Boards›Gameplay

Replace stacking mechanic with fill value

TheYellowpaper··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 Nami3 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.

TheYellowpaper3 votes

Similar yes, identical no. How stacking works at the moment is that they don't decay. So no matter how many stacks you have on you, they'll all disappear after some time. In a way you are right, riot could add a decay on the existing stacking system, so it goes back from 2 -> 1 -> 0 after some time.

Deep Terror Nami2 votes

Stacking does decay. A meter that decays is only a timer, and hitting the target adds more time. A stack doesn't show you how much time it has left, but that time is still decaying and resets when you add a new one.

It is still identical. Again, the difference being how much you make it decay and how much you make it add.

TheYellowpaper3 votes

I'm not trying to be an asshole here, but there are multiple obvious differences. Say we have both systems and want ideally that 3 attacks in quick succession trigger the effect. Say the stacking mechanic has a decay timer of 8 seconds. That means:

Stacking system: 1 stack -> 8 seconds = 0 stacks. 2 stacks -> 8 seconds = 0 stacks.

Let's say the new system needs 100 to fill and one attack adds 40. Decay freeze is 1 second, decay rate is 10/s.

Fill system: 40 units -> 5 seconds = 0 units. (1 second freeze + 40/(10/s) = 5) 80 units -> 9 seconds = 0 units. (1 second freeze + 80/(10/s) = 9)

This means that when you were attacked once, you can reenter the fight faster since there is an actual decay going on. Being attacked twice just takes a little longer. If you were to take it to the extreme we could go back to the stacking mechanic and create an example that's more striking. Taking the numbers as above, the enemy attacks you in 7 second intervals.

Left is the timestamp of each attack, right the new value.

Stacking system: 0s = 1 stack 7s = 2 stacks 14s = 3 stacks So with 3 attacks, each 7 seconds apart, you can get the effect to proc.

Fill system: 0s = 40 7s = 40 14s = 40 It has time to decay.

If you wanted to make it fair and put the attack interval to 4 seconds: 0s = 40 4s = 50 8s = 60

or an attack interval of 3 seconds: 0s = 40 3s = 60 6s = 80

Obviously you can juggle with the numbers, but in my eyes, there is an apparent difference, both mathematical as well as visual in the end.

Deep Terror Nami2 votes

Not really sure what to say lol. There is a difference, but there isn't. We disagree, but we agree. Fuck this I'm out!

AMYS GRAVE2 votes

what he is trying to say is if you get in a skirmish and get two stacks of whatever on you...

0 sec -------- 4 sec ---------- 8 sec
2 stacks --- 2 stacks --- 0 stacks ------------- <- current system 2 stacks --- 1 stack ----- 0 stacks -------------- <- propose fill value equivalent run away --- changes --- good to go

so going back in after 4 seconds you can take one more stack and that isn't necessarily a death possibility unless you let them get 2 more hits. this requires more interaction and more thought than the 3 stack system we have now and is more interactive as you judge the weight of a stack or two vs the value of a cs or two.

EDIT: formatting

Deep Terror Nami2 votes

I understood it...so I get downvoted and corrected because I didn't argue with him?

AMYS GRAVE2 votes

i'm sorry you're getting downvoted but i'm just pointing out that these systems are not identical as you asserted, which seemed to me to be a misunderstanding you were having with the OPs explanation.

Vistha Kai3 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 GRAVE2 votes

I agree.

JW Sephiroth1 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.

TheYellowpaper1 votes

I understand your point but I don't agree on the last one. I think it all comes down to the numbers.

JW Sephiroth1 votes

So let's take a look at those numbers. Current system dictates (in more cases) three hits for proc. That means the fill mechanic (which won't begin decaying immediately) will also need three hits in succession. That means it would have to decay in sets of thirds, so the only difference is you can lose a single stack in half the time, or lose both stacks over the same duration as the current mechanic.

Perhaps there are some things I'm not considering, but that would appear to be the only difference.

TheYellowpaper1 votes

Yes. The problem this system was supposed to solve is that stacks would _actually _ decay. Obviously that's also possible with the stacking system, so instead of 8 seconds for both stacks to disappear, one could simply change it to 1 stack disappearing every 4 seconds. The only difference to my sytem then would be that it's more precise in a way.

JW Sephiroth1 votes

I agree that this would be more precise, but the end result would be the same just about. Most of the time, champions are able to quickly apply two stacks in quick succession (Vayne aa and tumble, Ekko time winder, Gnar boomerang and aa, Vel'Koz W, and so on) so having one stack disappear would give you a false sense of security.

Centuros1 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?

Vistha Kai1 votes

The only one I can think of is Jinx's Q.

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 TheYellowpaper

Summoner Icon Description
Story, Art, & Sound46 comments
115
votes
Support Item Actives
Gameplay11 comments
4
votes