and offers a minute stun of 1 second. W is on a shorter cooldown, but it gives no mana benefit and the bonus damage must be used in a short timeframe.

Totally different champion now. Utterly boring play.

TheRainInSpainNov 4, 20143 votes

A rework can be massive, or it can be subtle. The point of a rework is to remove toxic hard to balance aspects, give a champion a better niche, make it easier to identify, and make it easier to balance further as the game evolves (e.g. new champions, changes to the map, new items, etc)

Gragas needed a rework because he could spam his spells without needing much mana, then nuke an entire backline with an AOE combo, while being a backline champion himself. Gragas was reworked into a drunken brawler, obviously an AP bruiser, in a game that was devoid of AP bruisers (there are roughly 11 AP bruisers compared to roughly 24 AD bruisers, not counting full tanks that can deal damage). I think it was a good rework; it gave him a true identity, gave him better sustain/fighting stats, and took away the ability to nuke an entire backline with impunity. Being a fat AOE Xerath that didn't need to self-root himself is pure cancer just asking to be nerfed/reworked.

chumblerNov 4, 20143 votes

A rework can be massive, or it can be subtle. The point of a rework is to remove toxic hard to balance aspects, give a champion a better niche, make it easier to identify, and make it easier to balance further as the game evolves (e.g. new champions, changes to the map, new items, etc)

Gragas needed a rework because he could spam his spells without needing much mana, then nuke an entire backline with an AOE combo, while being a backline champion himself. Gragas was reworked into a drunken brawler, obviously an AP bruiser, in a game that was devoid of AP bruisers (there are roughly 11 AP bruisers compared to roughly 24 AD bruisers, not counting full tanks that can deal damage). I think it was a good rework; it gave him a true identity, gave him better sustain/fighting stats, and took away the ability to nuke an entire backline with impunity. Being a fat AOE Xerath that didn't need to self-root himself is pure cancer just asking to be nerfed/reworked.

"Making something easier to balance" is just Riot admitting their incompetence. And they're not even consistent on it, either.

Pika310Nov 4, 20142 votes

Agreed, lately they've been reworking perfectly viable champions into useless pieces of trash. They rework simply for the sake of reworking without justifiable reasoning. My thoughts are they're just bored and want to screw with champions that are fine-as is just for the fun of it.

TheRainInSpainNov 5, 20141 votes

Hey, at least they admit to it! There are plenty of games (and some MOBA's) in where the developers refuse to admit they did something wrong because they have too big of an ego.

chumblerNov 5, 20143 votes

Hey, at least they admit to it! There are plenty of games (and some MOBA's) in where the developers refuse to admit they did something wrong because they have too big of an ego.

LoL is one of those games. Riot refuses to admit when they fucked up their reworks even harder than the original design (which in many cases didn't actually have flaws other than Riot's made up and stupid definitions of what constitutes counterplay or game health). And on the rare occasions that they do admit mistakes (like the entire bruiser class and mobility creep) they don't do shit about it.

ZeracanuleSep 25, 20151 votes

As a Xerath main who enjoyed Locus of Power gameplay mechanics.... it was a horrible rework, Heimerdinger on the other hand was one of the best reworks in the game.

JustMyBassCannonNov 4, 20144 votes

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the differences between a successful rework and a well-received rework. The fact is, the latter doesn't exist. Even Xerath's rework was poorly received, because nothing reworked is ever perfect on the first day.

To be fair, now, the only people complaining about the reworked Xerath are upset that his ultimate looks a lot weaker than it should. Still, there has not been a single rework from Riot that has not received an undue amount of community bullshit and whining because "They're not the same, Rito!"

As far as actually successful reworks; a successful rework is one that keeps the core feeling of playing that champion (i.e. Sion kept his W, his HP gain, and still has the AS/LS effect from his ultimate), gets rid of toxic or incohesive elements (Sion got rid of his targeted stun, and no longer scales very well with AP), and overall improves and solidifies their role in combat (he changed from mixed up bruiser/mage to a disruptive juggernaut of a bruiser).

The only rework I personally don't consider a success is Cassiopeia's rework. They weakened her poison-based playstyle--because who plays a Lamia for poison, am I right?--in favor of spamming Twin Fang like she's Ryze 0.7

ZeracanuleSep 25, 20151 votes

I'm upset about the fact that Riot at one point tested a version of Xerath where his ultimate was a mana draining spell boosting root (which is the version they said their "xerath expert) morgageddon tested) yet we got a Locus-less Xerath. What I loved about old Xerath was the fact that he had those moments of power when you used your Locus of Power right and could just wreck a team. Being the ONLY CHAMPION in the whole game who would willingly root themselves so as to gain that range and spell penetration (knowing his had that 30% ap into armor boos). Xerath paved the way for Vi and Varus to even have abilities like their Qs that slowed them down (which eventually got sent back over to Xerath with his reworked Q). His was one of Riot's first&wildest tests in attempting to change the style of champions. Instead of being a high mobility dash champ like every other god damn hero released after him, he was the immobile one.|

He was Rito's attempt at a Siege tank and because of "popularity" they decided him a failure and changed him. So now if I want to get a siege fix I have to play Sgt. Hammer on Heroes of the Storm. But it's not the same. It will never be the same because sure I loved siege tanks from Starcraft back in the day, but I fell in love with the unyielding magic incarnate that was Xerath.

JustMyBassCannonSep 25, 20151 votes

{quoted}

He was Rito's attempt at a Siege tank and because of "popularity" they decided him a failure and changed him.

I agreed with most of what you said, but he wasn't decided a failure; they decided that his kit had issues (the MPen making his magic damage nearly true damage, for example)

Riot missed an opportunity with Xerath's unique design, and the idea of swapping his old W and R, and turning his root into a channel mana-drain, was a very intriguing concept. Having said that, I can understand why such a concept would end up scrapped. They run into an issue of how to reward the Xerath player for rooting themselves.

Now, the obvious choice (and the one they tried if I remember correctly) was a significant increase to his spell ranges. Unfortunately, you either end up with an underwhelming kit (because he doesn't have an actual ultimate, just one that modifies his basic spells a la old Heimerdinger), or he ends up with a significant enough boost from his ultimate to be capable of joining team fights without actually being near the team fight.

And the problem there is that you have difficulty avoiding Xerath's spells because you don't know where they'll come from, and you can't react by hitting Xerath because he's not there.

Before you point out global/long range ultimates that already exist, remember that we're talking about having Xerath's whole kit do this. Not a single burst spell to catch someone off-guard while they're escaping, but an entire kit that's meant to be strong enough to burst down a team of champions. And with his cooldowns, that would definitely be possible.

The other option would be increasing the effectiveness of his spells via damage, CC and/or utility, which either ends up being underwhelming (again, old Heimerdinger) or ridiculously powerful. There really wouldn't be middle ground on that; either his ultimate is only useful if the enemy team isn't going to attack you directly, or it's so powerful that there is almost no negative repercussions for self-rooting.

AetherKingdomNov 3, 20143 votes

Rengar rework made him less viable.

AbodyHUN666Nov 3, 201413 votes

SSW says hi.

AetherKingdomNov 4, 20145 votes

SSW says hi.

SSW?

Sire HippingtonNov 4, 20146 votes

SamSung White got about 100% winrate on rengar in worlds...

Killer X 12Nov 4, 20144 votes

World Champs.

metaworldpeace10Nov 4, 20146 votes

Rengar rework made him less viable.

Why do you think that? What makes you believe that the Rengar rework made him less viable? What would you do to make him more viable?

AetherKingdomNov 4, 20142 votes

Rengar rework made him less viable.

Why do you think that? What makes you believe that the Rengar rework made him less viable? What would you do to make him more viable?

revert his rework

TheRainInSpainNov 4, 20144 votes

Wahh, I can't win as much when they rebalance champions, wahh!

Instead of only downvoting or giving short responses that doesn't really contribute to the conversation, write something meaningful. Something that explains why you dislike whatever.

AetherKingdomNov 4, 20143 votes

Wahh, I can't win as much when they rebalance champions, wahh!

Instead of only downvoting or giving short responses that doesn't really contribute to the conversation, write something meaningful. Something that explains why you dislike whatever.

Rengar rework took away a lot of his top lane potential, bola security, dueling potential, and split pushing potential. His Ult is worse, has a ridiculous CD, has an indicator for bads, and his trinket is a bad item in general. He no longer has any real reward for killing khazix other than the name of the item, and khazix gets a fourth evo point. The only place he is better is in team fights.

GreenBirdNov 4, 20143 votes

Why is the item 3166 a bad item now that it is a trinket?

AetherKingdomNov 5, 20142 votes

Why is the a bad item now that it is a trinket?

It's just lackluster in my opinion. I get it and and it just feels so useless compared to old bonetooth. Also, reward for killing khazix is nonexistant.

John BerserkNov 4, 20143 votes

In my opinion, what makes a rework successful is if the gameplay better matches the theme of the character, is easier to balance, and is more fun/still fun to play, compared to the state the Champion was in previously.

Damage output and specific stat numbers shouldn't be taken into account as all of that could be easily tweaked in following patches. Numbers being changed does not constitute a rework, that's just basic balancing.

This is why lots of older champions with super binary kits are either going to only ever feel overpowered or underpowered. They're stuck on a needles-edge in terms of balance, where being tipped one way or the other will either gut them or make them permabanned, or just an overall pain to play against. These are the Champs that NEED reworks the most.

Making them simply better to play as/against isn't quite enough though. As I mentioned above, they also need to make sure the new kit design better matches the theme of the character (both lore-wise and player-perception-wise). Newer Champions are designed this way. They're designed much more complexly both in terms of visual design and gameplay design. The point of a rework is get the older Champions, most of whom are significantly lower in quality, and bring them up to match the new standards set by more recent Champions.

so chadNov 5, 20143 votes

What makes a rework successful?

Crush their mains. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their skin owners. -Riot

drude247Nov 4, 20142 votes

On paper i think that reworks should be a great thing.

But when they reworked Sivir back in season two they changed her from a very unique risk/reward aoe damage carry to a rather dull adc that played the same as every other adc. She lost what i always considered the best part of her, 10+ boomerangs flying around, now she has only three at once and everything was nerfed except for her spellshield while still keeping her low range and ridiculously high mana costs.

Yes i understand that she was hard to balance because of her w but i was fine with her being slightly underpowered because she was so fun to play as.

And i am sure that other people have felt the same way for their champion when they got reworked.

The SoulforgedNov 5, 20142 votes

Keeps the theme of the champ
Champion succesful in higher levels of play, and possibly lower
Keeps major parts of play intact, or with minor changes

BastionKrossNov 5, 20142 votes

It's pretty easy to have a successful rework. All you need are two things:

Riot likes it.
Players like it.

Riot is always going to be happy with the rework because they have the final say. If they don't like how it's shaping up, they can delay or cancel the entire thing. Yorick item 3070

The players though... why don't we ask all the Cassiopeia players how that rework went down. How about something a little farther into the past with Skarner ? The rioters in charge of those reworks ignored negative player feedback, and the new champions weren't greeted with open arms by the playerbase. This is key.

An example of a successful rework? Heimerdinger The rioter in charge of that rework listened to Heim players. And you could tell, the donger got to keep his swag walk even though a new walking animation was in production. The voiceover was adored. "Raise your WHAT?!" The kit got changed, but kept similar as well. Heim wasn't an entirely different champion when they were done with him, he was Heim 2.0. The same, but better. Faster. Stronger. Donger. Exactly what the players wanted. Heim was similar to his old self (he kept his identity), but his kit was modified to be more healthy for the game. Players loved it, Riot loved it. Everybody won.