Why more unique playstyles could improve and potentially 'save' League. Riot ?

1234511 ... 21
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BestBilbo

Senior Member

12-12-2012

Please read the thread before judging, otherwise feel free to ignore.

Before I start off, I'd like to apologize: My previous thread's title was wrong, therefore misleading. And most importantly: Demanding in a very arrogant, negative way.

That said, my previous thread pretty much boiled down to: Riot, please make new & exciting playstyles, rather than designing champions around existing roles.
(<Insert 'Number X AP carry released !' or 'Oh no another bruiser !' arguments here>).

The title of my previous thread was a rethorical question: 'Why doesn't Riot create more unique playstyles ?'

The discussion has grown large and I've gotten alot of feedback. There is alot of variety in all of the thoughts & opinions I've got.
However, as I said it was a rethorical question, so in this thread I'll be answering the question 'myself'. I present to you..

Why I or 'we' believe more unique playstyles could make the game more interesting and could potentially extend League's lifespan:


Quote:
Originally posted by ItemsGuy
Roles describe a character’s/player’s role on a team—tank, carry, support, bruiser, assassin, mage (as well as the broader roles, such as initiator)—in regards to their own team and the opposing team. In a perfect world, every role would carry as much weight and be as satisfying to play.

Playstyles define the thought processes imposed upon the player through a strong coherence within a kit, which is made even stronger when tied tightly to an overarching theme—from something as general to “archer” (Ashe), “mindless berserker” (Olaf), and “hunter” (Rengar), to something more complex, such as “deadly trickster” (Shaco).

The value of a playstyle can be measured by how much the player is encouraged to think like the character they’re playing through the aforementioned coherency within the kit as well as its thematic unity, as well as how distinct that method of thought is—because the more distinct it is, the more room it creates for counterplay, and the more counterplay there is in a game, the more fun and fresh each game will be.

A good playstyle has its strengths and weaknesses, which not only can be built around or covered by the player, but by the team as well—changing team comp from “someone pick tank,” “we need a support,” etc., to an invested affair of either creating a coherent team beyond just covering all the roles; in fact, this allows for successful team comps that are entirely un-meta (more concrete and defined than the gimmick teams you might see today), which shakes things up further while keeping the competitive scene healthy.

While some playstyles may counter others in some aspects, it becomes a game of “can I play my advantages harder than my opponent can play my disadvantages/can I play my opponent’s disadvantages harder than they can play their advantages/etc.”—an equal show of varying and constantly-changing forces as opposed to a game of “can I do my job better than my opponent who is also doing the exact same job,” which, while stable, is completely stagnant.
Doing the same job, how exactly ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enai Siaion View Post
Ziggs and Syndra are both mid lane AP with pretty much the same build, decent damage and cc.

The fact that one has bombs and the other has balls is irrelevant because this only affects how they do their role, not what their role is.
I'm not saying Ziggs and Syndra are the same champion or that they aren't different from eachother, I'm saying that the 'effect' they have on the game is very very similar, as said:

Their kits define how they do their role, not what their role is.

'Where do we stand, is this a problem ? Why would we need more specefic playstyles other than the fact you would like changes personally, I don't care about what you like, I already like League as how it is !'

This is a good question.

Having more variety and diversity among champions, opening up more specific roles/playstyles would make games....

Quote:
Originally posted by ItemsGuy
..... no longer a constant bashing of heads, but a fluid battle of wits with your opponent, where you are forced to evolve around them and they around you. In a more intimate, visceral and satisfying way, rather than “guess our guy carried harder because our jungler ganked harder than yours, which allowed our guy to push yours out of lane and deny him farm, heavily crippling his mid-/late-game.” It’s no longer about creating and pushing advantages, but acting and reacting.


Obviously, all of these 'game-mechanincs' mentioned, such as acting and reacting are already existing in League, but they are very minor, keeping the game and meta very strict.

It pretty much boils down too wrecking the enemy team before they wreck you, rather than a strategic approach to win the game.

However, I can already smell people saying: 'Uniqueness/variety for the sake of uniqueness/variety is bad design'.

Quote:
Originally posted by Perifear
I sincerely can not - no offense - comprehend the amount of stupidity I feel when reading such an argument.

First the argument used to be 'Complexity for the sake of complexity is bad design' - wich I agree with. Making something complex just to have it complex is stupid, however considering variety and diversity is a whole other story;

Every champion added to the roster is added for the sake of variety, for the sake of something new. If champions wouldn't be designed in the light of 'Let's do something we haven't done before' why would we even bother to play them ? - as they would even be more similar.

You could compare this to shoes, shirts, jeans, you name it. People produce different shoes for the sake of making something different than the model they have already made.

Why do we like new content ? Simply because it IS new. And we hope the content adds variety and depth, I've never heard anyone say:

'I hope the patch with alot of new content (that has been worked on for hours and hours) will be similar as what we already have.'

I'll literally quote a developer of an upcoming MMO-Styled PVP game called Forge:

'We have a total of 12 different classes planned out, the way we came to that number is that we never wanted to have two classes to do the same thing just slightly differently, as this could just end up in a class that 'has got all the cool abilities' while maybe some of the other classes do the same but didn't have these cool abilities. Therefore, we came up with 12 roles that we thought were distinctive enough to provide completely different gameplay and we've built classes around these roles.'

I know this game is very different from League, but the concept remains the same.

This is exactly what has happend in League. Statements such as: 'Why pick champion X over champion Y' is very common. Why ? Because the characters are more similar to eachother rather than different. Let's take DotA for example. Is this statement common there aswell ?

No. Why not ? Because there, more heroes provide certain unique playstyles/strategies. Is one more OP then the other ? Nope, because the strategies are different from eachother, not nessecarily better or worse, poor thinking such as the mentioned 'Why pick X over Y' isn't quite legit to use in such a situation.

A good example in League: Is Twisted Fate OP because he provides a unique option, a unique mechanic/ability for his team
- his ultimate ?

No. He is a mage with a unique ability, though this doesn't nessecarily make him superior to other mages, as said in my previous thread: 'Champions that provide unique options or strategies for their team, is generally tied to new mechanics.

This makes a champion different from others, but doesn't nessecarily give the champion a higher powerlevel than champions who are more straightforward'.
That said: 'Is League bad ?', 'Are changes nessecary ?'

Quote:
Originally posted by ItemsGuy
League of Legends faces a problem that is called oversaturation.

One of the greatest attractions of the game for old and new players is the constant development of shiny and exciting new champions, but considering LoL’s current 100+ champion roster, this cannot happen forever. Champion production will eventually have to grind to a halt, and this will decimate the playerbase.

The lack of a promising, new champion around every turn will cause player attention to collectively turn back towards the champions they currently have in front of them, and without the constant distraction of the carrot on the stick, the playerbase will become restless.

The current “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” complacency will grow into a jarring awareness of the fact that very few champions are as good as they could be.
Oversaturation. Champions can't be released forever. People can get bored of this. I know I would not play this game anymore if I knew there would be no more new content coming.

What to do ?

Quote:
Originally posted by ItemsGuy
My solution would be to redesign the vast majority of the existing champions’ kits—making them more coherent within themselves to create a defined playstyle, that also creates variety in the metagame (preventing LoL from stagnating or at least greatly increasing its longevity).
'We like champions the way they are now.'

Quote:
Originally posted by ItemsGuy
I propose both a way to delay this oversaturation, and a way to keep players sated once champion production does have to stop in order to preserve League of Legends’s accessibility and structural integrity.

Considering the nature of these solutions, however, they would have to take place outside of League of Legends, as they involve changes so great that they would more than likely create a great upset within the playerbase should they happen to the game that players are familiar with—like renovating a house while a family is still living in it. For now, we will call this game LoL 2.
I'm not saying League of Legends 2 should come true, or every champion has to be reworked in League's current state, the purpose of these threads:

1. 'Why is Riot afraid of making unique playstyles ?': We explain the difference between champions within League, we ask for unique playstyles because we would enjoy that and give argument why we would enjoy that.

2. 'Why more unique playstyles could improve and potentially 'save' League. Riot ?' (This thread): We give our answer to the most asked question in thread 1: Why would we need changes and not just for the sake of you guys liking those changes ?
We explain how we would like more unique playstyles, but also that the game might even need them in the long run.

IMPORTANT: This thread is all about discussing the arguments we give - hopefully a red's joins. All of the solutions or suggestions we give here, are all subjective, nothing more. We would like you to join the discussion and give your opinion.

PS: Please be constructive, I understand and could've expected alot of the 'hostile'/'aggressive' comments I've gotten on my first thread - this thread however - we give our opinion and all we ask for is discussion, how do you feel about it ?
Please come with solid arguments and keep it friendly. Please do not just say 'Don't agree' 'TLDR NOOB', 'WHAT YOU SAY IS WRONG' without explaining why you feel this way.

Could we have a serious and constructive discussion on the matter ?


EDIT:

Third thread now up aswell !

Thread One: We explain why more unique playstyles could be awesome and how they are not nessecarily OP - Just different.

Thread Two: We explain why not only we would like these more unique/dedicated playstyles, we also suggest why we might need them. (This thread)

If you wanted to leave feedback such as - 'Well I don't want these changes, we don't need them !' please read that thread.

Thread Three, this thread: We explain how more unique playstyles could be done by living up more to the original concept of the champion. We suggest tying realistic elements to abilities and then to visuals because it makes sense - It's easier for people to understand - easier to pick up.

Please read them aswell and leave constructive feedback !


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Diaotaixiao

Senior Member

12-12-2012

Just stop.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BestBilbo

Senior Member

12-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diaotaixiao View Post
Just stop.
It's sad how this is the first reponse I get. My first thread's title and writing-style was wrong.

All I'm up for is discussion - have red alot of Ironstylus comments where he more or less says: 'If the discussion is constructive and the subject discussion-worthy, I'll always try to jump in' - this is all I ask for.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Voidgolem

Senior Member

12-12-2012

there's a limit to how many playstyles you can make with four buttons and an autoattack.

At least, without delving into infuriating mechanics (hi Mesmers) or overhauling the UI to accommodate multi-unit control (For instance, Meepo-type champion or that much-demanded pet guy).


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BestBilbo

Senior Member

12-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Voidgolem View Post
there's a limit to how many playstyles you can make with four buttons and an autoattack.
How so ? Please explain :)

EDIT: You have edit'ed your comment without adding you actually came back to edit the post. But true, there is a limit how many playstyles can be made, but I believe League has far from hit that limit. Eve specifically good at a roaming playstyle, TF as a Teleport Ganker are some very cool playstyles and concepts.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Wulfestopheles

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

Senior Member

12-12-2012

ITT: OP's head firmly up his rear end

I stopped reading at the point where you said Ziggs and Syndra contribute the same thing to their team.


This is a game about killing. Killing, defending, or supporting are the three roles. Anything else is idealistic ramblings of wana-be intellectuals.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Djiimon

Senior Member

12-12-2012

I wish Xerath really had "superior" range, that Viktor actually felt like he evolved as the game progressed and that Syndra didn't feel like a cross between Karthus and Orianna.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BestBilbo

Senior Member

12-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulfestopheles View Post
ITT: OP's head firmly up his rear end

I stopped reading at the point where you said Ziggs and Syndra contribute the same thing to their team.


This is a game about killing. Killing, defending, or supporting are the three roles. Anything else is idealistic ramblings of wana-be intellectuals.
Their specefic role is AP carry, I'm not saying they contribute the same thing to their team, as their kits are different.

However, in a way, depending on perspective, they do contribute the same thing in term of playstyle. TF offers solid ganks and reveals positioning of the enemy team with a unique ability and mechanic. Evelynn provides being 'a moving ward' specific extremely good roaming playstyle.

Obviously, Syndra does offer different stuff in a teamfight compared to let's say Ziggs, but the difference is rather small - atleast not as obvious as the differences between TF and Syndra, or Eve and Syndra.

And no, not just killing, defending, supporting. Those are the core playstyles, wich can be devided in alot of roles.

Killing: - Assasination (Most of the time combined with mobility)
-AoE burst
-Single Target burst
-Initiation (Mostly on tanks though)
-Lane dominance (Killing specifically in lane, or splitpushing playstyle such as Nidalee)

Support:

-Passive (Soraka)
-Agressive range (Nami)
-Aggresive melee, specifically focused at locking targets into a place or away (Alistar, Leona).

Please, I do not think I have to give more examples.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

2byC Artyom

Senior Member

12-12-2012

I didn't read parts of OP's post but it looks like he has been working on this for quite some time and just wants to hear others ideas and arguments on the subject.

The least you could do is contribute to the subject if you can/want, and if your gonna just bash him for his ideas, then don't say anything at all, it's that simple. Your not contributing anything to the argument by just throwing in a short, insulting post because you could.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

BestBilbo

Senior Member

12-12-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xenonite king View Post
I wish Xerath really had "superior" range, that Viktor actually felt like he evolved as the game progressed and that Syndra didn't feel like a cross between Karthus and Orianna.
This is what the next thread will be focused on, a 'solution' to the oversaturation is hard to find, but not if you look in the right corner.

Basically, living up more to their initial themes or concepts creates more playstyles itself.

The example for Xerath is a good argument.

Long range siege caster - Arguably, IMO could've been converted in to a drastically new playstyle.

Viktor - An character who invented his own armour/weapons/suit, your suggestions seems rather logical to me

Syndra initial concept of doing alot with her spheres, zoning out parts of the map - In the end Orianna's ball is more of a zoning tool and is feared more than a casted sphere on the map, wich IMO could've been alot better for Syndra's sake.


1234511 ... 21