Discussion Corner: Overpowered...?

The Farm is OP. There's that. Global blitz is idiotic. Telling us something about global effects, I guess.

 

I'm not sure if you're responding to me, but I'll assume so for now and be arrogant.
I would lump global effects in with 1 and/or 2.

 

I wasn't, but I guess it counts.

 

It is but SL beast need buffs at the same time the relic would be nerfed.

 

I have the feeling Elecroc and Cobra could almost carry them alone ... Blind/Envenom is disgusting.

But yeah, of course the farm wouldn't be deleted but reworked.

 

- My old definition of OP was basically that if the rune was a champion then ... There was never a bad time to deploy it. For other rune types it was basically if the counter play to the rune was either non-existent or terribly inefficient (on a bad champ or over costed or costed more then my rune).

- Now OP is just what beats my wonky ass unfinished underdeveloped theme decks....

 

Are you want to open this pandoras box bud?

 

Kalasle thank you for being you

 

I like what you said a lot but I don't think this is always true. I think many runes that are always good options can at the same time be balanced. Icesnap, voil storm flyer, and firk mind shredder can be used effectively in many different bgs but I think of them as balanced almost perfectly.

 

here's my basic opinion of it though I'll admit to every rule their are exceptions.

1) do you include it in every bg.
2) do you have other runes of lower power in faction that can fill the role that are simply being over shadowed by it, for example a factions only source of cleanse might be incredibly powerful but if it's really the only rune to do it it's usually fine.
3) do other factions have similar grades of runes of equal power.
4) is the rune over all pushing the faction above and beyond other factions.

 

My personal opinion on the matter is kinda difficult to put into words but basically I view things as cost vs effect. I don't care how powerful an effect is as long as suitable investment is required. Obviously different people value things in different ways and some things are not as visible (Like Tariff) in their effect but when I deploy a 80 nora champion I want to get at least 80 nora worth of effect for the deploy. If that champion however, consistently gets 100 nora worth of value for that 80 nora cost then I will likely view it as overpowered. Obviously, the higher the cost the higher the risk involved with the deploy. The majority of the things that I worry about are units that consistantly get 15-20+ more nora worth of effect than cost and are also sub 75 in nora.

 

Take or leave everything else you're saying, absolutely disagree with even establishing that as a distinction. Everyone who enjoys the game enjoys playing the game, but that means different things to different people. While I can guess at the gist of your statement -- some casual v competitive distinction -- breaking that down and naming it as people who enjoy playing the game and people who, implicitly, don't enjoy playing suggests something that I think just isn't true -- that enjoying winning is some how different from enjoying playing the game.

 

I think balancing with nerfs is generally a bad idea because it just ends with interesting/effective things being shoeboxed. Then something new takes its place, then that gets nerfed, etc, etc.

Instead of nerfing things based on an extremely small community's often kneejerk opinions, which just reduces the variety of viable runes, I honestly think the focus should be on buffs and repairing shoeboxed runes/themes/mechanics to bring more things up to goodstuff level.

It's the Capcom school of balance: If everything is OP, then nothing is OP.

TL;DR: Nerfs reduce rune variety, buffs increase it. A larger variety of viable runes is a good thing.

 

Overpowered is fairly subjective. Being that there are different types of players and different levels of play, it adds to the foggy description.
From a developer's stand point it gets even more muddled and complicated.

If a game has something that divides its playerbase into identifiable groups (ie: factions, elements, archetypes) then not having access to something or a comparable fair disparity is overpowered.

EX: Green- Only faction that can block X creature type without using the same creature type All 'factions' have X creature type but Red Red- Has highest base dmg and the most damaging spells
So Red is suppose to crutch on damaging spells and effects to stave off X creature type while the other factions have access to the same creature type to block and Green can block with most of it's units regardless.
IMO, Poor design and makes Green OP.

EX2: White- Has 5 units that can cure status ailments. Has many status ailments it can inflict, one of which can't be cured but only lasts one round.
All the other 'factions' have only 1 unit that can cure status ailments. All other 'factions' (except Red) have only one faction specific status ailment it can inflict.
IMO, Poor design and makes White OP.

EX3: Healers can't attack. Warriors can't block. Blockers can't heal other units. New expansion drops and White gets a Healer that can attack. Green gets Warrior that can Block.
Next Expansion drops and everyone gets a Healer that can attack (none have more dmg than Whites previous and white now has 2) Red and Green get a Warrior that can Block. Green gets a Blocker that can mass heal.
The Following Expansion White and Blue get a Healer that can attack, everyone gets a warrior that can block, White gets a Blocker that can mass heal, Blue gets a Blocker that increase's Max HP of all units in play when it comes in.
IMO, Poor design and White is OP.




An obscure thought on power:

If a 'card/unit' does it alot, it should take alot. Either skill to play to full potential or other 'cards' to combo into something powerful. If the latter, those pieces should have readily available counters.



Losing identity and streamlining into 'overpowered':

If there are 'factions' and they start with an identity, try to stay true to it. If that identity begins to become lost and parts of what defined it in the past become available to the other 'factions', make sure it is a fair give and take.
Try to keep sight on the interactions that were allowed and conceived under the notion that 'faction X' had a certain identity and blurring these guidelines by introducing small doses of other 'faction identities' can cause a skew in 'faction balance'.


Ex: Elves- low damage, low hp, buff supports, swarm mechanics, movement restriction effects, high range and speed
Avg Dmg: 7-9 Avg HP: 32-40 Avg Def: 0-1 Avg Range: 2-4 Avg Spd: 7 Avg Cost: 62

Savages= high damage, average HP, kill boons, movement mechanics, low range, avg speed
Avg Dmg: 12-16 Avg HP: 44-52 Avg Def: 2 Avg Range: 1-2 Avg Spd: 5 Avg Cost: 75

Beasts- avg damage, high HP, revenge mechanics, attack debuffs, low range, avg speed
Avg Dmg: 10-12 Avg HP: 50-65 Avg Def: 3-4 Avg Range: 1-2 Avg Spd: 5 Avg Cost: 70

Undead-low damage, low HP, Resurrection/Recursion mechanics, persistent stat debuffs, death mechanics, avg rng, low spd
Avg Dmg: 5-8 Avg HP: 25-36 Avg Def: 2 Avg Range: 1-3 Avg Spd: 4 Avg Cost: 50


Post Identity Merging


Elves- avg damage, avg hp, buff supports, swarm mechanics, movement restriction effects, kill boons,
movement mechs, attack debuffs, persistent stat debuffs, cleanse, high range and speed
Avg Dmg: 11-13 Avg HP: 38-46 Avg Def: 2 Avg Range: 3-6 Avg Spd: 7 Avg Cost: 66

Savages= high damage, average HP, kill boons, movement mechanics, persistent stat debuffs,
revenge mechanics, death mechanics, low range, avg speed
Avg Dmg: 12-18 Avg HP: 46-54 Avg Def: 2-3 Avg Range: 1-3 Avg Spd: 5 Avg Cost: 79

Beasts- high damage, high HP, revenge mechanics, attack debuffs, movement restriction effects,
swarm mechanics, movement mechanics, low range, avg speed
Avg Dmg: 13-15 Avg HP: 50-65 Avg Def: 3-5 Avg Range: 1-2 Avg Spd: 6 Avg Cost: 74

Undead-low damage, low HP, Resurrection/Recursion mechanics, persistent stat debuffs,
death mechanics, swarm mechanics, movement mechanics, kill boons, avg rng, avg spd
Avg Dmg: 7-9 Avg HP: 32-41 Avg Def: 2 Avg Range: 1-3 Avg Spd: 5 Avg Cost: 54




Im not going to pick apart those numbers or what it all means. Some may identify and grasp the concept im trying to depict. Others may just see this as me wasting time and it not really proving or explaining anything.
It took awhile to write that, so i'll just leave it to the crowd. You can decide if the factions presented began balanced, ended more skewed than they started, if one is far more favorable than the rest, or if there is too much information lacking to come to any conclusion.

 

Understandably "enjoyment" is subjective and varying among people. It's also hard to tell someone they aren't enjoying something.
Food for thought though as how i interpret this.


Some people play explicitly for fun.
**** These are the people who piss me off on League because winning would be great and they hope to win but don't realistically work towards it. Playing is enough for them and they invest little into being better. These are the people you'll see play AP Fiora and never finish an item while feeding top lane, not warding jungle, tower diving at level 2, ignoring objectives, afk farming jungle at 25 min, is getting enemy blue while a team fight for baron is going on, when they actually are at a team fight they jump into thresh hook, get bursted, zhoynas, pop flash, pop heal, then ult the tank before getting solo'd by the support. After inhibs break they stand in the super minion wave dying and laughing about how strong the minions are and type GG and praise the enemy team for being good although they suck and just got fed by an idiot.

Some people play for fun and try to be competitive.
***** These people often explore the game and strive to get better. They seek out interesting interactions and how things work and try to be creative and progressive while learning how to get better and win. These are the people you'll see play AP Fiora and try to make it work. They'll play safe in lane, they'll time her ult, they'll help dragons, push lanes, ward, be in team fights, won't go alone into enemy jungle w/o wards, won't chase stupidly, strive for objectives and taking the Nexus with their Lichbane.

Some people play just to be competitive and fun is an afterthought.
***** These people bought a skill capped subscription, watch streams for hours, follow the LCS religiously, know every champ that gets banned most often and are usually Gold or higher. They main'd Riven last season but refuse to play her this season because Vlad and Gnar are the two best Top Laners this season. They can play every lane and have timers on everything. They don't stay in lane too long, they make plays, they push objectives, they last hit like a God, they are 2 levels higher than you at anytime in the game, they forgot Blind pick was a mode. Ultra Rapid Fire doesn't give LP so it's pointless. Their main account is Diamond or better so to have fun they troll ranked on their smurf while there friend is learning the game. Wards are everywhere, grouping is apparent, tele flash top is mandatory, actives never go to waste, enemy jungle is raging because their champ patterns are memorized, they dodge skill shots and count your cooldowns. They'd never play AP Fiora because it's stupid, and you're stupid, don't be stupid.

 

Yes. A good point, since I see people make the "I don't play to win, I play for fun" argument pretty often, as if people who enjoy competition somehow aren't having as much fun as you or are having their fun in a less legitimate way.

 

No, the third type of person is just a strawman that people who don't belong to that category made up. The people you describe who watch streams, follow the LCS and champ bans are still having fun, it's just in a way that you disagree with. They are more rigorous and competitive than you, but why does that mean that their fun is "an afterthought?" They enjoy watching streams, the LCS and various meta-game developments.

Ed: Also, conversely, the first type of person you list has their conception of fun equated with being bad. Just because someone isn't successful at winning the game doesn't mean that they are "explicitly" having fun any more than anyone else.

 

"Sigh". It seems that again, what I was saying was misunderstood.

I was saying that some people enjoy the game for purely playing it, and derive less enjoyment from simply winning.
Then there are people that enjoy winning, and derive less enjoyment purely from just playing.

I'm not saying one is worse than the other, or that one tries harder. BUT, they do look for and want different things in games. Which means that developers must decide how they wish to balance their target marketing.

 

The power of synthesis!

 

You made me laugh this time. You really dont know whats unbalanced?
Let me fork your code and insert some snippets to generate data on rune usage. Then I can easily point out whats broken.

If you did not have done this yet, then I know why the game lost almost all its playerbase.