Are Champions As Awesome As They Could Be? @Morello @Feralpony @IronStylus @Xypherous

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Kinzeh

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

01-22-2013

^^ Its Morello

Edit: Id say that my favorite champion is Zilean.... so I definitely prefer a slower pace champion that takes a lot of strategy before making your moves.

There are also a lot of different things you can do with zilean like hitting minions with double bombs


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Savagry

Senior Member

01-22-2013

Morello just wondering do you ever give feedback on concept designs in the player concept forums?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Hellioning

Senior Member

01-22-2013

Glad you weighed in on this, Morello.

I'm of the opinion that 'complexity' is good if it makes sense, and it's ACTUALLY complex. Just adding random stuff onto something to make it 'complex' just smacks of bad game design.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Letler

Senior Member

01-22-2013

In terms of unique concepts and play from champions. I honestly think the original idea of "places mark on target, consumes mark for x" was a great concept and gave the ability for champions to have more depth and create a higher skill ceiling but it's on a lot of champions now. A good player will place the mark and then consume it instead of just placing the mark, or using another ability.

Is there nothing similar to this that could add deeper play? If you want to keep the mark concept I think you could turn this around on allies. Imagine a support. You give your ally a minor buff that places a mark, if you give them another buff in time it could consume said mark giving you back mana or healing them for an amount, something.

tl;dr - the mark/consume system is old, but still has some life in it yet!


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Daeim

Junior Member

01-22-2013

I'm a big fan of deep complex mechanics, but we can't have all characters like that. After playing a 1/2 dozen games as Syndra or Orianna and enjoying the nuances of ball/sphere management, its quite fun to queue up as Olaf or Riven and just wail on folks for a change, not that they can't be complex to play to their peak but there's a fairly enjoyable simplicity to "I have a sword, I'm going to beat on you with it"


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Slarg232

Senior Member

01-22-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morello View Post
A long read, but generally a good discussion, and one we have internally quite a bit. Let's chat about some of these issues, see where we agree/disagree, and what our design philosophy is. I'm at the office, so this will not be the complete, comprehensive post :P

Theme: I think this is an area we're inconsistent at a lot of the time. When we're "on", we get Vi - she's cohesive, distinct and fills in a new character archetype. When we're off, we get something more akin to Zyra or Syndra...specifically, there's a good idea of something in there, but it's too dialed-back/not fully realized.

This is actually one of the things I'm personally focusing on this year. Regardless of one's interest in lore/story, theme is something most of us can get into, and it being good just makes champions a better experience. It's worth the time and effort to make right, and my thought is that champions like Vi, Draven and Kog'Maw are good from a theme perspective. They're definitely memorable and distinct, and if we can consistently do this, then people will be able to find the theme that suits their individual taste.

Depth: I think we agree on the concept, but likely disagree on the specifics. I don't think Fiddlssticks and Annie are shallow, but I also don't think DotA's original Invoker is deep (ie; it's just complex). Depth is something we think is important, but I think each champion requires a different approach (and different people want different types of depth).

In design, I equate depth to execution and decision-making density. The more interesting nuances (and a large part of where I think counter-play exists) of how things can be used can create long-term depth. The reason I wanted to speak on that Darius thread is because he doesn't contain that set of nuanced decision-making (and frankly, I think many fighters also suffer from this) - where someone like Fiddlesticks has to do a lot of setup and play differently to set up a Crowstorm, or that his drain is so susceptible to CC effects. The more high end of this is someone like Orianna where there's additional object-positioning elements that stand out, and I think characters with tradeoffs tend to have more depth (and why I prefer slower skillshots/longer CD's).

Let me ask you this: are you guys generally fans of complexity as a mechanic (definitely a player archetype I fall into)? Do you think there's a possibility you might be confusing depth and gameplay distinction/strategic diversity? I think League actually has a good amount of depth overall, though I don't feel all of our characters are, as you said, as awesome as they could be - you're correct in bringing up the Darius example here as representative of this issue.

I also apologize if I've come off as a tough nut to crack - that's likely me ineffectively communicating in some way. My attitude on the matter is much more lenient than I think I represent, but I think I get frustrated by emotional arguments too easily. Food for thought for me when writing.
Honestly Morello, I think "Depth" comes from kits like Ryze/Ezreal/Kunkka;

Ryze literally has a combo for any fight he's in, and memorizing them, and both knowing when and HOW to execute them in a fight is key to his playstyle. What kills him in depth is his old item build path (I haven't gotten the chance to play him in S3 yet). It eliminated the depth by giving him one build he HAD to go with in a specific order.

Ezreal is a constant game of choices; do I use his blink strike as a tool to open up a good Q, or do I save it to run away? Do I get Q right away to fill the lane with "bullets" or do I get Essense Flux to snipe them through minions?

Kunkka from DotA's kit is basically all over the place but comes together really nicely, giving him a deep and rewarding playstyle. He can make an enemy reappear at a spot four seconds later, setting up his two aoe stuns, or he can cast it on himself, run one direction, teleport back, and instantly be back out of harms way. He can teleport halfway across the map, use his Cleave ability to get a pentakill, and then be teleported back because he rooted himself there.

I'd be willing to throw Leblanc in here, as well. So many skillshot jukes....


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

SheriffV2

Senior Member

01-22-2013

DotA heroes are better, in lore, design, feel, uniqueness, and overall enjoyment. LoL champions feel like they are mass produced out of the same set mold designs, with just different dyes thrown in...


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Pistallion

Senior Member

01-22-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by SheriffV2 View Post
DotA heroes are better, in lore, design, feel, uniqueness, and overall enjoyment. LoL champions feel like they are mass produced out of the same set mold designs, with just different dyes thrown in...
def disagree. some are better some are worse. 1 example. look at drow compared to ashe. drow's kit is extremely simple and straight forward. shes not even that fun to play because of it. ashe is pretty simple too, but the rewarding feeling of hitting the arrow is one of the best in the entire game. drow has 1 usable ability, and its pretty far ranged and a pretty big area of effect.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

YamiBelgarath

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

01-22-2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morello View Post
A long read, but generally a good discussion, and one we have internally quite a bit. Let's chat about some of these issues, see where we agree/disagree, and what our design philosophy is. I'm at the office, so this will not be the complete, comprehensive post :P

Theme: I think this is an area we're inconsistent at a lot of the time. When we're "on", we get Vi - she's cohesive, distinct and fills in a new character archetype. When we're off, we get something more akin to Zyra or Syndra...specifically, there's a good idea of something in there, but it's too dialed-back/not fully realized.

This is actually one of the things I'm personally focusing on this year. Regardless of one's interest in lore/story, theme is something most of us can get into, and it being good just makes champions a better experience. It's worth the time and effort to make right, and my thought is that champions like Vi, Draven and Kog'Maw are good from a theme perspective. They're definitely memorable and distinct, and if we can consistently do this, then people will be able to find the theme that suits their individual taste.

Depth: I think we agree on the concept, but likely disagree on the specifics. I don't think Fiddlssticks and Annie are shallow, but I also don't think DotA's original Invoker is deep (ie; it's just complex). Depth is something we think is important, but I think each champion requires a different approach (and different people want different types of depth).

In design, I equate depth to execution and decision-making density. The more interesting nuances (and a large part of where I think counter-play exists) of how things can be used can create long-term depth. The reason I wanted to speak on that Darius thread is because he doesn't contain that set of nuanced decision-making (and frankly, I think many fighters also suffer from this) - where someone like Fiddlesticks has to do a lot of setup and play differently to set up a Crowstorm, or that his drain is so susceptible to CC effects. The more high end of this is someone like Orianna where there's additional object-positioning elements that stand out, and I think characters with tradeoffs tend to have more depth (and why I prefer slower skillshots/longer CD's).

Let me ask you this: are you guys generally fans of complexity as a mechanic (definitely a player archetype I fall into)? Do you think there's a possibility you might be confusing depth and gameplay distinction/strategic diversity? I think League actually has a good amount of depth overall, though I don't feel all of our characters are, as you said, as awesome as they could be - you're correct in bringing up the Darius example here as representative of this issue.

I also apologize if I've come off as a tough nut to crack - that's likely me ineffectively communicating in some way. My attitude on the matter is much more lenient than I think I represent, but I think I get frustrated by emotional arguments too easily. Food for thought for me when writing.
Its a familiar problem with the Runeterra framework, one we've seen before. The squality of your characters consistently depends on how good the story is of the character- the better you shape your character, the more clearly a theme emerges, and the better the mechanics are. Draaaaaaven is a perfect example of this- great story, built into great mechanics, created a fun character. Syndra had a pretty dismal story, her mechanics are even fairly interesting but have no real substance. You don't play Syndra and feel like...Syndra, you feel like just another mage. Your design process has a clear role playing aspect, which is good- it differentiates it, makes it interesting.

A lot of champions I think have this problem of insufficient clarity of character- Void champions are a great place to look. For example, Cho'gath and Kog'maw, where I half feel like you had the vague idea "let's make a void monster that eats things" and didn't feel like you got it right the first time, so you tried again. But since Void monsters are all mysterious with little clear purpose and such, the abilities are similarly unclear- why is Cho'gath randomly manipulating physics to knock people into the air, and why does Kog not actually eat people, given that his lore specifically talks about him consuming whole villages. Instead he just spits at everything.

In general, I think that the design process would go more smoothly if theme was more clearly discussed- create a set of characteristics and behaviorism for the creature without worrying about the actual QWER abilities, and then once you have created a functional and interesting being, then translate the most significant of those traits into the abilities.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

TheEnygma

Senior Member

01-22-2013

I think LoL needs to go into like "2.0 mode". The engine is maybe a tad outdated and there's stuff you guys have even said you literally can't do or do properly because of technical limitations whereas in other games, you have ones that use day/night cycles, pet champions, more than 4 abilities with a kit that makes sense etc. Not belittling or naysaying but I feel there's only so far you can go with champion abilities where it either makes sense and has good gameplay (I love Zyra's plants for eg) but then others are just simply a neat idea but ultimately become gimmicky or at the very least unique onto itself but no more than that. Example there I guess is Draven's axe catching.