Boards›Gameplay

Replace stacking mechanic with fill value

TheYellowpaper·6/24/2015, 8:55:32 PM·3 votes·1,291 views

Hey everybody,

Tahm has been revealed and with him league gets yet another champ with a stacking mechanic, among champs like vayne, gnar and ekko. While I do believe that it's generally fun and it feels like the characters has more depth to it, I'm strongly against giving it to more than just very few champs, and I'd like to offer an alternative. I'm not pledging to remove stacking entirely, but to perhaps change the way it works for some champs. Before I talk about my suggestion I want to explain why I think stacking isn't a great concept in itself. And I also want to say that I'm not a native english speaker so some sentences might be confusing, though I'll try my best.

Stacking in laning phase: If you have ever played against Gnar or Vayne you know the trouble: Don't let them hit you 3 times. This might seem interesting from a design standpoint, but is unintuitive to play against. You either commit to an all in, or you take very short trades or no trades at all. Generally speaking: avoid getting stacked at all costs. But the main issue - in my opinion - is how the mechanic works behind the scenes. Applying a stack also comes with a timer that dictates when the stack weres off. This timer basically just tells the player: stay away for that long. The biggest frustration comes from the idea that there is no pay-off for staying out of the fight for a longer time. Say stacks last for 10 seconds and you have 2 stacks on you, then there is literally no difference between staying out of the fight for 1 or 9 seconds. It'll have the same result, because your opponent still gets the 3rd stack on you and is rewarded for it. I think that's bad.

Fill value So here is my suggestion, which I think could possibly add some diversity and improve gameplay. Obviously there are pros and cons for this feature too, but I personally believe it adds more strategic timing to trades in lanes than stacking currently has. The idea is a fill value and came with Tahm, think of it as a percentage. Instead of stacking you'd add a decimal value / percentage to the enemy. Let's take Tahm as an example and replace his stacks with a "wetness" value, which at max can have a value of 100, and only once that value is reached he can swallow his enemy, cause you don't want those dry champions to get stuck in your throat! With each of his attacks he would add some wetness to the enemy, e.g. 40 per attack. So with his first attack the value goes to 40, then 70 and then 100. So what makes it different from stacking? The value can slowly decay. I imagined that with each attack that applies a stack a timer is triggered that freezes the value for a number of seconds. Say one attack puts the wetness to 40 it would stay at that value for 2 seconds, before it starts decaying with 10/s or any other value that is appropriate. Once the full value of 100 is reached the effect of the stack triggers, or in Tahms case, he can swallow his enemy. Also, when the full value of 100 is reached, it should also stay longer than the decay-freeze-timer, say for 4 seconds. In my opinion this way of "stacking" allows for more dynamic playstyle in lane. It's "softer" and also gives players some incentive for staying out of the fight for some time. You don't get heavily punished if someone applies the 3rd stack right before they would have worn off. No matter how long you stood out of the fight, it's rewarding.

Thanks for reading so far! I hope to hear your suggestions, if you agree or if you think this idea is a mess.

17 Comments

Deep Terror Nami6/24/2015, 9:01:13 PM3 votes

The concepts are identical. The difference is the rate of decay and application, but it's only a visual difference with mathematically the same result. In a 100 point fill system, you'd simply get 33 points per hit, and 33 points would decay at the same rate as a 1 stack in a 3 stack system.

If you change the rate, then it would simply be a buff or a nerf. One that could easily be made to the other system for the same result anyway.

Vistha Kai6/24/2015, 10:37:56 PM3 votes

So in short: If they e.g. Tahm won't hit you 3 times in a row, they have to hit you 4 times instead for being sloppy?

I concur.

AMYS GRAVE6/24/2015, 11:05:48 PM2 votes

I agree.

JW Sephiroth6/24/2015, 10:16:17 PM1 votes

Well, let's look at this based off of the examples given. Vayne has stacks that are on each consecutive hit, meaning if she changes target, the stacks fall off instantly. This means that in order to zone you from the fight, she would have to refrain from basic attacking (almost her entire kit damage) for the duration, so stacking on her is in a good spot, and a fill mechanic would probably resolve into a nerf. (Include other consecutive hits like Jax and Orianna)

Gnar's is a bit different from Vayne's in the fact that it is NOT consecutive. So, let's look at this one in more detail. Should it be a fill mechanic, then you would leave the trade after two hits. From there, you have the option of staying out the full time or staying out half the time to lose a single basic attack's worth of stack. While, this does sound nice to have options, one of those options is pretty frustrating. If you lose a stack, and decide to go back in, you'll simply only have to take a single basic attack to be put back at a critical state, and the second would proc the effect. Which, with Gnar, is pretty easy with just a basic attack and a boomerang to follow up with. (Include other champs like Vel'Koz and Tahm)

Let's look at this a different way, if they were harassing you and you were playing safe, it would be harder for them proc because they would probably have to attack more than three times, but in back to back skirmishes, they would definitely be at an advantage. However back to back skirmishes in the current system aren't even avaliable because both stacks would still be on you, and you would probably just remain back. So, in a sense, you're adding an option that makes zoning more effective because they can sustain the threat as opposed to make or break it.

Centuros6/24/2015, 10:26:26 PM1 votes

You could also just make it a 3-stack system that decays one at a time. Doesn't at least one buff/debuff in this game do that?