Boards›Gameplay

League of Theseus

deadlychuck··1 votes·352 views

The year is 2010, this represents the game called League of Legends. %$#&@ $%%%$ &@%$# #&&@$ $#$&%

The year is 2012, this represents the game called League of legends. $$#&@#$&&$ %%%%$&@$%% &@%$#%$### &&&@$#&&@# @#$&%@@&%%

The year is 2014, this represents the game called League of Legends. $$#$@$$&&$#&$ %%%%$&@$%%%%$ #@%##%$###### &&&@$#&&&#&&# @@@&%@@&%%@#@

The year is 2017, this represents the game called League of Legends. $$$$$$$$$$$&$&$$ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% #@&############# &&&@$#&&&&&&&&&& @@@@@@@&%%@@@@@@

Yeah, i can't imagine why a good portion of the older player base feels like the game has gone to shit, not that a substantial portion of the actually come onto the forums anymore. It's unrecognizable from what it was when they got hooked on it.

Unfortunately, this kind of death of ambiguity isn't going to be appealing to the everyone who entered the game and learned to love it when things were still less defined and less structured. When anything was reasonably possible, not because the best method wasn't discovered, but because the "best method", wasn't as far from the second best, and the 2nd best wasn't as far from the 3rd best, exc, exc.

You might still call it League of Legends, but over the past ~4 years, the game which people played has all but gone away. Some still play because they're invested, because friends pressure them, and some actually enjoy this new game, but many have left. Though, much like the Ship of Theseus, the boat which you're currently on, looks nothing like the one which you boarded.

That's not to say that the game is any better, or worse, than it once was, that's just a matter of opinion. However, one thing can be ascertained from this new game which wouldn't hold true of the previous game. If someone comes out with a new game which looks like this

$$$$$ %%%%% ##### &&&&& @@@@%

Riot is going to lose substantially more of their players when another company produces a game which is more compelling to their, now limited, demographic to which they slowly converted their game appeal.

Personally, i'm mostly sticking around to watch, and see how this whole thing plays out. I've seen it a few times before, but there is just something satisfying about watching it repeat. So keep up the good show riot. [slayer-pantheon-popcorn]

20 Comments

Martensitic1 votes

Not sure what it actually is that you are complaining about.

Lack of champions that are viable? Most of that is in the heads of the players, not the mechanics of the game.

To this day, I still OTP my Nasus top, and I still kick a** with it.

Problem is, more and more people watch LCS (which determines champions based on completely different mechanisms than the normal player does) and try to emulate what they see there.

The game is not to blame for people wanting to min/max.

deadlychuck1 votes

Well if you're looking for a "complaint", then you're not going to find one. I'm just pointing out a phenomenon in games like league, which live in a perpetual state of development, rather than attempting to create encompassing coherent gameplay.

Somethings do hang around from the very first iteration, as is mostly the case with the likes of Nasus, but as they define the game, and take it in some direction, rather than simply expanding it most of those things get removed, in an attempt to simply a system, generally done in the name of balance or player exposure, which would otherwise be growing increasingly complex with size. The best few examples of this I can think of are the changes to marksmen itemization and their planned rune/mastery changes. They think that these changes do/will increase diversity on the basis that it's more balanced, so they present them as such, but really they just making it less complex to min/max.

If anything it actually makes the game increasingly boring for the players who actually care to Min/Max, and easier for those who simply imitate them. I think the colloquial term use to be "theory crafters", they were the people looking to find the best possible builds testing and calculating, even if they're unrealistic to preform proficiently or only proficient in niche contexts.

Though, in many ways riot is probably in for a harsh reality sooner rather than later (at least based on what i'm seeing with the league youtubers and streamers)... By increasing the clarity and rigidity of their game, the theory crafting type get bored, because the puzzle has become too easy to solve (which riot has been doing in order to reign in the balance of the game). Except when too many of the theory crafters get bored, or they find a more interesting puzzle to solve, they will move on. The more of them that move on the less the game will change, because the imitators have no interest in theory crafting, but are slowly taking over the game's demographics. This is when the game will truly start to stagnate, so the devs attempt to balance the game even more, because it's easy to conclude that balance = diversity of play, which again require more clarity and rigidity (for their sake), which leads to more theory crafters to reach that threshold of boredom and leave.

It's a little bit unintuitive, but in a way the bigger a game becomes, the more danger there is with trying to balance it. Failing to recognize that more balance leads to less diversity and a more stagnant meta, creates a dangerous feedback loop. It creates a bubble and, unless appropriate measure are taken, it's going to pop.

But as I said, I'm just sticking around to watch the destruction and chaos, like watching a plane crash or a building get demolished, I'm one of those more theory crafting types and, while i can say I reasonably lost interest in the game years ago, I stick around and play casually too reserve my front row seat and hang out with friends.

Martensitic1 votes

but really they just making it less complex to min/max.

I have news for you: Min-Maxing as a Source of Enjoyment is a Myth.

And I am saying that as a 10year WoW player, who used to spend DAYS optimizing Rotations, Brooding over Item-Sets, Ideal Potion-Timings, etc.

The thing with Min-Maxing is, its a one-way one-time road...in algorithmic terms, we would call it a "trapdoor function".

Because as soon as the min-max is determined ONCE, everyone wanting to maximize is going to follow the same path. There is no more trying, there is no more experimentation...the maximum is determined and published, and then its just copy-paste.

And making games more complex, doesn't change that. On the contrary, it makes it even less interactive!

Because as soon as the mommax process becomes too complicated for people to bother with it any more, someone, somewhere will create an ALGORITHM to do it. And at that point, the minmax is no longer an interactive, interesting gameplay element, its "click a button and do what the software says".

World of Warcraft fell into that exact trap, with their gemming-system...at some point, players simply used programs to tell them what to gem for in what slot, and did exactly that. What was intended as an interesting gameplay element, became a boring story of "going through the motions".

The ability to min-max should NEVER come from Mathematically determined iverly convoluted game mechanics.

It should derive from the player input at runtime...movement, aim, timing, reactions.

There is a reason why the Rogue was the most populat class for most of WoWs lifetime, because it delivered exactly that.

deadlychuck1 votes

Because as soon as the min-max is determined ONCE, everyone wanting to maximize is going to follow the same path. There is no more trying, there is no more experimentation...the maximum is determined and published, and then its just copy-paste.

This isn't true. It might be rare, but people continued to experiment trying to find methods which might have more consistent or more powerful results, and sometimes despite no updates being made to the class, as is the case with wow, you'd see massive shifts because someone had figured out some new aspect of the class, or some interaction which hadn't been considered.

And making games more complex, doesn't change that. On the contrary, it makes it even less interactive!

Bullshit. These systems don't make the game less interactive, players create interfaces which make the systems less interactive, which makes them palatable for players who have no interest in exploring them. Though, not every player is going to want to limit themselves by using the interface or just don't care enough to use it. One of the worst things that was ever done in world of warcraft, was blizzard taking away the ability for players to fail. It's the exact same thing that's going on in league now. Devs decide that too many people just bypass the system, by using the player made interfaces *cough* gearscore *cough*, when they force this optional player made interface to all players (ilvl), then they create a larger division between the non-optimal builds, which people might find more enjoyable or the individual might be more proficient with, and the optimal builds. By gutting the complexity of these systems, you make it so that the optimal builds at the time of the scraping of the system, are solidified as an unchanging optimal, unless the devs go far out of their way to make significant changes directly to them.

The ability to min-max should NEVER come from Mathematically determined iverly convoluted game mechanics.

It should derive from the player input at runtime...movement, aim, timing, reactions. There is a reason why the Rogue was the most populat class for most of WoWs lifetime, because it delivered exactly that.

Then go play a fucking action game and stop changing the good multiplayer strategy RPG games. Yes, Rogue was the single most appealing class, but the popularity of rogues was less than that of ALL OTHER CLASSES. Yes, it might be the most popular, but by changing other aspects of the games to reflect the single most popular style, then you're just building up larger, more narrow demographic. This narrow demographic, aren't the players which are discovering unexpected strengths of the game though. They're the players which are content with the exact same, never changing, experience. Which they will eventually get bored with.

When you chase off your creative players, you are setting your game up to start crumbling. As i said, you're creating a bubble, which will eventually pop.

(first, i'm gonna steal that double line)

Now, games shouldn't force players to interact with these systems. A player should be given the option to opt out of them, but the systems should exist for the players to interact with, as a means of small changes having either long term or immediate effects. I'd even go as far as to say, that the devs shouldn't provide the players the option to opt out of them, and leave it to 3rd party player made software, which the player must go out of their way to obtain/utilize.

Idk about you, but if some players are going to be utilizing 3rd party programs to make the game easier for them, i'd rather those consist of rune pages, build guides, and champion selectors, rather than scripts in game.

Martensitic1 votes

you'd see massive shifts because someone had figured out some new aspect of the class

I have been class officer in 5 heavy duty raiding guilds in 10 years of wow, and as a former theorycrafter myself, I kept a close eye on every single patch and new development.

I cannot remember one single, solitary big "massive shift" in the classes, that was not the result of an actual patch changing the game mechanics.

These systems don't make the game less interactive, players create interfaces which make the systems less interactive

That is like saying: "50 kilometers did not become an easy distance to cover! People just built cars!"

Yes, people built cars. And because they did, you have to look at the world from a point of view where cars exist. And from that PoV, 50km is not a large distance any more.

Similarly, you have to look at theorycrafting from the point of view of people having access to a large range of analytic tools and algorithms doing the number crunching for them.

You can't ignore technical realities, just because they don't fit your narrative.

By gutting the complexity of these systems

They made the item system less complex, true. But at the same time, they made the PvE bossfights orders of magnitude MORE complex.

Compare BWL (Vanilla) or BT (TBC) to Heroic Bastion of Twilight (Cata).

Its 2 different worlds, every single boss in the later addons had more mechanics than an entire raid did previously.

Tell me, what do you prefer?

  • Spending 10h figuring out what the ideal equipment/buff setup is, and then spend 200h raiding casting 2-3 spells and barely ever move around?

  • Or spending 30min deciding which BiS gear you are taking, and having every pull be a challenge in movement, timing, and teamplay-execution?

I prefer the latter.

(first, i'm gonna steal that double line)

Glad you like it. It helps knowing a few tricks in Markdown, doesn't it? :D

deadlychuck1 votes

Its 2 different worlds

This was the point being made in the OP. Some people are going to enjoy the old world and some people are going to enjoy the new world. Though a simple world isn't one which can hold itself together on it's own. It needs some kind of overmind to keep things in check. A well put together system with it's own internal mechanisms design to allow it to, in a single word, evolve, is much more sustainable.

Tell me, what do you prefer?

The former. Because it gives a much greater sense of a accomplishment when completed. It required significantly more planning, practice, and strategy. I'm one of those dirty people who would actually just never update DBM, so most fights i wouldn't be using it, nor would i really read up on the fight in the journal or watch a video on it. **Although, I understand the need for both aspects. ** I'd say that Wotlk probably had a better balance of the two, which made both groups happy. Though, I do think you probably could've added a single tier of attunement into the design and caused no problems, but helped to filter some of the players a little bit better... at least until ToC... fuck that one xD

In fact, i'm also perfectly fine with significant sections of a game only being accessible for a small subset of the players. It naturally creates an incentive to improve. Now league doesn't really have this, because that's because purely PvP, so everything is relative and accessible at any level of play. At least not beyond Gold 5.

Martensitic1 votes

Though a simple world isn't one which can hold itself together on it's own.

If that were true, Baseball, Football, Soccer and Golf would have stopped being a thing a loooong time ago.

The former.

Then why do you play a computer game, instead of, idk. debugging code, sifting through protein folding diagrams or designing clockwork-mechanisms?

I'm one of those dirty people who would actually just never update DBM

We had an expression for such people in our guilds: "Kicked from Raid-Roster" :-)

Okay, jokes aside, the next part is important, because I believe this is the core of our difference of oppinion:

In fact, i'm also perfectly fine with significant sections of a game only being accessible for a small subset of the players.

I am as well, but that limitation of accessibility should NOT come from a requirement for overly convoluted theorycrafting...it should come from a SKILL REQUIREMENT. Either you are able to keep out of the moving voidzone while maintaining dps on the splitting adds and keep your debuff stacks in check, or you are not, and fail, and wipe the raid in doing so.

No amount of theorycrafting can make up for a players inability to execute the fight correctly, because when it comes right down to it, the numbers need to be put to the correct use...and that is a question of alertness, reaction time, communication, positioning,...of actually PLAYING THE GAME instead of SOLVING AN EQUATION.

That is what I enjoy in a game. That is the reason why I switched from playing Warlock and Hunter to Rogue and Warrior, because moving correctly became much more important (in TBC when I first switched at least), than just maintaining a spell rotation and care about math. (Okay, I admit, the Warglaives had something to do with it...a little...maybe...okay, I was obsessed with the damn things, happy now? :D)

deadlychuck1 votes

Then why do you play a computer game, instead of, idk. debugging code, sifting through protein folding diagrams or designing clockwork-mechanisms?

I've actually done two of those things, debugging and designing mechanical systems. :P

accessibility should NOT come from a requirement for overly convoluted theorycrafting...it should come from a SKILL REQUIREMENT

Let me make this clear, it's not that i think theory crafting in itself should be a prerequisite to reaching content. I think that problem solving should be the most defining prerequisite. This is something which is lost when people start taking other people's solutions and, so called, "plug and chug" the answers.

That is the reason why I switched from playing Warlock and Hunter to Rogue and Warrior, because moving correctly became much more important

The reason i played druid since vanilla was because, despite not having the same degree of tailored gear that each spec would later get, they had the largest breadth of tools and you could change how you built to dramatically change your strengths and weaknesses. You weren't limiting yourself by picking a class, you were limiting yourself by how many ways you could use the extensive range of tools in your kit. Now you're subject to which ever tools blizzard wants to hand you on a silver platter, because they restrict the spell books. Hell, even the druid class talent trees are now a fucking joke for breadth, they get literally a single talent row which gives them access to 1 of their 3 other specs and a small sample of the spells which they have.

Takazaki1 votes

@ OP

leauge is an entirely different beast, i am very fimilar with that you're talking about ( look at WoW )

but the keen difference between leauge is that its trying to make itself even more mainstream then wow did. its trying to become the internet sport even more so then csgo. it has a low entry barrier and its free to play so access isnt all that limited. imo it seems like riot wants it to be the 2000's schoolyard football/basket ball. everyone played it some enjoyed it more then others. Depending on how the Esport scene goes it will be a long stand or it will tumble.

leauge will only last as long as the LCS

deadlychuck1 votes

Which is probably true. The only problem is that LCS will only last as long as the strategy aspect of the game is still compelling. Action alone isn't enough to keep long term fans. When the strategy of the game continues to wane, as riot cuts down on their complex systems and standardizes others. You will start to pick up on the bleeding of strategy which has been going on for years.

Every game needs some degree of mechanical aptitude testing, but the more you put into it, the close to the action genre the game becomes. There might be a few pieces of flexibility left, but the game's mechanics become too structured and rigid for the players to initiate change. They become dependent on the devs to make increasingly larger and larger changes, to keep things from stagnating.

Sir Fuzzi1 votes

They add, and add and add. But they seldom trim and when they do, it's usually at great expense.

They need to recognize what changed, you're not totally wrong. But then, signs point that they're hedging their bets with a different demographic now.

deadlychuck1 votes

signs point that they're hedging their bets with a different demographic now.

I think this is inaccurate. I think it's probably more accurate to say that they're hedging their bets, when they need to bet, with a particular demographic now. As having a diverse range of experiences in the game allowed many demographics to enjoy it. Yet as they continue to cater towards, what is in the moments of decision, the largest demographic, by exchanging aspects of the game enjoyed by smaller demographics for new ones which this largest demographic can enjoy. They are increasing the height of their tower without increasing, or even shrinking, their base.

As i said

i'm mostly sticking around to watch, and see how this whole thing plays out

Like watching and anticipating when the stack will become unstable and come crashing down.

Sir Fuzzi1 votes

My angle: it was a cop out. Rather than appealing to smaller demographics that tend to apply smaller-scale focus, they wanted the demographic that pulls reactions for actions. The ones that jump on anything they can get and who enforce the kind of meta that breeds these high-mobility, hard-cc-inclusive bursty champs. The game is trying to last shorter and shorter, looking brighter and brighter each time it ends. Plays are flashier. They happen faster.

Pretty quickly, League is looking like a drug craze. Eventually, it gets too big for itself-- and everything starts to look really small again.

Either way you're very right-- the only real option is to watch, and maybe learn something. Honestly, all I've done through S5 forward is ARAM and RGM, norms and ranked are just such a gamble. I don't probably have a lot of place to talk.

deadlychuck1 votes

Well they're making it more appealing to the kind of call of duty style players, who like flashy cool looking plays, no matter how difficult they are to actually preform

Sir Fuzzi1 votes

They'll realize their mistakes only when these people find the next big, flashy thing to be amazed by. I think they're on a fast burn... but maybe that's what they want, break bank and cash out early? There are so many huge, well-backed and well-loved contenders in the MOBA scene now that League incidentally helped establish it as a standalone genre. With that being done, being bored with League is suddenly an alarmingly easy problem to fix.

I'm not unconvinced that S8 will be 'the' season, where everything's all gloomy and depressing and things are clearly headed south. Tons of games have them (although some have recovered).

deadlychuck1 votes

They can't even fix mistakes of champion reworks, so i can't say i have much confidence in them fixing a mistake in overarching game design.

ModKnightsKemplar1 votes

But... I'm pretty sure they are gaining players overall. Yeah, some have left, but I think even more have replaced them.

Riot's gameplan was ALWAYS to have an evolving game. If you read their correspondence about that, it's the most clear part of their mission. The last thing they wanted was a game that would stagnate. So nothing you are saying about that is wrong, but you are casting it in a negative light when, perhaps, it's more positive than you think.

What we should consider, most of all, is which ship is more attractive to their desired audience. I can tell you, with little doubt, that I would not have enjoyed playing in season 1 very much. I'm actually pretty glad that I didn't discover the game until season 2, because I think season 1 would have made me not like it, and I probably wouldn't have given it a second shot.

In the beginning, League was more of a cult hit. It just didn't have the wide appeal it has now, imo. All the changes have been good for the game that Riot wants to make. So I challenge your assessment that their demographic is limited, and I would ask that you provide data on that. I think it's growing, and if you're pulling out the popcorn to see it sink, I'm afraid you're gonna be disappointed, my friend.

Let's look at some data there, shall we? The biggest challenger was always going to be DotA2. And has it eclipsed LoL? Hardly. It has a fraction of the playerbase. It's a good game, no doubt, but it won't be dethroning League any time soon. The only other challenger worth mentioning here is Dawngate, and we all see how that turned out...

The fact is, other people have shared your dream of taking down Riot. No one has come close. There's a reason for that, and I would submit to you, as an alternate narrative, that the reason for that IS the changes that Riot makes. The are frequent and meaningful, without going too far overboard. They've got a pretty great business strategy going. You may not like the product, but it's hard to deny their success. If you look at any real numbers (active players, revenue, etc.), they are schooling the competition.

deadlychuck1 votes

You seem to think that i think the game is losing players. On the contrary, I understand and believe that the game is gaining players. It's just that these players one which can't be relied upon to stay. Which is reasonable as they have less invested into the game. They're creating a bubble. I'm just waiting for the inevitable pop, even though it might not be in the intimidate future.

The last thing they wanted was a game that would stagnate.

Which is unfortunate, because they're creating an environment which is causing it to stagnate and be wholly reliant on them creating change to prevent it from doing so.

So I challenge your assessment that their demographic is limited, and I would ask that you provide data on that.

Yeah, let me just create an in game poll and distribute it to all players. It's not realistic that i'd actually have any hard data on this, because it's not realistic for me to have it, and i doubt riot themselves even have the necessary data, as it's not something they'd be concerned with. The total player base is changing demographic distribution, this can be assumed because the game has clearly changed significantly from it's previous design. Just look at how many people got excited for call of duty to return to world war style gameplay rather than getting even closer to halo.

The fact is, other people have shared your dream of taking down Riot.

I have no such dream, I wish riot would continue to thrive, because doing so would inherently mean they'd be taking a different approach to their design, which I would support.

the changes that Riot makes. The are frequent and meaningful, without going too far overboard.

yes, and as they continue change the game in a way which reinforces an appeal to a specific demographic, they will need to start making smaller and less meaningful changes, to avoid the shrinking threshold of going overboard.

They've got a pretty great business strategy going. You may not like the product, but it's hard to deny their success. If you look at any real numbers (active players, revenue, etc.), they are schooling the competition.

Yeah, about as great as the Housing Market.

P.S. It's actually a reeeeeally deep box of popcorn. I expected to have to wait a while, I've been watching for well over a year now and it seems that the pedestal is getting more precarious with every meaningful decision that they make, so I brought plenty. [slayer-pantheon-popcorn]

ModKnightsKemplar1 votes

Well, enjoy the wait I guess.

I think they are moving in a great direction, and it seems to be working really well so far.

deadlychuck1 votes

I like to think of it as build up

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 deadlychuck

Really hate how riot's design has actively discriminated against passive methodical play styles
Gameplay122 comments
116
votes
I don't even know why i play this game anymore
Gameplay112 comments
106
votes
@riot, if you're not gonna buff AP
Gameplay83 comments
86
votes
I'm very confused by the new mastery Battle Trance
Gameplay49 comments
63
votes
PSA: If an ally is behind
Gameplay21 comments
45
votes
People acting like they're just now noticing that Zoe Q is pre-rework nid spear...
Gameplay34 comments
34
votes