Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.


So, about that Karma leak...

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member


I must agree! Until Karma's actual kit is released, I'll hold my tongue--I've done everything I needed to do here (explain the reasoning behind Riot's actions in an attempt to wipe away some tears), and you and the other "KARMA'S TRUEST FANS" don't seem to have any desire to lead this conversation in any sort of constructive way. The only thing you've proven is that you're angry, and that you want old Karma back, and that you're going to be angry forever until you get old Karma back. Not gonna sway you there--I can only tell you why your frustration is unfounded and why Riot doing what you want them to do would result in a weaker game.

Oh my, I feared it would turn out this way. I don't expect you to read all pages of this thread, but it was plently discussed why they changed it this way and why certain people don't like it. Personally I am tired on this and gave up on it anyways, but I can ensure you are just, flat out, wrong on that part. If I happened to come by this thread on certain sites I could also say "hue, everyone who doesn't agree with the contra-rework side does that in an immature and insulting way"
I pretty much left this discussion with "the ones like this better, the others like that better, both have their arguments and in the end riot decides. And they have decided."

You know why this conversation is not constructive? Because pretty much everything has been said, but hardly anyone can read ALL of it. If there was one argument a person happened to counter - just wait, it will come back and that person won't be around anymore so it looks like it would be right and keeps on being there.
I hope it was understandable what I was trying to say.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member


Alright, you get one last present from me because I'm a cool guy that prioritizes addressing your concerns over finishing up my final portfolio.

Not really. For someone who thinks he's the main expert in the world of game character design

Never claimed this, only said that I am capable of consistently meeting Riot's standards.

you sure ignored lots of points we tried to make about Karma's previous design, our acknowledging of her flaws, and our suggestions to make a character that is still recognizable as Karma but also sensible to Riot's new design philosophy and everything that comes with that.

And both Rioters and I have said that what you guys like about old Karma, gets in the way of what they want to express with her (which I think they called "inner strength&quot. They decided that the elements of old Karma were too lofty and didn't express a spiritual leader, who,

well, let me actually quote them on that (again):

Grumpy Monkey:
Why did you change Karma’s look and costume?

Karma’s original look had a few shortcomings that we’d like to address for her relaunch. For starters, her aesthetic was hard to read and didn’t really convey much about her character. Her fans, dress and posture didn’t reflect her playstyle or storyline. There was a lot we could change about Karma to bring a more cohesive vision to the character.

First, we made sure that Karma’s new look showed off her status as a paragon of Ionia while appearing unique on the battlefield. Her floating fans weren’t cutting it as magical conduits, so we replaced them with a powerful manifestation of her Ionian will. Now, Karma carries the draconic symbol of Ionia with her at all times. We also decked her out in Ionian garb to emphasize her allegiance. We also crafted a new set of animations that emphasized her status as a champion of Ionia rather than a matronly diplomat.

This new approach to Karma transforms her into a badass conduit of inner strength that brings Ionia’s strength to every battlefield.

Again, I'll state the problems of old Karma's visual design:

-Didn't look Ionian
-Fans didn't convey "hey this chick is mystic," and certainly not as much as glowy hands and a huge floating taijitu
-Didn't exude inner strenth
-Looked more like a matronly diplomat than a spiritual leader
-Dress didn't allow for a visual language that would express that she is an Ionian powerhouse filled to the brim with inner strength that she's using to lead her people through hard times, as it created too much of an "airy diplomat" feel, and that's not what Riot wanted to express

What you like gets in the way of what Riot wants to convey with her design. That's why they removed them. They tried to express their appreciation for people that fell in love with her original look, so they tried to maintain that look in a new skin (within the restraints of her new model to prevent confusion), and are giving it to pre-existing Karma players for free.

But no. All your replies in the form of walls of text can basically be translated to: "No! What Riot did is amazing and totally understable! PS: if you want to see a design that's even better click here"

A) That wall of text elaborated on the reasoning behind their decisions and why said decisions are justifiable in the context of game design (or more specifically, designing LoL), which is different from saying "No! What Riot did is amazing and totally understandable!" and not giving any reason why. Which, ironically, is the kind of stuff you and the crew have been doing. You're not even trying to understand why Riot has done what they've done, because you're too busy vilifying them and anybody else reasonable enough to disagree with you. Which is kind of why I'm washing my hands of you, and why Riot isn't going out of their way to respond to you past what they may have already done. That's what happens when you're unreasonable and vitriolic.

B) Hey man, it was on topic, so I'mma do it. Also, RiotAmes didn't seem to mind, and suggested I link to the rest of my stuff (and also stop posting walls of text--whoops!). (http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=35475397#35475397)

Really, I tried to discuss with you and tell you what I liked about old Karma or disliked about new Karma but it always boiled down to you, your immense experience in character design, and your own thread and redesign. "If you still have feedback come on my thread!" No. It's not beneficial in any way to me, as someone who's trying to achieve something HERE, to come in your thread and give you my feedback on designs that are probably never going to be concretized.

You told me what you liked about old Karma, and I acknowledged that. I then immediately told you why that stuff had to go if Riot were to uphold their standards, and you immediately started copping an attitude and set the projector to full blast.

You can discuss what you like and dislike all you want, sure. But until you change your mindset from that, to "what's best for this game, instead of just my own selfish desires?", then you are not going to change anything, anywhere. Why? Because Riot's job isn't to please you and you alone, it's to design the best game they can so they can make mad m$ney so they can continue to make games. This is the thing that people like you refuse to understand, and why Rioters and other reasonable people end up getting frustrated and dropping you altogether.

Anyway, you can continue trying to rant and rave all you want in this thread--I'm out of here. Unlike you, I actually do have plans to make improvements and instill positive change, and am working to put myself in a position to do just that. I've no time to bicker with you, mate--I've got a game to prototype.

If you're upset with me, I'm sorry that you are upset. That's unfortunate, but out of my hands. Ciao!

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member


she is darker than ever!!!!!!! YEAAAAHHHHH

one steep in the right direction against riot´s racist white characters!!!

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member


1. You say Karma Traditional is better, I tell you it isn't because it doesn't reflect her new theme as much as the new default does - you haven't come back at this point at all, you are just stating your opinion without backing up your claims.

I'm pretty sure my post was aimed at ItemsGuy, and I'm also pretty sure you said you didn't want to speak for him, or something like that? But well, ok, I'll play.
The reason why I think Karma Traditional is better is that it reflects her new theme as much as the new default does. Am I still just stating my opinion without backing up my claims? Yes, probably, but it's also what you're doing. The moment you realize we're all just talking about opinions will be the moment we'll get a chance to actually understand each other.

2. You continue to say you want to keep her dress, personality, fans and all of that and I've provided countless of information and examples of why that screws over the readability over her character and theme - you have failed to come back at this point aswell.

Never said I wanted to keep all of those things. It's clear you probably aren't even reading my most recent posts because in many of them I stated that I'm ok with removing one or even more of those elements, as long as at least one, or something that generally reminds you of it, stays.

3. You've said you didn't take her previous theme as 'magical fans' yet I came back at you with points and an explanation why the fact that we were argueing over a theme already shows us how abstract, weird and not reeadable it is

Karma's previous theme wasn't readable because it was actually a mix of various different themes. I don't see how that is a problem, but you do, so I said it's fine to take SOME of those themes out, but why not rebuild the new Karma upon one of the themes that are left instead of just creating an entirely new one?

And according to one of your first responses to me 'you are just saying what Riot is saying' means that more or less you are choosing to not listen.

Or maybe I just don't agree? I'd like to think I'm allowed to disagree with something, whether it comes from you or Riot doesn't really matter.

You are hoping to see old Karma but you are not willing to accept that old Karma doesn't meet Riot's new standards and you have failed to provide us an example of a rework that keeps old karma as much as she can be old karma and still sell as good or even better as a design than her current rework.

Because you have? I'm sorry but you have absolutely no way to know if your redesign would "sell as good or even better than her current rework". Exactly like you can't know how my idea of a rework for Karma would sell. I'm not going to go into detail about what I think would be a good rework because I've already done it a few thousand times in my absolutely "dreadful" posts, no intention to start again now, and it's not even my job (and guess what, it isn't your job either).

'Your design sucks' - Why? Please follow all of the patterns Riot takes to come to the conclusion of something being a good design.

'We want Karma to be as much old Karma as she can be!' without even providing an explanation or suggestion or example of an entire rework that continues to fit the criteria of Riot.

Again, we have, and again, your design doesn't keep much of old Karma either. And again, I'm not interested in going into depth about your redesign, all I can say is that I don't like it, it seems pretty boring, and it doesn't sound like Karma at all.

He has tanked your opinions and explained why Riot probably has made some decisions they have made and has continued to redirect him to his redesign that continues to fit their own criteria of what Riot personally thinks what makes a good design.

I'm sorry, if you're so willing to redirect me to something, could you please redirect me to the post where a person from Riot says something along the lines of "ItemsGuy your redesign for Karma is absolutely perfect, completely in line with our own criteria of what we personally think makes a good design, and if we could we would remake Karma using your ideas"?

You are trying to achieve something that'll lower the quality of the end product of the design which is why we and Riot will continue to tell you you're wrong and that the direction they are taking with Karma is for the best.

Oh yes, you're right, adding fans to her recall animation, or preserving her shield in her kit or keeping the same voice actress for the lines, or adding a joke/reference about the fans... All things that would absolutely and completely destroy any credibility for the product! All stuff that would incredibly cheapen all their work! All stuff that would make people scream for refunds the exact moment it's announced!
Come on, please. Don't be ridiculous. Again, you're trying to make it sound like we're just asking Riot to completely scrap the rework and give us "old Karma back", but in reality our requests are much more reasonable, and you just aren't willing to admit it.

A man can dream - I guess you are just less ambitious. We run a thread that covers the vast majority of the champions within League, the difference here is that you are trying to opt for changes that doesn't meet with Riot's criteria, we are trying opt for changes that meets Riot's standards/criteria even better and it's up to them how they are going to respond to that.

The problem here is that your idea of Riot's criteria is just your idea of Riot's criteria. Anyone could make a bunch of reworks and redesigns (that wouldn't be completely broken in game of course) and say "I'm sure these reworks are amazing and perfect because they meet with Riot's criteria".

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Yago Xiten

Senior Member


Ah, my apologies! I tried to maintain the gist of what you said (saying my designs are "horribly flawed" or something like that without so much as giving a reason) to bring a greater contrast to the way we both approach problems--thoughtful critique and the suppliance of possible solutions vs. "no dude this is just bad and I don't like it"--but I got a little mean in the process. I'll try to be a bit less tongue-in-cheek next time!

If I didn't respond to anything, it's probably because you didn't back up that point. If you go back and supply evidence to support your points, I'll take a look at them. If you only want to make baseless claims, there's nothing I can do for you. I'm only going to put as much effort into this as you are.

Well, that's what happens when you compare things to concrete criteria. If you build a chair and I build a boat, when the question comes up, "which one of these things is the better boat?", I'm going to say mine. When it comes to designs that are readable, cohere with a solid theme, and don't have any of Zileas's anti-patterns (among other things), my redesigns are qualitatively better. These are things you can write down and compare right in front of you.

In other words, it's not arrogant to state the truth. I will also not say that I'm a better designer than the designers currently at Riot, because even at their worst, they have one HUGE thing over me--they've actually made these designs happen. While I may have shown that I have the capacity to fulfill their criteria consistently, I've done only that. Haven't gotten my hands dirty quite yet!

But yeah, if you can point out where my redesigns fail at being readable, thematic, coherent, free of anti-patterns, and cohesive, and where their current iterations succeed where the redesigns fail, please do so. That's how mistakes are fixed, and how designs are improved. If you're just going to sit here and address my tone (a faux pas in the context of any sort of debate) and say that problems exist while not saying what said problems are and using evidence (in this case, Riot's current design criteria and Zileas's list of anti-patterns) to support these claims, then I have no time for you. I'm a busy man, and if I had to repeat myself to every person that has opinions, I wouldn't get anything done.

Also, I can't exactly say you'll have an easy time of using Riot's own design philosophies to back up your points, because I've already used them to back up my own. This particular post (http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?p=34826505#post34826505) illustrates this beautifully--and the best part is, I could do this for every redesign (but I won't because it takes time and is also unnecessary because Rioters are smart, which is why Riot hired them)!

Oh, don't think that I'm right because I'm pretentious! I have concluded that I'm right because that's what months of research (and Rioter posts, whether direct or indirect) has told me. You, on the other hand, seem to be upset that I'd be so brash and uncouth as to *gasp* state that there might be some merit to the work I've supported with the framework Riot has masterfully crafted, that you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that I might be right! That's not a very good position to be in when all the chips (evidence, in this case) are on my side of the table. "You're bluffing! You're cheating!" Am I? : O

Also, the fact that you don't back up your claims doesn't mean they're false, it just means that you have provided no grounds on which to have any sort of meaningful debate that yields a valid conclusion! I'm not going to bet money on a horse that never showed up--that's a waste!

That's just you putting words into my mouth here--which is fine, just don't act like there's any truth in them. People have pointed out flaws in my designs (or simply areas that could be improved), pointed out why said flaws are flaws, and I fixed them right away! For example, the Ahri redesign used to have the current iteration of her ult, but somebody pointed out that if it were to be used the way I wanted it to be used (quick shifts in positioning to corner isolated enemies and get in a prime position to blow your full combo on them), it would actually punish players that play her well and can get into position without using all 3 charges--so I changed it to work on an individual charge system, which was an improvement! Is it still the best solution? Probably not, but it's another step in the right direction and that's what I live for.

Not only do you lack the promise of an identified flaw (that is identified as a flaw by pointing out the criteria and then pointing out how said flaw defies the criteria--such as redesign!Ahri's old ult presenting the anti-pattern of the Conflicted Purpose, I think), but you lack the attitude required to give any sort of thoughtful feedback whatsoever. Your posts are reeking of vitriol, and you've already made it clear that you dislike me out of principle (as you haven't given any reasons aside from "you're arrogant!" which I've already refuted as you confusing "being arrogant" with "coming to the conclusion that I'm right through careful and organized analysis&quot, so I'm kind of finding it hard to come to the conclusion that you'll have anything useful to say to me. So I am not necessarily tempted to pursue any thread of conversation with you!

Anyway, I've got work to finish (end-of-quarter deadlines!), but if you experience a sudden change of heart and decide to give my designs thoughtful and critical reviews, please take it to the thread I linked to earlier ("Are Champions As Awesome As They Could Be?&quot so I don't lose track of it. Also, I've been taking art classes for three years--critique isn't really something I'm not used to! These years of experience, however, have given me the ability to discern between "actual critique" and "this guy doesn't like this" on a fairly accurate case-by-case basis. Your actions up to this point are attributes of that second group! ; P

You misquoted me. That is never an ethical way to handle a debate. Especially not in capital letters and with added exclamation points. You ddin't even take the care to properly capitlize the name of the person who you were misquoting.

Check the original post. I'm fairly certain there was valid discussion there on Karma, that actually did have assertions with some backing. You actually went out of your way to misquote me to portray me in a harmful light.

You could still be misreading. In your opinion you create a readable character with a coherent solid theme with no anti-patterns, but that does not mean that there are not some. Now, see this is a trap I'm walking into, becuase the only way for me to get any notice here is to bring up your reworks. Which is probably exactly the way you want things to be. You set it up so that people have to go out of their way to acknowledge your reworks or be disregarded for not supplying evidence.

In your Karma rework, why does the standard move around? How is it aparent that they will take damage if they hit them? Just from her name, Karma? I feel as though in game, if this were to happen to me, I'd completely forget about her name for awhile and wonder what just happened. I'm sure if someone pointed it out, I'd think oh, hey, Karma, I get it, but that'd require Burden of Knowledge.

It's only a slight amount, of course, but still there.

You've replocated Anivia's passive because it apparently wasn't readable enough. Probably because the "Burden of Knowledge" of how phoenixes work and that she is a cyrophoenix.

The current Karma has at least less confusion then that moving standard. And keep in mind, since the standard moves, it'd be more difficult to locate who it belongs to. This requires research on the player's part to know what's causing it.

And the current Anivia's passive makes a lot of sense because you see her, an ice elemental bird, die and turn into an egg and it sort of clicks that she's supposed to be an ice phoenix. In your iteration, her passive is logically coherent as ice freezes, but from a gameplay perspective, confusing. After all, I would have to know how her passive works to understand the counterplay. This is more research and more complicated than the current Anivia.

In both of these cases I would certainly not say your designs are qualitatively better.

The very statement of "it's not arrogant if it's true" is arrogant.

I would also not say (based upon the two previous examples and a couple more, such as Fiddlesticks) that you meet Riot's design criteria consitently. You may feel you do, and you may use their posts to justify yourself, but it is possible that you are wrong or misusing or quoting their posts. Riot's design philosophies are rather vague. Concepts like "Burden of Knowledge" can easily be taken too far as I often feel you have done. (Read above about Anivia*)

I could probably utilize Riot's own design philosophies to back up my points, though doing so would require a significant amount of effort and scouring through their posts. Furthermore, it's highly possible that I would misinterpret and misrepresent their intentions.

You have concluded, via a logical jump, that you are right. You have evidence which you believe proves you correct. If someone tells me that I should break up with my girlfriend, and I misinterpret this as that I should marry her and can cite this in a way that makes my assumption appear correct to other people, it does not mean that I am actually correct. I fear this is what you have done. It's incredibly abstract and difficult to prove and requires a huge amount of time and effort, and could be impossible (as one of the first rules of psychology is, after all, people see what they want and expect to see), which is probably why no one has taken the time or the effort to do so. It is a logical fallacy to assume that because no one has yet disproven you that you are unable to be disproved.

I am upset that you blatantly misquoted me and portrayed me in a negative light. Not because of your assertions which you have backed with potentially skewed evidence. It feels as though you believe that you are right and that your interpretation of Riot's posts and principles is correct because no one can disprove you. Again, this is a logical fallacy to assume that because you have not yet been disproven that you cannot be and that you are thusly correct.

That last part you quoted as "putting words into my mouth here" doesn't really feel relevant. In that section I did no paraphrasing or claming you'd said anything.

I've provided a lot of thoughtful feedback here. Your claim that I lack the attitude to provide it has thusly been disproven.

You also assert that my posts are "reeking of vitriol" and that I "dislike you out of principle" and that I have provided no other reason aside from "you're arrogant". You showed enough disdain in your post to display me in a negative light and not even properly captilize my name. You are claiming that you have come to the right conclusion because of your analysis, but that still does not necesarrily mean that you have actually conducted a proper analysis. It would appear that many of your assertions are hinging upon logical fallacies. Id est, you are "correct" because you have not been disproven, rather than having actually proved yourself as correct.

If you are used to handling critque, then you should wonder why I have my opinion that your designs are often poor, rather than assume that because I have not provided evidence that my assertion is wrong. This is known as the fallacy fallacy--that because a claim uses a fallacy (in this case me not providing evidence) that it is wrong.

EDIT: Also: (From I believe it was Ziegler's Twitter)

"Design error:anti product: a product that defines itself by avoiding what the audience doesn't want, not by embracing what they do want."

It's highly possible by avoiding many of the anti-patterns that you have created this one.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.




We mean before the day of the relaunch hitting the live servers. We know that people will go and get Karma right now for the skin- it's no surprise.

The relaunch team felt strongly that we wanted to create a new look for Karma - but we also wanted to give current Karma faithfuls and new adopters both a way to enjoy a new take on her original look. The black/white theme, the more reserved appearance, and more were all things we decided to put into this 'Traditional' skin.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS I bought Karma almost 6 months ago and found her to be very fun to play. I loved her base skin and being able to keep it through the rework is just amazing. Thx Riot!!!

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Fiora All Night

Senior Member


I think what frustrates me the most is that Riot makes all these wild, drastic changes based on how it fits into a story and on-going narrative that they aren't sharing with us.

They know exactly where everything is going, have the stories they allegedly want to tell us, and it probably makes all kinds of sense to them. But the players don't have that. To us, all the happened was Karma is being practically deleted from the game and replaced with a totally new champion who happens to have the same name.

I'm not trying to sound too negative here. I'm looking forward to seeing Karma's new kit (and desperately praying that she still has a shield-bomb...that's like...her thing, more so than the fans). I like the new skin, and I really like the traditional skin. I'm disappointed in Riot that they couldn't have her in a dress, even in an alternate skin for some illogical reason. Seriously, Veigar gets to dress as Santa and Karma can't get a dress? What's up with that?

What I'm saying is...talk to us. We just want to know why a champ we like is changing so drastically. If you guys can't share why, then perhaps you should reconsider the reasons you made those changes for.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Junior Member


I don't actually understand this. Did you expect the model to remain low-res? Is this a fan/no-fan thing? I want to understand, but this is really confusing that this is a feeling someone has on this.

Thier just stubborn and nostaglic nerds >_>

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Yago Xiten

Senior Member


Correct, true.

You are going to find this an extremely cheap example, but frankly it's one of the best ones out there.

'Meepo' from DotA. The dude has an extremely steep learning curve and is all about micro managing, if you can't properly micro managing (which takes like countless of hours of playing an RTS and then still you have to practise to get remotely good at it) you can't and will not do good with Meepo.

He has the lowest pickrate and winrate out of all DotA2 heroes.

Now I'm aware of the fact you carefully have chosen the word 'least bit of homework', implying that what you are asking is only minor.

The truth actually is, that burden of knowledge means that there is a burden, it means that there is something that makes the game unnecessarily harder. Do you honestly think people won't have homework if all champions weren't lore dependant or weren't based completely off history and in order to understand the champion you must have read into that? (not really a champion like that in current league, just a 'what if' here)

Not at all, players would still be busy actually playing and learning the game/.

That's exactly what burden of knowledge is; asking something of people that isn't necessary.

Except when you'd have to do that for every champion in the game, which would be even worse if that were the case.

However, majority of champions aren't lore dependant so it's pretty much an easy conclusion: no need for lore dependance and it's only serving as burden of knowledge so no reason to not get rid of it.

In our 'Are champion as awesome as they could be' I have seen countless of people stating that they've had some serious frustration and anger when learning this game because they promised themselves they wouldn't be required to literally memorize every single kit of every single champion that didn't make a whole lot of sense right from the start.

It does screw around with the accesability of people and the succes of league of legends shouldn't be the reason why people man up and continue playing, like right now people might motivate themselves with that, 'league got so popular and is such a big game, it must be good so I'll keep going!'

I've seen plenty of dudes looking at ItemsGuy's work and clock in and say 'Holy balls this wants to make me stop playing dota because like that I can enjoy a game that has extremely high depth without me having to memorize over 3285735 things for the sake of memorizing them because they don't make sense' which sadly is the case with DotA.

Memorizing stuff and 'burden of knowledge' in terms of having to read lore or dig into history is all mechanical skill - am I really outplaying someone if I can rack up more CS than they do? Am I really outplaying someone if I manage to spawn more units than they do (talking about a RTS game like Starcraft now) - not really, it means I have an edge over my opponent in terms of how you should play the game, I'm not directly involved with outsmarting my opponent.

The difference here is that personally I am forced to find out, which is burden of knowledge.

'WHY IS THIS GUY SUCH A BAD@SS, WHY DOES THIS GUY HAVE SUCH A HUGE SHOTGUN?' Those are appropriate lore-related questions that can't really be asked out of frustration, but rather out of interest and curiousity.

Myself, I had to deal with Mordekaiser back when I was a newbie, I expected him to smash around his huge mace and crumbling the ground with it, in the end he works more like a mage and.... makes ghosts out of his slain enemies? It's not readable at all and I got how he worked after reading his tooltips a few times including his lore where I discovered he's actually some sort of lich. (I can link you to a thread where Ironstylus mentions this is a huge problem for Mordekaiser)

That wasn't a pleasant experience at all, but for Darius however, what the guy does in game made perfect sense right off the bat, did I read his lore out of curiousity? Hell yeah! But I wasn't forced into it because I stumbled onto something that didn't make sense.

Wrong. (Hey, that rhymes!)

Accesability =/= depth.

Chess is a good example and so is soccer. A 4 year old can play football and a 10 year old can attempt to play chess, are they lacking depth? No, they are highly accesable yet still make an extremely cool and 'complicated' game in terms of you are being able to be extremely good at it, in terms of outplaying your opponent, and not just mechanical skill which I hate as that tends to boil down to 'haha i practised this game more than you did now I'm doing something that does not really directly involve you so roflstomp powned! Noob!)


It's fun because I'm using Riot's criteria, not trying to sound arrogant or condescending here, but it's true. I wouldn't invest so much time in this thread if I 'were just defending my opinion'

Going to read this tomorrow!


Thank you buddy!


Sidenote: Pretty cool that regardless of the sh*t I got from two others the dude I actually dedicated the link to appreciated it and will reply later to leave his feedback. Unnecessary stupid spam right?

You make me a sad panda bear and the sad truth about is that you probably intend to do that. Talk me down.

That is an awful example. It fails to prove what was asked.

I asked for proof that people do not want at least a little bit of homework. You cite Meepo, someone who requires much homework, as an example of being undesireable because he has a low pick/win rate. This fails to take into account other concerns, such as the metagame. Perhaps he is an unviable or gimmicky pick and this is why his win rate is low? He also requires that the player have a large amount of knowledge and skill to play him. While this is a burden of knowledge preventing those who do not meet his skill level from using him, this ALSO allows for those seeking higher level play to utilize him. This increases the skill-range and thus the amount of players who can enjoy DotA. Furthermore, while Meepo may require a lot of knowledge to play AS he does not require too much to play AGAINST. While it certainly isn't necesarry to have a character who has a burden of knowledge like Meepo, it can appeal to certain other players. Futhermore, though Meepo may have a low pick/win rate, keep in mind that Meepo is one of the most iconic and beloved characters of the game because of his high skill cap. Meepo's "burden of knowledge" actually INCREASES the accessibilty of the game by appearling to a certain type of player.

This is exactly what I meant by saying that simple principles like "burden of knowledge" could be being misused.

Lore dependence is NOT NECESARRILY a fault. It depends upon what you're going for. As is the case with Meepo, sometimes it can create more accesibilty because it appeals to different types of players.

ItemsGuy's work often has quite a few design flaws of his own which require, from a gameplay perspective, a great deal of burden of knowledge. They may not be lore dependent knowledge burdens, but there are knowledge burdens all the same.

Yes. If you can rack up more CS than they are you are outplaying them. This is because they are not performing as well at that task as you. You failed to mention if they know what CSing is in the first place or not. Knowledge is power. And in any competitive game (LoL is this, by the way) part of being skilled is handling the burden of knowledge. Being tasked with knowing what to do and doing it well means something. If you were required to know nothing and to still suceed at the game, it would not be competitive. LoL tries to appeal to the casual player, but it is still a competitive game. Knowing how to do something better and proving it is exactly what competition is.

You are NOT forced to find out why Graves shoots a smokescreen or Karma has fans. Anymore than you are required to learn WHY fire burns--you just need to know that that is what happens. Assuming that your players only follow off of immediate visual cues and are unable to connect with or desire a story or reasoning behind things is vastly underestimating them.

While some find it frustrating to have a character not do exactly what is visually obvoius, it is also often fresh and fun. It's interesting to play against a character or to play as a character and realize how they work.

You weren't required to read Mordekaiser's lore--you could have, as you did with Darius, accepted it as it was. Mordekaiser was a little more abstract, which is why you had to inquire about him. Abstract principles can be great, the human race has been obsessed with many of them for quite some time.

I used a hyperbole there, admittedly. But noobfriendly, again, does not necesarrily mean good. Something that is attempted to be made as accessible as possible will often become inacessible to another group. An example of this is a child's toy. Sure, an adult could easily access it, it is within their degree of understanding, but it probably will not interest them because it is too simple and there it is not as engaging.

Yes, it was still spam as it was as offtopic as this here.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.


Senior Member


when is she being released/announced?