I'm saying it: Last hitting is an archaic game mechanic

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

Bump N Grind

Senior Member

01-27-2012

Your ideas are pretty good and something I would definitely want to see implemented. The current meta is just so boring having to wait 20 minutes before anything really starts to get accomplished. I know you said not to compare with Dominion so I won't actually make a comparison, but I do want to say one of the aspects I really love about Dominion is how fast and steadily the income just keeps flowing in. That allows heavy item-dependant champions, especially Carries, to really pick up their game a lot more quicker and be more useful sooner. Additionally, splitting gold in lane is so much better for supports. If the current meta were to stick, then there would not be as much risk of one carry getting tons more gold than the other because both sides would be splitting with their support. Also, supports are more gold-dependant than people make them out to be. Keeping up wards can get really costly, especially if your team isn't really doing much (i.e. no global gold from Towers, Baron, Assists, etc.) and items like Randuin's and Shurelya's are so good, but sometimes building them can be risky because the support loses out on the g/10.

Last hitting/farming as a whole is generally what keeps aggressive play at a minimum because everyone's so busy last hitting and aren't really focused killing the other player unless their jungler comes to gank. You think your changes might promote more passive play since people can just farm at the tower, but from a competitive point of view it would make both sides want to push their lanes harder to get that 1.25x gold bonus to get ahead of their opponent.

Just another idea to add on to what you already have...what if killing a champion gives you a temporary buff for X amount of seconds that increases your gold income from minions/tower kills by say....2x. That really gives incentive to be really agressive so you can kill your enemy, farm up tons more gold and push that tower. Suddenly you have a much higher gold advantage. Of course, killing champions should not boost the amount of gold you gain from killing other champions because then it would make fast snowballing champs pretty much unstoppable after one or two teamfights.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MissyMegan

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

Senior Member

01-27-2012

Another point..
How do you win a 5v4?
The enemy team has your 4 + 1 pusher? How do you win i want to know... because last night we had our inhib down and barely held on and did finally come back with (OUR CARRIES FARMING the last hits that were coming into the base) And warding/fighting.. If you give "everyone" proximity gold, your carries will not get farmed whne you are behind
Your "theory" Is bad because Well
Say
You do lose your towers.......
Game over
The enemy can push lanes then push together lose more towers, and get more gold.. And you will not get your carries farmed, you will get "team gold" if any gold at all really....


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

IS1494f3069beb3f0cd3794

Senior Member

01-27-2012

LoL without last hitting would be completely different game. Last hitting isnt archaic, it rewards skill and knowledge about game mechanics.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PiersonsPuppet

Senior Member

01-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by b0nequad View Post
This is essentially what the original poster proposed. Its not a sweeping change to the current ques.

You would leave the current ques the same and add this mode as another que, which could then die off or gain traction depending on community reaction.

Furthermore, these changes are not drastic programming hurdles, but are more design/balancing hurdles. So its a reality that this idea could come to fruition in a beta test, or in an open beta que, without hurting the current community that wants to play the current game.

Not unlike dominion. If you don't like dominion you can still que SR. Not unlike this proposed change, you could still que the current sr.
We should call it what it is. A casual mode like in Hon, but even more casual.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

iainB85

Senior Member

01-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by PiersonsPuppet View Post
At the expense of the teams teamfight capability they last hit to gain strength for later on. If someone wants to decide not to stop them by ganking them then that's their fault.

Stop complaining about stuff that separates good players from bad players.

In your write up that comes up with "solutions" to last hitting being a passive part of the game YOU yourself propose 4 things two of which you say promote passive play.
Right, and I say at the beginning of the proposal that they need to play off each other. A game isn't made up of individual rules, it's made up of a bunch of rules that work together. If you single out rules and analyze them by themselves of course they have huge faults in them. This is why balancing a game is a never-ending process, you constantly have to add, remove, and change rules to play off each other's weaknesses to strive towards that perfect balance.

Example:

Rule: Last hitting minions is the only way to receive gold from them.

Objectively this rule sounds stupid. What about other people who damaged it. What if they did more damage? Why would I ever do anything except land the last hit all day?

Because this rule has been in moba's forever, people have formed strategies and meta's around it, and we know all about that.

Because the proposal outlines alternative methods for gaining income, new meta's and strategies would obviously be formed to compete. You can find no shortage of posts in this thread of how people think they can break the system, and you know what? At launch some of them probably would. That's when you go back to the numbers, modify, and balance it out.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Undune

Junior Member

01-27-2012

So this is a pretty cool idea, I like it a lot. There's only one issue that I can see with the system as it stands, and I apologize if this has already been brought up or not. There are an awful lot of pages to get through, and I'm lazy.

The idea of the zones is interesting, but I think that they need to shift as the game goes on. The way that I see it, the idea behind the zones is that you are being rewarded for taking more risk. The more you displace yourself from the protection of your turrets and your jungler's ganking lane, and putting yourself at risk of overextending you should be rewarded for success. However, as more enemy towers become destroyed, that risk is slightly removed.

For example, in almost every game I have played (I'm only level 21, so I don't know if this applies to higher level games/ranked games. Someone please correct me if my assumption is wrong), after you destroy all the enemy's turrets, your team basically control their jungle. Furthermore, they have to play more carefully and not push beyond the river without teammates for fear of overextending.

So it would seem to me, that a team that pushes fast in the game will have a significant advantage in income over the course of the game. If you can push your team into the x2.0 range early game and if the enemy team can't get past the x1.5 you will have a huge advantage. To counter-act this, I would propose that every time all three turrets in a zone are destroyed, the zones get "pushed" back.

For example, if you destroy all the outer turrets, the outer zone changes to x1.0 (or maybe x1.15 since there is still an increased risk?) and the inner zone changes from x1.5 to x1.25, and so on. I feel like the zones should represent the risk posed to the player, and if you're doing better, shouldn't you be correspondingly rewarded less? This might encourage "rubber-banding" of sorts, but I feel it's better than letting the enemy team snowball.

Again, apologies if this was already covered in the previous 180 pages.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Undune

Junior Member

01-27-2012

So this is a pretty cool idea, I like it a lot. There's only one issue that I can see with the system as it stands, and I apologize if this has already been brought up or not. There are an awful lot of pages to get through, and I'm lazy.

The idea of the zones is interesting, but I think that they need to shift as the game goes on. The way that I see it, the idea behind the zones is that you are being rewarded for taking more risk. The more you displace yourself from the protection of your turrets and your jungler's ganking lane, and putting yourself at risk of overextending you should be rewarded for success. However, as more enemy towers become destroyed, that risk is slightly removed.

For example, in almost every game I have played (I'm only level 21, so I don't know if this applies to higher level games/ranked games. Someone please correct me if my assumption is wrong), after you destroy all the enemy's turrets, your team basically control their jungle. Furthermore, they have to play more carefully and not push beyond the river without teammates for fear of overextending.

So it would seem to me, that a team that pushes fast in the game will have a significant advantage in income over the course of the game. If you can push your team into the x2.0 range early game and if the enemy team can't get past the x1.5 you will have a huge advantage. To counter-act this, I would propose that every time all three turrets in a zone are destroyed, the zones get "pushed" back.

For example, if you destroy all the outer turrets, the outer zone changes to x1.0 (or maybe x1.15 since there is still an increased risk?) and the inner zone changes from x1.5 to x1.25, and so on. I feel like the zones should represent the risk posed to the player, and if you're doing better, shouldn't you be correspondingly rewarded less? This might encourage "rubber-banding" of sorts, but I feel it's better than letting the enemy team snowball.

Again, apologies if this was already covered in the previous 180 pages.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MissyMegan

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

Senior Member

01-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by iainB85 View Post
Right, and I say at the beginning of the proposal that they need to play off each other. A game isn't made up of individual rules, it's made up of a bunch of rules that work together. If you single out rules and analyze them by themselves of course they have huge faults in them. This is why balancing a game is a never-ending process, you constantly have to add, remove, and change rules to play off each other's weaknesses to strive towards that perfect balance.

Example:

Rule: Last hitting minions is the only way to receive gold from them.

Objectively this rule sounds stupid. What about other people who damaged it. What if they did more damage? Why would I ever do anything except land the last hit all day?

Because this rule has been in moba's forever, people have formed strategies and meta's around it, and we know all about that.

Because the proposal outlines alternative methods for gaining income, new meta's and strategies would obviously be formed to compete. You can find no shortage of posts in this thread of how people think they can break the system, and you know what? At launch some of them probably would. That's when you go back to the numbers, modify, and balance it out.
you mean the whole 500 health they have...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Undune View Post
So this is a pretty cool idea, I like it a lot. There's only one issue that I can see with the system as it stands, and I apologize if this has already been brought up or not. There are an awful lot of pages to get through, and I'm lazy.

The idea of the zones is interesting, but I think that they need to shift as the game goes on. The way that I see it, the idea behind the zones is that you are being rewarded for taking more risk. The more you displace yourself from the protection of your turrets and your jungler's ganking lane, and putting yourself at risk of overextending you should be rewarded for success. However, as more enemy towers become destroyed, that risk is slightly removed.

For example, in almost every game I have played (I'm only level 21, so I don't know if this applies to higher level games/ranked games. Someone please correct me if my assumption is wrong), after you destroy all the enemy's turrets, your team basically control their jungle. Furthermore, they have to play more carefully and not push beyond the river without teammates for fear of overextending.

So it would seem to me, that a team that pushes fast in the game will have a significant advantage in income over the course of the game. If you can push your team into the x2.0 range early game and if the enemy team can't get past the x1.5 you will have a huge advantage. To counter-act this, I would propose that every time all three turrets in a zone are destroyed, the zones get "pushed" back.

For example, if you destroy all the outer turrets, the outer zone changes to x1.0 (or maybe x1.15 since there is still an increased risk?) and the inner zone changes from x1.5 to x1.25, and so on. I feel like the zones should represent the risk posed to the player, and if you're doing better, shouldn't you be correspondingly rewarded less? This might encourage "rubber-banding" of sorts, but I feel it's better than letting the enemy team snowball.

Again, apologies if this was already covered in the previous 180 pages.
I read this, IF in the event this did happen, id say this was a good idea, but at the same time, in theory.... If the enemy team pushed top and middle lane and left bottom alone... it would still sort of be the same problem


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

PiersonsPuppet

Senior Member

01-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by iainB85 View Post
Right, and I say at the beginning of the proposal that they need to play off each other. A game isn't made up of individual rules, it's made up of a bunch of rules that work together. If you single out rules and analyze them by themselves of course they have huge faults in them. This is why balancing a game is a never-ending process, you constantly have to add, remove, and change rules to play off each other's weaknesses to strive towards that perfect balance.

Example:

Rule: Last hitting minions is the only way to receive gold from them.

Objectively this rule sounds stupid. What about other people who damaged it. What if they did more damage? Why would I ever do anything except land the last hit all day?

Because this rule has been in moba's forever, people have formed strategies and meta's around it, and we know all about that.

Because the proposal outlines alternative methods for gaining income, new meta's and strategies would obviously be formed to compete. You can find no shortage of posts in this thread of how people think they can break the system, and you know what? At launch some of them probably would. That's when you go back to the numbers, modify, and balance it out.
Even worse. Your solution to a rule you find passive is to replace it with 2 new rules you also believe are passive. But hey that's okay because you balance it with the completely broken mechanic of higher passive gold generation for towers lost.

If this even saw the light of day you'd be seeing trilane bots for the sole purpose of pushing down the tower and having dragon control+ higher gold generation the rest of the game. And it would only snowball further once they pushed tower 1 down, then they would just move to other lanes and push that down.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

iainB85

Senior Member

01-27-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter of Stars View Post
The best mid lanes in the world like mid lane because if they get an edge in their lane, they can go gank bottom or top and throw the advantage to those lanes as well.

Bruisers top start counter jungling and ganking buffs / mid / even dragon.

What you don't get is that playing passive versus playing aggressive is CHAMPION dependent, not CS dependent. A LeBlanc mid that is steamrolling is going to try and gank everylane and end the game early as opposed tocontinue to farm, because she is an early game champion. A veigar/nasus/gankplank is going to keep being selfish and farming minions because that is what their champions are made to do.

What you fail to realize is that 'passive play' is determined by late game versus early game champions. Is it not how these champions get gold that determines how passive you play, it is how much the gold BENEFITS you. Confusing these two things makes you and the Red that encouraged you STUPID.
Thanks for calling me stupid, adds some real class to your statement, almost made me not bother to respond.

Moving on... champion design is a whole different realm of balance, and obviously the way champions are designed impacts many aspects of the game as well.

This is another layer, but it does not make my proposal focused on income any less valid.

How we reward the players, and in turn how they get their items to be competitive late game, is just as important to the flow of the game as how champions kits are designed as well.

You narrowed it down to one other aspect, and failed to look at the whole picture.