Boards›[ARCHIVED] Gameplay+

A discussion on Baron Nashor

Ukon3·11/17/2018, 8:34:24 PM·24 votes·28,326 views

Hi, my name’s Evan, I’m a three season Master’s player on the North American server who enjoys game design as well as analytical writing. I try to make these posts brief while also having enough exposition to properly qualify and provide solutions to each problem.

Today’s topic: Baron Nashor

Problem statement: Baron’s early spawn timer leaves little room for strategic diversity at high levels of play. The assuredness of Baron’s power to convert an early-mid game lead into a victory allows the winning team to win with minimal risk or comeback potential since they are not forced to act between the time they take the enemy outer turret line and the time baron spawns.

Exposition: Baron is so powerful in modern League because of how much it enables sieging. In modern high elo league, teams will essentially never siege a tower unless they have baron due to the unnecessary risk of doing so, as they can simply wait for baron to spawn and do the sieging when risk is almost entirely mitigated. This creates a very stagnant mid game, and a “bleeding out” feeling that the game is already over, and you are simply waiting for the outcome to pass. This process creates a mid-game (mid-game defined as all outer towers being destroyed) in which the optimal strategy is essentially to do nothing other than keeps waves pushed past river and control vision on the North or West Jungle, wait for baron to spawn, go through the classic baron dance, eventually a team gets a pick and the game is defined at about an 88% certainty, (unless the numbers from first baron take win ratio have changed since I last checked). This tried and true formulaic path to victory feels more like “Can I get my teammates to follow the correct flowchart” than it does creating a path to victory yourself.

Solution: The aforementioned problems have, in my opinion, a relatively simple fix: delay the spawn timer of baron to somewhere between 26-30 minutes (would need some internal testing to feel it out) as well as possibly introducing another Epic neutral buff between Herald and Baron. Expected outcomes of this change would be as follows:

  1. The ability for the losing team to have more of a window to come back into the game via the enemy team being forced to pressure a lead with their accrued strength rather than with a guaranteed subversion of risk in Baron’s buff.

  2. Force winning teams to be more creative with how they win the game. I believe the absence of baron will significantly increase split push viability as well force winning players to create additional leads throughout the game rather than play off a single advantage gained in the early game. These outcomes are almost guaranteed due to the fact that with the previous iteration of Pre-Season 5 Baron (before season 5, not Preseason 5) teams did not play this flowchart version of League. The buff was a teamwide stat buff rather than a siege tool, this more general and less powerful buff allowed teams to play more diverse styles of mid game, but yielded the problem of games that were stalled out indefinitely, which would not be a problem with this proposed solution, as the current Baron still spawns in to counter those Xerath/Ziggs comps, but simply spawns later.

Possible undesired outcomes and potential solutions to them:

  1. Games being completely stalled out due to too high of risk in furthering your advantage: a possibility is that sieging is just too hard or split pushing too risky and early game leads end up being completely invalidated. A possible solution to this is having regular minions be stronger and more durable so that they can actually be used and manipulated to set up tower kills rather than just hyper-fragile fodder for the enemy wave clear.

  2. In the same vein as the previous potential, waveclear could become too powerful and the ziggs/xerath meta of season 4 could be in full effect. A way to avoid this would be additional, less overbeating ways for playmakers and those with an early game lead to create advantages for themselves in the mid game.

Conclusion and summary: Baron provide too efficient of a step from winning lane (and rotational early-mid game) to winning games. Rather than baron being the step between outer T1 ring going down and the nexus going down, I would argue the 2nd line of towers should be taken by the winning team via good macro play and personal skill. Baron should be a way to finally break the base rather than a guaranteed way to expedite and often forego the macro oriented mid game. A super distilled TLDR would be: Tower line 1 = herald/lane phase, tower line 2= macro, Tower line 3 = Baron As opposed to the current: Tower Line 1 = Lane phase+ Herald, Tower line 2-nexus = baron

22 Comments

ModThe Djinn11/19/2018, 3:28:18 AM7 votes

This sort of makes me wondering about the plausibility of effectively removing Baron in favor of multiple Herald spawns, each of which is, effectively, only good for a tower or two rather than for 3+ minutes of hard advantage. Perhaps add on an effect after the 20 minute mark that grants champions and minions nearby bonuses or defenses while the Herald lives to retain some of that game-closing power. That might have the effect of making "Baron" plays less into "win the game in one moment" and more into situations where teams play around each other as one looks for an opportunity to drop the beastie and take advantage of it. It would also allow for some interesting split push shenanigans, which it seems like you encourage.

Ukon311/18/2018, 1:38:59 AM2 votes

Something i was reminded of that i meant to include in this was how the existence of baron forces people to play a very risk averse style when the game is even. Only TP's can go bot lane and basically nobody is allowed past river unless you have total vision control, or your entire team with you, all because of the consequence a single pick incurs. The power it gives that early on just puts any even game on a razors edge as soon as it hits 20 minutes. A single pick means baron or baron control, and that leads to the "everyone hold hands lets not get caught" portion of the mid game that i personally find tedious and generally frustrating. The absence of this mid game "must have" objective power will allow even games to be competitive in a way that promotes personal skill expression.

ModKnightsKemplar11/18/2018, 8:13:43 PM2 votes

Question: How do you feel the minion changes coming with preseason will change the paradigm here?

In the client, they say "minion health and movement speed scale much higher later in the game, meaning teams with a clear lead will spend less time stalled out by enemy waveclear or waiting for Baron Buff for the final push."

Do you buy that? And if you do, do you still want baron changes?

DeadliftBeef11/17/2018, 11:03:44 PM2 votes

Imo, make Baron spawn later, and in the meantime have another dragon appear. Maybe one that can grant a random item effect (ie. Give guardian angel effect, or zhonya's, et al.)

Dicerson11/19/2018, 6:43:42 AM2 votes

Idea: Change Baron from a team-wide buff into a more direct Objective, similar to Herald.

Detailed Execution:

I believe the Rift Herald is an excellent example of what Baron should do. It should serve as a sort of 'mini baron', or rather, Baron should be a bigger, better herald. When a team takes Baron, instead of getting a team-wide buff that makes it trivial to push down a lane, they should get a trinket called "The Baron's Favor". Then, that trinket can be activated on a lane to summon the Baron, who will burrow through the ground and pop up on a turret, wrapping around it and crushing it over time. The enemy team can attack baron to whittle it down, potentially saving the tower, but if they fail, the Baron will burrow back down and pop up at the next turret with however much health he has left. This makes baron, effectively, a safer Herald, and does all the same things that the Herald does. It serves as a powerful sieging tool, and a solid way to further your advantage in a game. However, it also doesn't mean instant victory, as good play from the home team (or a bad one from the aggressors) can lead to Baron just dying like butt and doing little to nothing. And unlike the team-wide buff to stats and nearby minions, it doesn't create an overwhelming advantage and basically make unbuffed sieging worthless.

Asobi Spirit12/24/2018, 6:07:39 PM1 votes

For me, I'm happy when a game finishes quickly if either our side is succeeding in all aspects, or if we are just getting steamrolled. One scenario it's a quick win and easy LP, while the latter is just a merciful ending. I was a fan of early surrender because of this whole steam rolling early not being fun for the losing team thing.

With regards to baron, it's pretty much a guaranteed win if it's used properly and quickly. For example if you steal baron and manage to kill the enemy team, the buffed minions from 1 wave just give you the victory. (Something I'm not a fan of, more than 1 minion wave should be needed to destroy multiple turret lines.) Its a huge utility, but pales in comparison to good ol out playing. Being better than your enemy and taking em down at their lines. In my low gold elo play, its primarily a hit or miss with teams and often results in which side works better together than the other. Sure Baron is the driving force for victory in games but it's useless if teams arent good together.

I saw that multi herald idea and I'm not a huge fan. Herald basically can give a free tower or 2 in lower elos while being relatively easy to pick up. A bunch just means that it becomes necessity to push down lanes and it would negate slower playstyles.

For me, I have not been in the super high elos, with my best being plat 4 in the tank meta. I've dealt with the long ass games as well as short little blowout disappointments. I personally enjoy a game that's around 30-35 minutes, when it gets longer then it gets more stressful as both sides can potentially hit full build and go either way. Seeing quicker close outs like 15-25 minute games doesnt sound as fun only because I would personally feel that I am not getting enough game time. Sure I could technically play more matches but I dont remember short blowouts as much as I remember 45 minute games where either side couldve won. I personally enjoy losing if I knew we had a fair chance, and the same goes with winning against tough opponents.

Ultimately in regards to baron, I say leave him alone. He is just fine. He provides a good utility and promotes competitive playing. Plus it's always easy to know when they are going for it.

Hibeki11/20/2018, 7:51:47 AM1 votes

Honestly, the easiest fix is a bigger risk to fit the reward or a lower risk for a lower reward

When baron could wipe teams by itself at 20 minutes when he got buffed it was PERFECT. There was risk to taking him and you could easily compete. Then they immediately nerfed him again.

The buff is far too powerful for the price.

hoshizuku11/20/2018, 4:23:22 PM1 votes

I don't have anything really productive to add to your points other than I agree that something needs to be done about baron. It's become a serious problem, and I can personally identify that feeling of dread you get if the enemy team manages to sneak it. An even game can go to shit real quick, and it honestly feels really bad if you were pinging it and reminding your team to get vision of it, but they just don't. Oftentimes people will blame the support for not securing vision, but it's nearly impossible to walk to baron alone as any squishy champion and expect not to die unless you already have good vision of where the enemy team is on the map. Baron warding is a team effort, and many players don't get it.

Dotrix11/21/2018, 8:11:25 PM1 votes

Potential solution to simultaneously address both the waveclear issue AND the disproportionate power level of baron:

Perhaps this issue could be addressed by removing the flat damage reduction that baron offered to minions until the minions are actively engaging a tower. This would make it possible to "counterplay" the baron by taking calculated risks to leave the safety of your towers to proactively seek out baron minions and clear them before they reach your base. This would make the baron buff less of an absolute win and would still require the team using the buff to properly defend their minion waves until they are close enough to begin sieging. On one hand, you could risk getting picked off but you also stand a chance to protect your base from the minion wave onslaught as long as you kill the minions before they get there.

The main reason that the stall and waveclear meta was problemcatic was because it preferred a passive and nearly absolute path to victory. Contrary to popular belief, waveclear in and of itself was not the problem. The issue was that it was able to be used passively and could be universally applied to nearly every scenario without any major downside.

This change will give waveclear a clear and defined strength when fighting off baron minions, but will also give the strategy a defined weakness as well.

I really like the Rift Herald design because taking the objective won't necessarily net a lead in and of itself, it instead provides a tool to make leads for yourself easier. I feel like the baron buff could be nice if it worked in a similar way, by being an objective that required strategic gameplay to properly utilize rather than automatically providing a massive lead through relatively passive and formulaic play.

ModKnightsKemplar11/18/2018, 8:10:06 PM1 votes

Approved!