@Champion Design, A Commentary on the Micromanagement of Azir
Introduction
I've had the luxury of playing Azir on the PBE a few times, and, I must say, he very well might easily be my new favorite champion, or in my top 3 at least. That said, I feel I must voice some significant concerns with how the champion functions, particularly with regard to the usage of his minions. I am sorry to say this is a very long post, but I beg of you guys, bear with me (at least, Rioters bear with me). I am attempting to be as informative as possible and provide as much backing for my opinion as possible
For those who haven't played him, Azir might be the most micromanagement-intensive champion in League of Legends, if he ships with his current setup. Now, there are differing views among the gaming community as to the importance and benefits/drawbacks of micromanagement. I am here to provide feedback on why Azir's current micromanagement state is a bad one.
For all intents and purposes, I will be treating league as a Strategy/Tactical game, with Reaction-based game-play.
About Micromanagement
For starters, let me explain micromanagement a bit. For those who don't already know, micromanagement is the controlling of minute actions in games, particularly strategy games, that lower-level players often let go unnoticed or uncontrolled. Proponents of micromanagement frequently (and almost exclusively) point to it being a measure of "player skill", and thus is an important part of any PvP game. While that does have truth to it, there is a vast difference between what I'll be referring to as good and bad micromanagement. From this point onward I shall be referring to them as Good MM and Bad MM.
League has a lot of players, and it also has one of the most robust E-sports communities in the gaming industry. Largely this is in part due to, as far as strategy games are concerned, League striking a very, very precise and well-placed balance of micromanagement, as well as how much it affects player success. While some "elitist" gamers who use MM as a fallback way to profess their "skill" scoff at League's "difficulty", it cannot be denied that League of Legends pro players are indeed "pro-level" players. However, they do this without excessive use of MM to define their skill, rather relying on actual strategic/tactical play (I'm sorry supporters, MM is not actually part of these, bear with me) and how they react in encounters with situations. League has varied champions, all with various levels of MM required, but it certainly has a well-placed "ceiling" for how much MM affects gameplay. One of Riot's core design philosophies is that players should not fight the game, they should fight the enemy team.
At it's core, MM is simply a players ability to move their mouse and press their keys (usually almost rhythmically) to maximize some benefit. It is considered a measure of player skill because the player is able to move faster than another player (see: API). In truth, this is not an indicator of superior strategic or tactical prowess, and at best is an indicator of superior reaction times or repetition abilities. However, in most cases, the skill displayed through MM skill is just as easily displayed without MM. For example, take Yasuo's wind wall. The ability to react to an incoming projectile in an efficient manner is indeed a display of a player's skill with Yasuo. However, what if the player had to hit W 2 times, and E 3 times, then W twice again to use Wind Wall? Either way, the player's reaction time would be the same, and they would achieve the same desired maximum benefit. It would also equally display a player's strategic (what things are worth being blocked by wind wall), tactical (where and when to place the wind wall), and reactionary (how quickly does the player notice the incoming blocked effect and react to it) skill. The only difference between the two situations is a restriction through tedious repetition that makes how quickly the user can spam buttons more important than the actual strategic, reactionary, and tactical thought in the scenario. It would not matter if the Yasuo reacted at an ideal speed and intended to use the windwall in an ideal strategic and tactical fashion, if he did not remember that instead of pressing 1 key to use the skill he instead needed to press 7, and in a specific order (or if he messed one up in the order). The focus is taken away from the intelligent decision and player mastery of the situation and is instead placed on simple arbitrary, tedious memorization (this reasoning is similar to the reasoning used by Riot to decide the pointlessness of memorizing jungle timers).
Good vs Bad Micromanagement in Games
Now, I am aware I have thus far been painting MM in a bad light. I would like to clarify, that MM does in fact have very, very interesting and gameplay-beneficial cases when used properly. In many cases, speed is a distinguishing factor. The faster the pace of the game, the less MM it should have. There is a cutoff point.
Good MM provides an avenue of expression for player skill, creates meaningful interaction between the player and the game (or other players), and illustrates player mastery of the actual gameplay as well as player ingenuity. Some examples of Good MM would be: -A player controlling a Shaco Ult Clone while also being on the field in such a way as to convince and deceive other players as to which is the real Shaco -Most all of the temporary "mini-games" and temporary buffs in League, for example managing Yasuo's Q stacks, Malzahar's minions, Syndra's orbs, etc. -Kiting/orbwalking (to a degree, there is a limit to where it becomes more a display of API than skill. I consider League's take on it to be skill.) -Efficient allocation of workers in SCII on a per-base basis -Controlling specific squadrons of troops to attack or defend certain things (in most cases) in most RTS games. -Managing hotbar cooldowns of skills in many MMOs, and using the correct skill for a given situation
**Bad MM **is MM that is primarily tedious, values player ability to memorize and repeat over ingenuity and game mastery, has an impact on success disproportionate to the effort required (closely linked with game pacing), when it disrupts player fantasy/player immersion, and MM that is there to give an artificial illusion of player skill/mastery and reaction time. Some examples of Bad (or very bad) MM would be: -Controlling the pathing of every early worker in SCII to achieve the absolute maximum resources per minute. (yes, people do this.) -Managing multiple hotbars of skills that you have a "rotation" for that's almost universally the same in MMOs -The Zerg in SCII (arguably the largest factor in Zerg player skill is their ability to MM each unit's abilities, but that's a discussion for another forum) -Memorizing jungle timers in league (I would argue teammate ult CDs qualify, but that's mostly my opinion)
What's this got to do with Azir?
At this point, I should clarify WHY Azir's soldiers are bad MM: The additional clicking around to properly manage their autoattacks outside his range is unnecessarily clumsy and tedious.
For those unfamiliar, in order to attack something outside of Azir's range, you must do several things.
Azirs Soldier Attack Process (ASAP for short)
-First, the soldiers must be outside his autoattack range (obviously) -Second, you must right click the enemy you desire, that is currently inside the circular attack range of the soldiers. -Third, if you wish to continue using soldiers to harass outside of your own auto, you must retarget enemies who leave the circle and come back into it. -Fourth, If they leave the soldier circles, and you don't click elsewhere, Azir will move toward the enemy to attempt to autoattack them himself.
If the target leaves the range of his soldiers, you must reposition them to continue having them attack that enemy. Upon doing so, you must repeat ASAP again, while moving yourself out of their range. Also, if the target leaves the range of the soldiers, you must repeat ASAP in order to have Azir acquire a new target for his soldiers. Now, that alone is more work than kiting/"orbwalking", which I think can be considered one of the better indicators of ADC player mastery/MM skill. Add simply using Azir's ASAP with.. -Proper usage of Q, as a reposition for soldiers, a slow, a damage/harass, and positioning for his E (a dash/knockup) -Proper usage of his W (when and where is the best time to blow one of his soldier stacks) -Proper usage of E, as in the best time to use it for an engage, cc and shield, or as an escape. -Proper usage of his ultimate, as a wall, a chase skill, a disengage, or burst
And that's a lot of tactical and strategic thought to consider. Which is a good thing! S/T thought is a good aspect of the game, high-skill champions are a good aspect to the game, and Azir's kit is fantastic for both of these.
However, a significant, nay even ridiculously large, amount of Azir's effectiveness will end up coming from players being able to perform his ASAP the fastest. This is not a good thing, and is an example of bad MM. The amount of unnecessary action the player must wade through in order to achieve optimal effectiveness using arguably the most basic part of his kit is a detriment to both the character as a whole, player enjoyment with the character, and displaying a player's skill with the character.
What if, in a pro game, someone were to play Azir, and ended up dying/losing because they simply couldn't perform his ASAP quickly enough to compete with what the enemy player can do normally? What if the player were to lose the strategy-based game not because of inferior reactions, strategy, or tactics, but because while playing a champion with an unnecessarily high MM requirement through his ASAP, the player could not perform MM speed on a level well beyond what's required for the enemy player, thus making the Azir player sub-par in combat? What if the Azir player displays superior strategic, tactical, and reactionary gameplay, but because of the time-consuming and clunky nature of the ASAP, that superior real player skill was negated? That seems like a flaw in the character's design.
All this said, I have several proposed solutions to present. Any single or combination of these would, I think, vastly lessen the "API" skill requirement without removing the "strategic" skill requirements.
- Make Azir's soldiers automatically aggro against enemies they have dashed through with Q, prioritized the last enemy they made contact with during the dash.
- Allow Azir's soldiers to return to attacking a previously targeted enemy that steps into their range again (within a time limit), unless a new enemy inside their range has been selected by the player.
- Make enemies hit by Azir's ultimate valid targets of autoattacks from Azir's soldiers as long as the wall remains active.
- Perhaps make Alt+Right click (a combo I wish we could remap) have Azir target enemies without moving? Meaning if they leave his soldier range, if you alt+right clicked them, he won't try to follow them.
Thank you Rioters for any consideration, and thank you everyone who was willing to wade through this wall of text. It's well appreciated.
