[@Riot] On the Nature of Counter-play

Since this format is more conducive to discussion, I thought it would be beneficial to hold discourse on the nature of purpose of counterplay.

As a forward, I wish to assign stipulative definitions to a few words that I will be using throughout this discussion: Counterphilic: A move or character which has manifold possible reactions. Counterphobic: A move or character which has only binary reactions.

Over the past year, and potentially even before that, most of the balance discussion for the League of Legends has been centered on the concept of counterplay. Morello and many other developers have attempted to shift the game from a fight or flight reflexive game style to a mode in which every individual action has several viable reactions. It is my belief that focusing on this is actually bad in terms of new character development. Fortunately, Riot feels the same, which is one reason we have character kit reworks which modernize older characters to this new formula.

I posit that binary gameplay is not anti-fun, but rather deeply strategic. Many of the characters being touted as maintaining healthy counter-play actually exhibit more signs of being counterphobic. Let us look at a few short examples.

First, let us look at different mechanics themselves to help show differences in counterphilia and counterphobia. Skillshots offer a lot of counterplay because the onus is on the target to make the correct call to not take the damage. It is binary – hit or miss – and yet is the highest amount of counterplay possible in a single move. Targeted moves, such as auto attacks, offer little counterplay because the onus is on the target to simply not be in range of the attack. It’s binary in that you either are in range to take damage, or you’re out of range and irrelevant. The assassin archetype is meant to be able to kill (or at the very least cripple) a single opponent during an engage before escaping the fight either in a body bag or by means of their own abilities. The trope is meant to be binary in that you either get your kill and are effective, or you don’t. Riot has, instead, frontloaded assassins with safety measures to make sure that they do not die (be it escapes or hyper-scaling). Much like the burst mage archetype before it, the assassin still works on the binary system of engage or don’t engage. For both of these classes, they have the option to split push and hope their scaling makes them relevant in the late game. It is the false dichotomy that you can only fight or not fight that makes balancing as big a nightmare as it is right now.

Let us compare two similar champions: Malzahar and Zed. Both have exceptional waveclear in their kits, both have exceptional dueling potential thanks to their respective ults, and both have a relatively healthy level of counterability. For both Zed and Malzahar, a Q.s.s. will negate much of their burst, forcing them to retreat and farm passively until another opportunity arises. Therefore, the enemy of Zed and Malzahar has 4 options to deal with them: Run, CC, Fight, or Itemization. This is a –good- thing. As we can tell from professional tournaments, highly skilled players can still make these champions extremely effective even with their obvious counters.

Now, let us compare two other champions: Master Yi and (old) Olaf. Both are (were) strong duelists but were both considered to be counterphobic due to their individual mechanics. For Olaf, his mechanics prompted his severe nerfs and eventual rework; for Yi, a rework which did not directly address the counterphobia people still identify him with. There are no viable items that negate Yi nor Olaf. Unlike the Q.S.S., armor is the only method to deal with their damage output, and it is; itself, negated by armor penetration. What would, from the surface, seem like a scenario where a large amount of counterplay is in action, instead the opposite is true: too much counterplay removes strategies. With Yi, your options are to fight, hard CC, or itemize (because good luck running from him). For Olaf, you can fight, run (unless he lands an axe), or itemize (because he’s immune to CC). As this shows, just the removal of a single option makes these characters significantly less counterable. Especially when the nature of one of the options is, itself, countered by the enemy.

This has been the general perspective of Riot on balance in the recent past with heavy emphasis placed on the target’s viable decision tree with respect to every move a champion can make. But this begs the question; what about the player’s proactive decisions? Do they not matter? Is it the purpose of this design paradigm to make the game completely reactive with little to no means of proactivity?

For skillshots, I aim and it either hits or it doesn’t. My decision is where to lay the shot – that is my play. The enemy dodging is their counterplay. But a recent skill is a hybrid between a skillshot and a targeted ability. Piercing light have no play associated with it; it is only counterplay. Before the argument arises that the decision and play deal with which target you choose in order to inflict the most damage; what difference is that from a normal skillshot? If a mechanic does not add something to a play but instead restricts the player’s ability to make plays, it is not a fun mechanic.

For champions, like the new Olaf, I charge in and the enemy runs. That is the extent of the decision making tree. All of the emphasis is on what the enemy can do to counter a play rather than what a champion can do to make a play. I stand by my earlier assessment of different characters. From the perspective of the player, both Malzahar and Zed still have healthy play and counterplay opportunities. Malzahar can choose different high priority targets for his ult if his primary enemy gets a Q.S.S., Zed is still relevant in teamfights for the same reasons. Yi can still choose when to blow his ult and when to use his Alpha Strike to avoid CC, he can still choose when to Meditate and mitigate burst, the onus is still on the Yi to drive the direction of the encounter. For Olaf; however, the enemy has all of the decisions.

The purpose of this was not to talk on the specific balance issues of champions, rather to discuss the current iteration of “counterplay” and analyze how it has been translated into gameplay using a very small sampling of champions. Further, it was to emphasize a growing dichotomy between who should have the decisions in a fight: the proactive, or the reactive. Thank you for taking the time to read.