it's ok, I don't mind saying it over and over again you want to know why you never rate anything on me balanceing? because I don't know balance and I know so apparently you don't realize the latter
yes, but when the go down this "easy" road, its an endless buffing and nerfing, making champs´jump back and forth between "shoebox" and "goodstuff". The good way to do it for longterm balance stability is: A) adjust cost of ability itself, affecting all champs that use it B) if its the combination of abilities, don't allow too strong and too weak combinations of abilities. Pre revamp there were quite some champs with very "good" ability combinations that were nerfed away. Now its the responsibility of the devs within the costing system to keep a fair level of "synergy/anti-synergy" on abilities on champs. This can not be done automatically and needs the "feeling" of the devs and maybe some trial and error.
If things swing in such a way, it is as a result of how hard a push the devs give it. It's not an ontological quality of the method, rather, a result of its application.
True. However this "endless buffing, and nerfing" is inevitable. Champs can't be thought of in a vacuum. Synergy can, and will eventually affect how that rune performs. To change that rune as a whole for the reason of a another would be less wise than looking at the synergy as a whole. Which will usually result in a nora nerf. I am not saying that all fixes should be a quick, and simple nora nerf. I am saying that sometimes the easy fix is the right one.
by manual costing, based on forum talks and observing what? less than 1% of all games for sure, with several thousand champs, its totally impossible for any human to adjust costs by feelings, which is exactly what manual adjusting is. I could understand manual adjusting if it was built on some very strong statistics and was made automatically, but we know from SOK that this is not the case and that they have almost no statistics of value when adjusting champs
What I mean is the more they stick to rules when they adjust and cost champs, the more likely each buff and nerf moves the whole towards balance. By just random adjusting (manual adjusting), the risk is very big that they just move champs in and out of "goodstuff". (As we have seen so many examples of. One champ is OP, it sees plays a lot, it creates forum rage, they nerf it and then it is shoebox and never sees play again.
There is a database of statistics on what runes are used, and how often. Players will generally not use what does not perform well. Should they use this in-conjunction with feedback from active player base members, and their own insight as developers. Then theoretically manual costing can, and will be used to a degree of efficiency. As a note they probably do have more data then just what I mentioned.
This. Some Runes should have a hidden synergy cost maybe ranging from -5 to +5 maybe from -10 to +10. This would allow devs to tax a little runes with too much built in synergy and also give some viability to some cool lorewise/themewise combination that sucks mechanicaly. You can see this kind of mechanics in other point buy games. As an example: in GURPS, a table top rpg, being myopic would have different costs if you had or not access to glasses, becoming just a quirk if you had access to contact lenses.
I think i remember senshu say something along the lines of the formula was made to set a standard and allow for easier adjustments to abilities and runes to allow for an easier way to balance things, allowing and including manual adjustments.
Im gonna start running moga cannons in my sp splits. I have conviced myself he is too good to be left out.
I would be against manual modifiers when at all possible. If lumbering is giving him too much of a discount don't manually adjust him or lumbering just give him lethargic to decrease the synergy issue.
Yes, thats the point, given leap, lumbering is like a buff as it lowers nora cost within the "balance rules". He is kne of the best examples on that devs intentionally dont want a balanced game.
