Jump to content

Is there a sentiment in Mumble that this game is LoL+? (v1.60+)


DoctorHeckle
 Share

Recommended Posts

Because it's been a long, sad march towards it for a very, very long time.

 

First there were some plausible changes. No gold loss on death, for example. This was pretty ok.

 

Then it became a little apparent. Talent trees and their given spells were the first tell, but it was still pretty distinct.

 

Getting rid of the sideshops and "importing" a bunch of items was getting me legitimately worried that creativity was on the slide and that it was slowly getting assimilated.

 

Then Teleporters got removed, and the teleport spell got added. This is when I gave up, to be honest. It was moving so backward from being it's own game and so much closer to LITERALLY just being LoL.

 

Now we have respawning barracks? To be honest, and this is coming from someone who LOVED this game: are the devs even trying? What is said during beta testing? Did NO ONE ELSE raise ANY objections to this?

 

Forget about the removal of T4 towers. That's just bizarre. Is the testing community so jaded by now that we don't even TRY to be unique? Is ekco and Red placating to the former Mumble regulars who left for LoL by making our game converge to being nearly the exact same thing? When will STR/AGI/INT be removed for AD/AP? When will the barracks be consolidated into one structure? They're already called INHIBITORS for God's sake.

 

Open your flobING eyes everyone. It PAINS me to see what was once a very interesting, unique, ambitious alternative to LoL and DotA become a chintzy resculpturing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have one question:

Why would you play a game that looks like LOL, if you can just play LOL?

 

Exactly. I have no explanation as to why the game is taking the direction it is without the knowledge that our Mumble community really likes LoL. As a former streamer/caster, I can only shake my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it's been a long, sad march towards it for a very, very long time.

 

First there were some plausible changes. No gold loss on death, for example. This was pretty ok.

 

Then it became a little apparent. Talent trees and their given spells were the first tell, but it was still pretty distinct.

 

Getting rid of the sideshops and "importing" a bunch of items was getting me legitimately worried that creativity was on the slide and that it was slowly getting assimilated.

 

Then Teleporters got removed, and the teleport spell got added. This is when I gave up, to be honest. It was moving so backward from being it's own game and so much closer to LITERALLY just being LoL.

 

Now we have respawning barracks? To be honest, and this is coming from someone who LOVED this game: are the devs even trying? What is said during beta testing? Did NO ONE ELSE raise ANY objections to this?

 

Forget about the removal of T4 towers. That's just bizarre. Is the testing community so jaded by now that we don't even TRY to be unique? Is ekco and Red placating to the former Mumble regulars who left for LoL by making our game converge to being nearly the exact same thing? When will STR/AGI/INT be removed for AD/AP? When will the barracks be consolidated into one structure? They're already called INHIBITORS for God's sake.

 

Open your flobING eyes everyone. It PAINS me to see what was once a very interesting, unique, ambitious alternative to LoL and DotA become a chintzy resculpturing.

Pretty sure even if u retaliate , ekco just do whatever he wants , no ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little offended that the entire process behind our development is being called "chintzy". That undermines all the work and effort we've put into a project that has very much become a part of our lives.

 

 

 

The direction of the game, is to improve game elements. If we feel that an element of the game is incomplete and loosely tied together, we spend weeks putting together ideas for how it can be improved, and they are not always obvious. If our conclusion happens to be similar to what a well-funded team of designers have come up with, I can take a little pride in that because I know we've been addressing similar problems. That being said, AoS is nothing if not a unique evolution of our industry counterparts.

 

We started out with inspirations from DotA, then we learned a bit from LoL, a smidge from Tianyijue, HoN, Smite, Fat Princess, WoW, Guild Wars, any game we've played, we add to our portfolio of inspirations, because as designers, it's our objective to learn new methods, and understand evolving concepts. What, you want a design that is literally "without inspiration" ?

 

We could keep the same old formula we had at the very beginning, where players one-shot each other and cyprus teleports in with an army of marines that immediately wipe out your entire team. Or where once a single barrack is destroyed, people immediately leave the game because the advantage is so overwhelming that it becomes anti-fun. Where's the ambition in that? Keeping sideshops is considered creativity? The original map design and layout was 90% modeled after DotA, sideshops, pools, towers, bounties, experience, lanes, and all. Where's the creativity in that?

 

If anything, the map currently differs more from it's industry counterparts than it ever has. Each element is designed with clear purpose.

 

Every change we've made is in response to community concerns and part of a process in which we take into consideration specific game elements to come up with the best possible design, as opposed to flat-out mimicking elements from DotA. Some of those have aligned with LoL because the developers at Riot have done a spectacular job in general - just because they came up with a great solution doesn't mean it's absolutely off-limits. What would we be left with if our entire design process was "anything that other games don't do" ? We'd be left with nothing!

 

 

 

Being unique for the sake of being unique is a gross oversimplification of the design process, and is clearly not the philosophy by which you want something to be developed. Making a game unique is not hard.

 

The balance of hope, stress, enjoyment, and anticipation is not a simple one. It evolves out of community input. It's not like things are balanced or adjusted without reason. If you wanted the game to stay the way it always was, then you're essentially asking me to completely ignore all the community input we've received in the past 3 years of constant development.

 

 

 

I understand you have some concerns about a few changes. Maybe you didn't quite follow the change to transporters, or the barracks, or to neutral camps, or denies. The forums are an avenue for discussion on this matter, and given a logically sound case, there's no reason for us to not reconsider. Unlike other developers, we're actually accessible to the public. We just ask that you not use cheap reasoning to justify a game element, or fall back on attacking us for being too similar to one game or another. Rather, elaborate on problems you see with specific changes, weigh the pros and cons of each change, and understand that we're always thinking about these things too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take ideas from Temple Siege on SC1 =D shows you how spells were made when there wasn't an editor for spells. Essentially hotkeying a gateway, and having 4 different spells based off of what unit you build, and basically it would spawn units around you for a second or two to deal damage as well as other affects with Disruption Web and bunkers and short global heals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little offended that the entire process behind our development is being called "chintzy". That undermines all the work and effort we've put into a project that has very much become a part of our lives.

 

 

 

The direction of the game, is to improve game elements. If we feel that an element of the game is incomplete and loosely tied together, we spend weeks putting together ideas for how it can be improved, and they are not always obvious. If our conclusion happens to be similar to what a well-funded team of designers have come up with, I can take a little pride in that because I know we've been addressing similar problems. That being said, AoS is nothing if not a unique evolution of our industry counterparts.

 

We started out with inspirations from DotA, then we learned a bit from LoL, a smidge from Tianyijue, HoN, Smite, Fat Princess, WoW, Guild Wars, any game we've played, we add to out portfolio of inspirations, because as designers, it's our objective to learn new methods, and understand evolving concepts. What, you want a design that is literally "without inspiration" ?

 

We could keep the same old formula we had at the very beginning, where players one-shot each other and cyprus teleports in with an army of marines that immediately wipe out your entire team. Or where once a single barrack is destroyed, people immediately leave the game because the advantage is so overwhelming that it becomes anti-fun. Where's the ambition in that? Keeping sideshops is considered creativity? The original map design and layout was 90% modeled after DotA, sideshops, pools, towers, bounties, experience, lanes, and all. Where's the creativity in that?

 

If anything, the map currently differs more from it's industry counterparts than it ever has. Each element is designed with clear purpose.

 

Every change we've made is in response to community concerns and part of a process in which we take into consideration specific game elements to come up with the best possible design, as opposed to flat-out mimicking elements from DotA. Some of those have aligned with LoL because the developers at Riot have done a spectacular job in general - just because they came up with a great solution doesn't mean it's absolutely off-limits. What would we be left with if our entire design process was "anything that other games don't do" ? We'd be left with nothing!

 

 

 

Being unique for the sake of being unique is a gross oversimplification of the design process, and is clearly not the philosophy by which you want something to be developed. Making a game unique is not hard.

 

The balance of hope, stress, enjoyment, and anticipation is not a simple one. It evolves out of community input. It's not like things are balanced or adjusted without reason. If you wanted the game to stay the way it always was, then you're essentially asking me to completely ignore all the community input we've received in the past 3 years of constant development.

 

 

 

I understand you have some concerns about a few changes. Maybe you didn't quite follow the change to transporters, or the barracks, or to neutral camps, or denies. The forums are an avenue for discussion on this matter, and given a logically sound case, there's no reason for us to not reconsider. Unlike other developers, we're actually accessible to the public. We just ask that you not use cheap reasoning to justify a game element, or fall back on attacking us for being too similar to one game or another. Rather, elaborate on problems you see with specific changes, weigh the pros and cons of each change, and understand that we're always thinking about these things too.

 

I mean seriously ? What are the big recent changes that aren't a copy of LoL besides the ancient ? You can say you are responding to the community and make 10 paragraphs saying it, it won't change the fact that you have been copying LoL a LOT lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Red post! Hey alright, it's been a while ekco. Let's get down to business.

 

I'm a little offended that the entire process behind our development is being called "chintzy". That undermines all the work and effort we've put into a project that has very much become a part of our lives.

 

I'm sorry to have offended you, but that would be the term I would use to describe the game in its current state. I totally get that it's not like you guys don't care, but to be honest the past few major changes have cheapened my overall game experience via oversimplification. As someone who's been around since beta (albeit, not as active at certain points as for others), I've seen some pretty out-there things come and go. There was a time where the patches would really make things more interesting for me, now it feels like I'm playing the same game I started out the genre with, and not in a good way either. In a tired way.

 

The direction of the game, is to improve game elements. If we feel that an element of the game is incomplete and loosely tied together, we spend weeks putting together ideas for how it can be improved, and they are not always obvious. If our conclusion happens to be similar to what a well-funded team of designers have come up with, I can take a little pride in that because I know we've been addressing similar problems. That being said, AoS is nothing if not a unique evolution of our industry counterparts.

 

I would argue that having an "Oh, that's what they did?" moment is not the case with swapping transporters with a recall spell. Was it coincidence that the barracks are called "inhibitors" now too? I highly, highly doubt that's a "unique evolution." Convergent evolution, perhaps, but certainly not unique. I feel like in my time in Mumble idling and talking with the community, a lot of ideas get thrown around about popular problems that seem would seemingly solve it. I suppose I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, being the mastermind behind this, and hope that these suggestions are heard, mulled over, and then tossed out for logical reasons. I'm all for improving game elements. I feel, however, as I've said before, that recent "improvements" haven't been helping the gameplay experience.

 

We started out with inspirations from DotA, then we learned a bit from LoL, a smidge from Tianyijue, HoN, Smite, Fat Princess, WoW, Guild Wars, any game we've played, we add to out portfolio of inspirations, because as designers, it's our objective to learn new methods, and understand evolving concepts. What, you want a design that is literally "without inspiration" ?

 

Heeeeeeell no! Inspiration is a great thing. A lot of my favorite heroes in the pool are direct inspirations from heroes/champions from surrounding games. Heroes like Cain, Boros, Rory, and Garamond all have really awesome, core parts of their play style lifted from some of my favorite heroes.

 

Cain has a cool fix with Ursa's problem with his stun/passive slow. Combined with the incremental damage increase, he's a blast to play. This is an example of inspiration gone right! And that's why I loved this game! Features that were there, better synergized, and with a unique twist. That's awesome! Old Aeon, where you could use his token to either revive or summon him? That was awesome! Questionably balanced, but that could have been fixed! I miss that a lot.

 

Bad inspiration, however, can caustically influence, and often clout, the good stuff. Stuff like over homogenizing heroes via the talent trees. To be fair, I've always been opposed to their inclusion, seeing as they're two dumps away from the head of the genre-pede (WoW -> League -> us. Ewwwwwww). Things like Last Stand and other spells being "must haves" made the game really stale to play; not to mention stale to cast. To be fair, I've been out of the pool so to speak for a while when the trees got revamped, so you can take that how you want. Still, the point remains: I feel as though heroes lose their own personal "feel" when you give them a pool of mini spells that any other hero can have. Again, stats/evidence aside, this is coming from how I FEEL playing in pubs, and it's how I've FELT playing in IH. It made the experience, well, chintzy. Sorry.

 

We could keep the same old formula we had at the very beginning, where players one-shot each other and cyprus teleports in with an army of marines that immediately wipe out your entire team. Or where once a single barrack is destroyed, people immediately leave the game because the advantage is so overwhelming that it becomes anti-fun. Where's the ambition in that? Keeping sideshops is considered creativity? The original map design and layout was 90% modeled after DotA, sideshops, pools, towers, bounties, experience, lanes, and all. Where's the creativity in that?

 

You said it yourself, man. Or maybe it was Red. Either way, the reason that one of you guys gave as to why some heroes were similar (re: nigh-identical) to some heroes in DotA was that you wanted people who were new to SotIS to feel comfortable with the new map while adjusting to the new idiosyncrasies. Micro, for example. He's basically Tiny, but with a built in Blink and a slow instead of a stun that was lifted form the campaign. Nothing wrong there! I loved Micro's design. Following DotA to the mark was a solid choice for early on, so we could feel out the new stuff and then build upon it.

 

Trust me, I've seen some shap that has gone down with new patches. Remember when Rory, Tosh, Cow, and someone else was ported into the pool at 2.0? Cow was ridiculous. But new! Ambitious! You weren't afraid to rock the boat, because we could just fix stuff as we went along. And that was great! Mercenaries was a really cool idea that got scrapped with the shift over to 4.0. This is the stuff that I miss! Not a broken game, but a NEW feeling! Growth!

 

I'm not saying re-copy DotA. But honestly, it would be a lot more fun than ripping off of League. Sideshops could come back, but different. You know why people boiied about them? Because you could buy consumables from them. That was it. Take those out, tinker with some other shop choices, and they'd be a great re-addition. How about this? Put shops halfway between T1 and T2 towers on BOTH lanes, for both sides. 4 shops total. Have different selections in each shop for the top and bottom shops (So both Z and P top lane shops have the same selection, but different from both of the bottom shops). No health or energy consumables, just little things that could facilitate building into, at most, midgame items. I'm just spitballing ideas here, but there's something that could definitely get a unique twist on a pre-existing idea that would be a HELL of a lot better than REMOVING features, like transporters and boots.

 

By the way, the reason that was given for getting rid of boots was shap. Limiting build choices? My ass. That's why there were different kinds of boots upgrades. THAT was an addition over previous iterations I liked. That was new. That made me feel like I was playing a GROWING game, even though the boot upgrades were ripped form DotA. You could have added more upgrade options. You could have reworked existing options. But no. You got RID of them, and tacked on movespeed bonuses on other items. Where's the creativity in that?

 

If anything, the map currently differs more from it's industry counterparts than it ever has. Each element is designed with clear purpose.

 

I'm going to call bullshap on the first half of this. I don't doubt that you think about these things and they have their purpose, but noooooooooooooo way is it "more different than ever." You homogenized the buffs given from Aeon and Levi to essentially make Levi (or is it Aeon again? I can't keep track) Baron Nashor from League, making the other "boss" another big bounty like Dragon. You renamed barracks to INHIBITORS for God's sake. Saying this is a slap in the face to not only me, but to all of your long time community members who've kept this game in the top 10 maps since launch. You've straight ripped items from both LoL and DotA, like Manta, Phantom Dancer/Zeal, and the like. Ripping items from both games was a cool experiment that I still like, since it's interesting to see how both variants exist in the same game space, but don't lie to me and say it's been more different than ever. Not even CLOSE.

 

Every change we've made is in response to community concerns and part of a process in which we take into consideration specific game elements to come up with the best possible design, as opposed to flat-out mimicking elements from DotA. Some of those have aligned with LoL because the developers at Riot have done a spectacular job in general - just because they came up with a great solution doesn't mean it's absolutely off-limits. What would we be left with if our entire design process was "anything that other games don't do" ? We'd be left with nothing!

 

So with League ideas, it's "alignment," but for DotA it's would be a "mimic"? Interesting little slip there.

 

Let's be real: we're not talking about Leibniz and Newton discovering Calculus at the same time. I'm not saying their ideas are "off limits", but humor us by trying sometimes to put a spin on it to make it somewhat varying. I do think the current solution to the "barracks problem" (which we've talked about before so yay for progress!) is interesting, and dare I say a mechanic well spun with the choice of which barracks to destroy. Having them respawn is weak and cheapens the act of destroying them in the first place, however. Respawning barracks also happens to have been a mechanic in League for over 3 years now. Pubs will always rage quit. You can't influence quitters without alienating them with horrendous penalties. What would be a better solution to this would be a home brewed system like that gas thing you were talking about working on for a while. I've been kind of waiting to see what became of that (because it's new and fresh!), but I guess I'll have to wait a little longer and let Riot plug the holes for now.

 

 

Being unique for the sake of being unique is a gross oversimplification of the design process, and is clearly not the philosophy by which you want something to be developed. Making a game unique is not hard.

 

The balance of hope, stress, enjoyment, and anticipation is not a simple one. It evolves out of community input. It's not like things are balanced or adjusted without reason. If you wanted the game to stay the way it always was, then you're essentially asking me to completely ignore all the community input we've received in the past 3 years of constant development.

 

I'm asking you to do the exact opposite of what you've accused me of. Evolve PAST the structures of contemporaries and predecessors! HELL no I don't want a stagnant game. But hell NO do I want skin graphs of other games! There IS an area between being totally different for the sake of being different (insert demotivational poster with the bent fork here) and being a carbon copy. Some would say that earlier incarnations would be leaning toward the prior (*coughbullettimecoughcoughneutralsspawninginlanescough*), but it would be ignorant to say that with the past few patches this game has not become more like League of Legends.

 

I understand you have some concerns about a few changes. Maybe you didn't quite follow the change to transporters, or the barracks, or to neutral camps, or denies. The forums are an avenue for discussion on this matter, and given a logically sound case, there's no reason for us to not reconsider. Unlike other developers, we're actually accessible to the public. We just ask that you not use cheap reasoning to justify a game element, or fall back on attacking us for being too similar to one game or another. Rather, elaborate on problems you see with specific changes, weigh the pros and cons of each change, and understand that we're always thinking about these things too.

 

Out of the four things you listed, I'm discontent with about two and half of them (TPs, neturals, and sort of the barracks). But hey. One of the things I've ALWAYS like is that you guys hang around the forums a whole bunch. I do dig that a bunch. Shows me you're both human and that you care about your community! I just feel like the appeal you're trying to bring with the latest changes is placating to a niche group (people that've left AoS for LoL) and, by in large, it's hurt my game experience quite a bit. I'm trying to be as logical and open about my reasoning and my feelings concerning the current state of the game. I would be more than willing to have a dialog about stuff that we disagree about, like we are right now. It's healthy for the community and the game itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a slip. The reason it's mimic in DotA's case and alignment in LoL's case is due to the time at which it occurred and the degree of understanding we had of the game at the time. We really didn't give it much thought when designing the initial prototype, it was a learning process. As we gave it more thought, more and more solutions aligned with Riot developers. Thus the difference in terminology.

 

As a result of the hybridization, yes it's more evolved than ever. It's less similar to DotA than before, and has drawn influences from other games, so the degree of intentional design has increased. But we aren't even using a quantified metric for this so the argument is just over feelings. When the game was "truly different" in 1.0, it was the result of our own limitations, and not of design considerations. Armor was subtractive, all damage multipliers were exponential - thus the rate at which players became more powerful was difficult to control and blew quickly out of proportion. If you argument is that this was the "ideal state", then I doubt you will have a strong case here.

 

 

 

Barracks have been named inhibitors for a long time now, since way before this patch. The game actually refers to them as 'Suppressors" but this point of discontent is the equivalent of calling me out on calling creeps "Creeps", since that would be a WC3 term. Hell, it would be the equivalent of calling me out on calling barracks "Barracks". Was calling it "Barracks" a slap in the face? They're clearly Gateways/CyberneticsCores/HydralisksDens/RoachWarrens.

 

In the case of Transporters, keeping them doesn't offer any more "uniqueness" than exchanging them for Return. One is a design from Blizzard (Town Scroll), the other from Riot (Recall). As for the specific reasoning on why they were swapped out, a post was made on that in the blog a while ago, so I won't reiterate here.

 

Neutrals currently aren't very different from early designs. They were unique when we had them spawn extras in lane, but we received a flood of complaints about that. We gave them buffs at some point, which ended up adding only passive gameplay at the cost of increased glitching probability. They currently may be replaced with an item loot system so that remains to be seen, so I'm not quite aware of your problem with this area.

 

Respawnable "Suppressors" are there because we can offer buffs with far greater immediate impact so long as players know that they are temporary. Nobody enjoys a permanent handicap, and a weak permanent handicap just nibbles at your shins and becomes unnoticeable. On the other hand a temporary handicap designed to assist a specific intent gives far greater purpose and impacts gameplay in a much more visible manner.

 

 

 

It seems to me that you're a bigger fan of DotA mechanics as opposed to LoL mechanics. Every time a solution or design is similar to a DotA-style mechanic, you considered it creative. Considering some of our solutions have been more akin to Riot's designs as of late, your satisfaction based on this observation is understandable, but your degree of satisfaction has nothing to do with the "uniqueness" of the game. Rather, it appears to have more to do with the "likeness" of the game to one design or another, favoring complex, unspecific designs over clearly defined designs.

 

A discussion of actual design should revolve around actual mechanics, without concern for where the designs may come from. I'm all for being ambitious, and it would be wonderful if we somehow beat out our millionaire-funded neighbors, but I would much rather put gameplay first before thinking about whether or not something has already been done. The objective shouldn't really be to create a "unique" experience, rather, it should be to create a "better" experience. Uniqueness has to naturally evolve out of that.

 

 

 

We still have unique elements on the bucket list though, loot tables and tweaks the suppressor mechanics, but it's not like we came up with them just to do it differently. I just find them to be the more interesting designs on the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Respawnable "Suppressors" are there because we can offer buffs with far greater immediate impact so long as players know that they are temporary. Nobody enjoys a permanent handicap, and a weak permanent handicap just nibbles at your shins and becomes unnoticeable.

 

I strongly disagree. I talked about it in another thread but I think one of the reasons people don't like the weapon speed cap increase is because it is actually way too hard to end games when you have an advantage, and respawnable barracks are a step in the wrong direction, what needs to be done is to give a solid reward to the team who destroys the barracks, and I don't see any reason why these would respawn.

 

With this type of "nobody likes a permanent handicap" argument, you might as well call the draw before the game starts. Good pushes and team fights have to be rewarded somehow, and it has been a big problem through the whole 6.0 version of the game. In dota for example (I don't aos to be dota but I think the comparison is interesting), if the ennemy gets mega creeps (e.g destroy all the barracks in all lanes) it is impossible to come back from this unless you have certain heroes that are good against mega creeps AND those specific heroes are really farmed.

 

edit : here is the other post I made on the same topic http://www.aeonofstorms.com/index.php?/topic/2013-weapon-speed/#entry33902, I think it's a really important factor in the game and I believe this is actually a bigger problem for pub games than inhouses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the concern is the potency of an advantage, that probably lies in tower durability. You already get large permanent bonuses from the eggs on the base (their bounty was increased by a ton), so to replicate that for the suppressors doesn't seem to be an efficient use of game space. The role of the suppressors are to temporarily maintain an advantage once you get it. Right now the durability of the supressors may be a little high, but those are numbers we can tweak.

 

Is the concern that towers aren't dying enough? or that people doesn't seem to drop like flies anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The concern is that whenever you play a hero that is not a carry and get super far ahead, get 2 sides or rax, you still cannot end the game or at least it is extremely hard in pubs where most teams severely lack coordination. What happens next is that the enemy team made of 5 carries gets maxed in 45 minutes (this is another flaw in the game, way too easy to get maxed, most likely because of mineral scaling and not losing gold when dying) and you just lose the game, even though you outplayed your enemies.

 

The main problem here is that taking a side just doesn't give you a significant advantage besides giving you access to T4 towers.

 

edit : and one of the reasons I don't like respawnable rax is because of this situation, when you pick heroes that shine late game and require a lot of farm to be effective, one of the counter strategies will be to have strong early or mid game line up to push before the late game lineup reaches its full potential. To reach this potential the late game team might have to sacrifice one side of rax or even two or three, but if they don't really get punished by these conter strategies it is a bit of a problem, especially when it is so easy to be maxed items in AoS compared to other mobas (again I'm repeating myself but this is also very important in my opinion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol and Dota ( Maybe Hon too) are the most known games in genre.

 

That for sure makes people seeing copies/cloning on any concept.

 

Lol is basically a very played game, not because of Graphics.

 

It has an easy learning concept, it is easy to understand and easy to play but a bit hard to master, with few games you understand what's happening in the game and creating a false-sensation of free-game. ( Playing is free- The product is not).

 

Those are basically non-physical in game details which makes game so strong.

 

So I consider still LoL a good game, then why I am playing AoS now? Cause I consider it better in some things.

 

I know there are some details which can remember some of other moba's ( Not only Dota/ Lol) like other games with same genre can get some similar details. But in my opinion game is taking a good direction.

 

Funcions I'd Like to see are Matchmarking system and cursor options. First one is possible will be possible iwth HOTS maybe. Second one it will be harder I think ( Drawing cursor as AoE ( it is got in some way), Linear and everything) and if possible getting smart-casting ( Just as optional, all of this, increasing features, not as change)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the concern that towers aren't dying enough? or that people doesn't seem to drop like flies anymore?

The second one. I've said it a lot latelly, imo, some stats/substats's growth is so high, that cannot be handled by moderate damage, thus weapon damage,weapon speed and dps have been tunned up and the game now lost a lot of it's original appeal (At least in my eyes).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a slip. The reason it's mimic in DotA's case and alignment in LoL's case is due to the time at which it occurred and the degree of understanding we had of the game at the time. We really didn't give it much thought when designing the initial prototype, it was a learning process. As we gave it more thought, more and more solutions aligned with Riot developers. Thus the difference in terminology.

 

This is, at its root, just a semantics thing, but I think it's still a tell of where your mind is with the game and which of the two design philosophies you're more subscribed to. I'll just let this rest.

 

As a result of the hybridization, yes it's more evolved than ever. It's less similar to DotA than before, and has drawn influences from other games, so the degree of intentional design has increased. But we aren't even using a quantified metric for this so the argument is just over feelings. When the game was "truly different" in 1.0, it was the result of our own limitations, and not of design considerations. Armor was subtractive, all damage multipliers were exponential - thus the rate at which players became more powerful was difficult to control and blew quickly out of proportion. If you argument is that this was the "ideal state", then I doubt you will have a strong case here.

 

When did I say 1.0 was an 'ideal state'? Not even a little. I gave early incarnation a pass since it was a still a fledgling game and trying to find its way in the world. I would be perfectly down with a system of Armor, for example, that was nothing like either system, but still made sense in a game setting. The 4.x series of updates were my favorite, for the record.

 

Barracks have been named inhibitors for a long time now, since way before this patch. The game actually refers to them as 'Suppressors" but this point of discontent is the equivalent of calling me out on calling creeps "Creeps", since that would be a WC3 term. Hell, it would be the equivalent of calling me out on calling barracks "Barracks". Was calling it "Barracks" a slap in the face? They're clearly Gateways/CyberneticsCores/HydralisksDens/RoachWarrens.

 

Must have missed that update then. Hero Lock'll do that, I suppose. Though I do love that feature, one of the biggest flaws of the earlier versions was losing control of my hero. Leaving the naming of the barracks as "barracks" was lazy, not "better". Switching from one common term to another which is specific to one game is still lazy, and you could call it an "homage" or whatever, but at the least it's still that "tell" where your philosophies lie. Why not just call them their SC2 names? Switch the Cy Core with a Robo Factory, switch Stalkers as lane creeps with Immortals, and boom. Everything makes sense, fits in a SC2 setting like the rest of the game Still lazy, I suppose. Why not "suppressors" then? Why not something other than a term used in exactly one other game in the genre? It's a small, cosmetic thing, and ultimately not the biggest design decision, but again. Dat tell.

 

In the case of Transporters, keeping them doesn't offer any more "uniqueness" than exchanging them for Return. One is a design from Blizzard (Town Scroll), the other from Riot (Recall). As for the specific reasoning on why they were swapped out, a post was made on that in the blog a while ago, so I won't reiterate here.

 

I'm having a bit of trouble finding said post, I'd like a link if at all possible. I'd really like to read up on it. On the whole recall/TP scroll thing, if it's down to two mechanics, I'd rather have the one that give greater mobility, but that's just a personal choice.

 

Neutrals currently aren't very different from early designs. They were unique when we had them spawn extras in lane, but we received a flood of complaints about that. We gave them buffs at some point, which ended up adding only passive gameplay at the cost of increased glitching probability. They currently may be replaced with an item loot system so that remains to be seen, so I'm not quite aware of your problem with this area.

 

My problem is just a small one: I personally don't like creeps in -every- camp giving buffs on death. Having one or two really strong neutrals giving timed buffs in the jungle would be fine, a la the old jungle from LoL. It's a little peeve and not gamebreaking, but I feel like it makes jungling less "special" and is a really cheap-feeling reward in its current state, if that makes sense.

 

Respawnable "Suppressors" are there because we can offer buffs with far greater immediate impact so long as players know that they are temporary. Nobody enjoys a permanent handicap, and a weak permanent handicap just nibbles at your shins and becomes unnoticeable. On the other hand a temporary handicap designed to assist a specific intent gives far greater purpose and impacts gameplay in a much more visible manner.

 

This is an overgeneralization. Having a non-permanent handicap really (and I'm going to keep using this word because that's how I feel about it) cheapens the feels of the push. Like it was exaplined afterwards,

 

edit : and one of the reasons I don't like respawnable rax is because of this situation, when you pick heroes that shine late game and require a lot of farm to be effective, one of the counter strategies will be to have strong early or mid game line up to push before the late game lineup reaches its full potential. To reach this potential the late game team might have to sacrifice one side of rax or even two or three, but if they don't really get punished by these conter strategies it is a bit of a problem, especially when it is so easy to be maxed items in AoS compared to other mobas (again I'm repeating myself but this is also very important in my opinion)

 

Games drag on long enough. It used to be that getting rax meant nothing and late game carries could tease the game out for long enough to get to their apex. I've seen this happen time and time again, in pubs and in IH alike. The current solution is a big step in the right direction. If I may offer a suggestion to keep things under control, but make it a big achievement for the aggressors:

  • Nix the respawn. Having this, as explain above, should be a punishment. Not a slap on the wrist.
  • Keep the invuln for the surviving suppressor. I like the addition of choosing which one to kill (this is the good innovations that I mentioned above!)
  • Make it so that, when all lanes have one dead suppressor, rather than doing mega creeps a la DotA, make the previous invulned building vulnerable again. This solves the problem of having really awful stalemates from previous versions and really put an emphasis on base defense that's been lacking in previous incarnations.

 

See? Different, intuitive, adds depth to the game play.

 

It seems to me that you're a bigger fan of DotA mechanics as opposed to LoL mechanics. Every time a solution or design is similar to a DotA-style mechanic, you considered it creative. Considering some of our solutions have been more akin to Riot's designs as of late, your satisfaction based on this observation is understandable, but your degree of satisfaction has nothing to do with the "uniqueness" of the game. Rather, it appears to have more to do with the "likeness" of the game to one design or another, favoring complex, unspecific designs over clearly defined designs.

 

I'm a bigger fan of DotA's mechanics, yes. I'm opposed to the -implemented- mechanics from League as of late because I feel that these "clearly defined designs" are actually oversimplified bandages for problems that could be solved in a more creative way.Yes, I'm familiar with Occam's Razor. But it makes me sad to see that problems with our gameplay being remedied with other game's ideas. It's how I feel. Maybe it's not how you feel, but it's how I feel.

 

A discussion of actual design should revolve around actual mechanics, without concern for where the designs may come from. I'm all for being ambitious, and it would be wonderful if we somehow beat out our millionaire-funded neighbors, but I would much rather put gameplay first before thinking about whether or not something has already been done. The objective shouldn't really be to create a "unique" experience, rather, it should be to create a "better" experience. Uniqueness has to naturally evolve out of that.

 

It's the MECHANICS that I've been complaining about this whole time! Mechanics that I didn't like when I played League worming their way into AoS is why I stopped playing. It's not about "beating" the competition. It's about making a good game. It's about making a FUN game. A REWARDING game. A COMPETITIVE game. My main complaint has been the same all along: the recent mechanics that have been changed have decreased my enjoyment of the game. These mechanics, on top of doing this, have been heavily influenced from an external source. These are my greviences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dota2 and LoL are successful, so you take from them in order to test out what it will do to your own game. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Oh and for the record, LoL doesn't have oversimplified mechanics. I agree that Dota mechanics are much more advanced but LoL mechanics are smooth and that is what draws people in, mechanics wise. And for those that say that LoL has "cartoon graphics", you probably are basing this off of what you saw 1-2 years ago and haven't seen anything nowadays. Don't bash a game because you don't have the information to give an actual answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would disagree. I would say that some mechanics from League are oversimplified, some are not. I would say that the ones that have been implemented recently in AoS the originated in League are in the oversimplified camp, though. Notably, the removal of teleporters, a cast-wide spell pool via talent trees, and respawning inhibitors. Again, just my opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heckle come on mumble some time and I'll respond to your grievances as well if you actually care about them - I probably have 9-10 responses to each of your points. I'm not going to bother spending time posting them here because I'm just an elitest inhouser and so can't actually make arguments.

 

One thing though is that I've been playing LoL more than AoS in recent times mostly because I'd rather let other people play in the games - I'd rather have other people get better. That said, I don't think AoS is really copying LoL much, people are just being whiny bishes imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dota2 and LoL are successful, so you take from them in order to test out what it will do to your own game. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Oh and for the record, LoL doesn't have oversimplified mechanics. I agree that Dota mechanics are much more advanced but LoL mechanics are smooth and that is what draws people in, mechanics wise. And for those that say that LoL has "cartoon graphics", you probably are basing this off of what you saw 1-2 years ago and haven't seen anything nowadays. Don't bash a game because you don't have the information to give an actual answer.

 

I agree with that. But even I never played ( about 2 years) cause his graphics ( I don't play any game cause of that). And I know most people playing Lol don't keep as main reason that ( Graphics).

 

By other way, Lol graphs with low settings feels a bit less cartoon than with high settings, or atleast when I gave it up ( May/june this year)

 

About the ideas, simplified, Yes, there's a part of reason behind that, but it doesn't mean bad, It is jus a sign of its own quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take ideas from Temple Siege on SC1 =D shows you how spells were made when there wasn't an editor for spells. Essentially hotkeying a gateway, and having 4 different spells based off of what unit you build, and basically it would spawn units around you for a second or two to deal damage as well as other affects with Disruption Web and bunkers and short global heals.

Yes, i agree that temple siege is awesome map, but it isn't similar to AoS. It is more as a SC - every hero has a counter hero and it is hard counter. Goliaf was hard counter to firebat, firebat counter ling, ghost counter templar and so on. In AoS we don't have such a hard counter for heroes. You must do many things to counter one: you need teamplay, counter items, good engagement etc. I think V1- V3 were something similar to temple siege, but now - no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...