-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
League of Legends |OT2| So free, it's only 8000 USD!
- Thread starter SouthernDragon
- Start date
- Status
The problem with Riot's F2P system is the bullshit rate at which you accumulate IP. They could bump it up a bit all while keeping the "pay cash and get this champion RIGHT NOW!" still appealing.
Also $10 a champ is still pretty god damn ridiculous especially considering they've pretty much given up on releasing non-6300 champs (Not sure if this is still the case, been a couple months since I have played).
Also $10 a champ is still pretty god damn ridiculous especially considering they've pretty much given up on releasing non-6300 champs (Not sure if this is still the case, been a couple months since I have played).
Legato.Reborn-
Member
I mean, I played DOTA as well and I understand the frustration about buying champions.
But let's be honest with ourselves. They are a business.
That being said, the minute they let you buy power (runes/masteries) I will jump ship.
Someone please post the PUNISHPUNISHPUNISH pic
But let's be honest with ourselves. They are a business.
That being said, the minute they let you buy power (runes/masteries) I will jump ship.
Someone please post the PUNISHPUNISHPUNISH pic
Yes I know 
However I would argue that champions are a form of indirect power, since choice = power, especially in Draft. As the overall balance assumes players have access to all runes, masteries and champions, you're effectively playing an imbalanced version of the game without every champ, though the effect is so slight as to not matter all, especially in lower level brackets.
Still, it bugs me to no end not being able to try out the latest shit. The anticipation of a new hero is really dampened by the fact that I have to ask myself "can I afford this with IP/do I want to spend $10 on this?" every damn time. Ironically, their uninspired champion design actually alleviates matters somewhat. Now when I do buy champions, I only buy waifus.
However I would argue that champions are a form of indirect power, since choice = power, especially in Draft. As the overall balance assumes players have access to all runes, masteries and champions, you're effectively playing an imbalanced version of the game without every champ, though the effect is so slight as to not matter all, especially in lower level brackets.
Still, it bugs me to no end not being able to try out the latest shit. The anticipation of a new hero is really dampened by the fact that I have to ask myself "can I afford this with IP/do I want to spend $10 on this?" every damn time. Ironically, their uninspired champion design actually alleviates matters somewhat. Now when I do buy champions, I only buy waifus.
What if DOTA2 releases and they only cash shop they offer is cosmetic (which is the way it's looking so far.) I don't think any of the info datamined from DOTA2 points to Valve charging for champions.
If that truly is the case, I think Riot and S2 (lol) could be in some trouble.
Yes I know
However I would argue that champions are a form of indirect power, since choice = power. Since the balance assumes you have access to all runes, masteries and champions. You're effectively playing an imbalanced version of the game, though the effect is so slight as to not matter all.
Still, it bugs me to no end not being able to try out the latest shit.
Exactly, that is part of the problem as well. Riot has released OP (and UP) champions in the past.
I mean, it is what it is. Their model doesn't necessarily worsen my experience, it just changes it. For example, the small pool of champions I had when I first started (and free weeks in general) changed the probability of which champs I would get matched with. If the free week was awful, I would just give it a rest for a week. I have yet to spend money on this game, but if the way they do f2p is "bad" I still haven't noticed. I definitely would have stopped if they stopped producing new content. In that sense, I probably would stop playing if they started to charge, it's just not how I relate to the game.
I'm sitting on 10499 IP right now, but I don't feel any need to buy a champ or runes (even though I'm still running outdated runes like health quints). Anyway, I can sympathize with people who take issue with Riot's system, but it has yet to affect me.
I'm sitting on 10499 IP right now, but I don't feel any need to buy a champ or runes (even though I'm still running outdated runes like health quints). Anyway, I can sympathize with people who take issue with Riot's system, but it has yet to affect me.
Let's be honest here, LoL is huge right now. DOTA2 has a lot of ground to cover in order to reach the same level of public awareness. I mean, jesus, 260k viewers for the IPL4 finals. That's 4 times as much as StarcraftII.
That's true, but DOTA has power in its name as well. Like Starcraft, it's very popular in Asia.
More than that though if people start seeing that Valve doesn't charge for new heroes (if this is truly the case), that could cause a big shift in the playerbase.
More than that though if people start seeing that Valve doesn't charge for new heroes (if this is truly the case), that could cause a big shift in the playerbase.
It's anything from 50 to 80 IP per game right? (non ranked at least) So about 100 games and you have enough for a new champion and maybe some runes
I stopped playing about the time Talon/Riven came out (not that I played lots anyway) and every new champ since then has been 6300 I think. (edit: price mistake)
kiunchbb
www.dictionary.com
I just wish that DOTA2 will come out with a map editor, that way Riot will finally release theirs so people wouldn't have to wait years of begging just for a ARAB map.
Schmattakopf
Member
The separate Riot currency is definitely the least of our problems. Say there's 200 leftover RP. If you only make one purchase ever, then whatever you bought is 200 RP more than you thought. But if you make several purchases, it's not 200 RP more every time... what's left is that same initial 200 RP. It's not really a problem if you can control your spending. I'm not trying to defend a system that's flat-out designed to get you to spend more... I'm just saying, it's nothing compared to the fact that rune pages and champions cost 7.50 USD each. You can't seriously be okay with that, yet concerned about leftover RP.
You mean 100 games of 50 to 80 IP would get you a new champion, not 1000. Also, it's more than 50 to 80. Winning a 60-minute game nets you 138, plus 150 for the first wotd. Still very low, but it means you could get a 6300 champion every three weeks by winning one match every day.It's anything from 50 to 80 IP per game right? (non ranked at least) So about 1000 games and you have enough for a new champion and maybe some runes
I'd be surprised if that happened really. If you're going to release a map editor for a single game mode from a RTS, you may as well just make a RTS. Not that I would be against a map editor, but I imagine a lot of what people would design would revolve around something not based on MOBA gameplay.
Reported, ignored, uninstalled windows, called the police.
shutupandtakemymoney.gif
Dunno, most WC3 maps involve something similar to MOBA. Whether it's Hero Siege, Pudge Wars, or Enting, you're controlling a single unit and then moving around the map like it's some kind of Diablo-esque dungeon crawler.
That's what MOBA really is anyway, Diablo but more structured.
I think the most popular mods that would get "adapted" are:
Pudge Wars (assuming Valve doesn't do it first)
Hero Siege
DOTA variants like Tides of Blood or EOTA
Vampirism/Infestation games
The only (popular) WC3 mod I can think of to really move away from the core RTS controls are Tower Defenses and Mauls.
Some ambitious modder will remake WC3 using the DOTA2 engine.
Anyway why are we talking about this in the LoL thread?
That's what MOBA really is anyway, Diablo but more structured.
I think the most popular mods that would get "adapted" are:
Pudge Wars (assuming Valve doesn't do it first)
Hero Siege
DOTA variants like Tides of Blood or EOTA
Vampirism/Infestation games
The only (popular) WC3 mod I can think of to really move away from the core RTS controls are Tower Defenses and Mauls.
Some ambitious modder will remake WC3 using the DOTA2 engine.
Anyway why are we talking about this in the LoL thread?
Legato.Reborn-
Member
Yes I know
However I would argue that champions are a form of indirect power, since choice = power, especially in Draft. As the overall balance assumes players have access to all runes, masteries and champions, you're effectively playing an imbalanced version of the game without every champ, though the effect is so slight as to not matter all, especially in lower level brackets.
Still, it bugs me to no end not being able to try out the latest shit. The anticipation of a new hero is really dampened by the fact that I have to ask myself "can I afford this with IP/do I want to spend $10 on this?" every damn time. Ironically, their uninspired champion design actually alleviates matters somewhat. Now when I do buy champions, I only buy waifus.
Holy crap excellent point.
I stand with my pants down good sir!
Schmattakopf
Member
Yes, and we do, but what started this discussion was someone saying they were okay with the prices, but not the RP system.
if you're goal is to have a balance of power in each draft game you are barking up the wrong tree.
part of the appeal of this game to me is the imbalances, the gradual balance changes, and the unforeseen imbalances that occur once again. the game gets worked and worked on until it starts become unrecognizable. it gives rise to funny communal experiences (better nerf irelia), but it's definitely obvious that the game will never be balanced. you are definitely right when you are saying it's not fair to not have an identical pool of champions in draft pick, but, for me, it hardly affects how fun the game is.
part of the appeal of this game to me is the imbalances, the gradual balance changes, and the unforeseen imbalances that occur once again. the game gets worked and worked on until it starts become unrecognizable. it gives rise to funny communal experiences (better nerf irelia), but it's definitely obvious that the game will never be balanced. you are definitely right when you are saying it's not fair to not have an identical pool of champions in draft pick, but, for me, it hardly affects how fun the game is.
The spirit of competition demands that you want your game to be as balanced as possible. Mind you when I say balance I don't mean "every champion needs to be as good as every other champion", but "every strategy needs to have risks proportional to its rewards". So you can release a champion that can instakill someone else at level 6, as long as that champion is some mix of:
1. Really difficult to play
2. Requires lots of farm
3. Really fragile
When I see Riot selling champions, I don't really care about its impact on my enjoyment of the game (because as you say, it's negligible). However, I do care that Riot is willing to compromise balance in order to turn a profit. This is, above all else, an inexcusable mentality in a designer who is trying to sell their game as competitively balanced. It's more of a matter of principles than pragmatism.
And I don't think anyone really enjoys blatant imbalance. Like release Vlad. Or release Xin Zhao. Or release Irelia (which was kind of a time delayed imbalance because it took a month or two for people to realize she was really good).
1. Really difficult to play
2. Requires lots of farm
3. Really fragile
When I see Riot selling champions, I don't really care about its impact on my enjoyment of the game (because as you say, it's negligible). However, I do care that Riot is willing to compromise balance in order to turn a profit. This is, above all else, an inexcusable mentality in a designer who is trying to sell their game as competitively balanced. It's more of a matter of principles than pragmatism.
And I don't think anyone really enjoys blatant imbalance. Like release Vlad. Or release Xin Zhao. Or release Irelia (which was kind of a time delayed imbalance because it took a month or two for people to realize she was really good).
Legato.Reborn-
Member
Wolf Akela
Member
Release Twisted Fate... first blood guaranteed with Lv1 teleport ability... spammable AoE stun
Ryze ult was is E right now and it melted everyone.
Ryze ult was is E right now and it melted everyone.
yep I agree with all that.
Jazzy Network
Member
Xin was pretty much the most op. 25% on ult. Massive damage. He was guaranteed FB just by himself.
SouthernDragon
Member
Champs cost 7.50.
I have a bigger problem with Rune Pages and the accrue rate for IP. Still a tad slow.
I am sitting on 32k IP right now, though. I've been thinking about picking up Fiora and Talon for Dominion, they seem fun.
I have a bigger problem with Rune Pages and the accrue rate for IP. Still a tad slow.
I am sitting on 32k IP right now, though. I've been thinking about picking up Fiora and Talon for Dominion, they seem fun.
Inskipp
Member
Spending real money on things definitely gives you a real advantage, at least if you're taking time scale into account. I bought champion packs, a few odd champs on sale here and there, and rune pages all with real bucks exclusively, so even though I only fairly recently hit 30, since I essentially used every scrap of IP I've ever earned only on tier 3 runes, so I already have full tier 3 rune pages for champs I need to fill any role, and I have multiple champs for each role that I can play with said rune pages who are currently considered high tier or whatever(though I'm still pretty garbage overall at the game). I could've never spent a dime, but it would've taken forver to get all the stuff with IP only.
VanillaCakeIsBurning
Member
Was that the only OP thing about him? Or were there other things?
Lol at the comments about the quality.
Why is it that this past weekend i've played and lost maybe 7 matches in a row because No MATTER WHAT lane i go in I ALWAYS end up Solo against either (Ashe & Xin) orrr (MissFortune & Xin)
Note: most of the time still ending up the best player on my team but still losing after They become unmanageable.
Note: most of the time still ending up the best player on my team but still losing after They become unmanageable.
Wolf Akela
Member
You can also just right click to put runes on the page.
After the discussion about champs equaling power since having more champs = being able to fill more roles and being able to counterpick and avoid being counterpicked yourself, I have been trying to do the math to figure out how your odds of having a bad team comp change in relation to how many people in your team of 5 are willing to flexible in what role they play. Unfortunately, I am not very smart, so I may have made terrible errors in the math.
First, let's start with the situation where right when they queue up, each of the five members of a team has one specific role in mind that they are going to play NO MATTER WHAT, and they are all assholes who won't change their minds. Let's assume that we're talking about the standard five roles of top, AP mid, AD carry, support, and jungler (leaving out variables like team comp and the fact that the roles are not equally popular).
The first person to pick would have a 100% chance that their role wasn't already taken, the second person would have an 80% (4/5) chance their chosen role was free, the third person 60%, the fourth 40%, and the fifth 20%. Since they are independent events, multiplying them out should give the probability that no two players want the same role.
(1)(.8)(.6)(.4)(.2) = .0384, i.e., your team has less than a 4% chance of having all the roles filled and a 96.16% chance that you are fucked.
If just one person is completely flexible and willing to play any role, you get:
(1)(.8)(.6)(.4) = .192, i.e., you've improved your chances of having a proper team comp to nearly 20 percent, so even if every other player on your team is an inflexible douche, by just you being flexible, you've increased your chances of having a standard team comp from four to nearly twenty percent.
If you figure it out for each number of flexible players, you get:
No one willing to change: ~4% chance of good team comp
1 willing to change: ~19% chance of good team comp
2 willing to change: ~48% chance of good team comp
3 willing to change: ~80% chance of good team comp
4 or 5: 100% (obviously)
Therefore, assuming you as an individual in solo queue is able and willing to play any role needed, and you allow all other players to pick first, you always bump your probability of good team comp one notch up into the next better probability bracket. So assuming the other random 9 people (between both teams) are equally likely to be ass hats, you being flexible significantly improves your odds for solid team comp and thus improves your winning percentage in solo queue. This also helps explain why duo-queueing can improve your chances or victory greatly because if both you and your friend are flexible with your roles, your odds of having a proper team are vastly better than if you were just flexible by yourself. If you duo-queue, if at least one of the three randoms you're with is willing to do whatever, you're already up to an 80% for a good team, if the other two people absolutely unwilling to bend.
First, let's start with the situation where right when they queue up, each of the five members of a team has one specific role in mind that they are going to play NO MATTER WHAT, and they are all assholes who won't change their minds. Let's assume that we're talking about the standard five roles of top, AP mid, AD carry, support, and jungler (leaving out variables like team comp and the fact that the roles are not equally popular).
The first person to pick would have a 100% chance that their role wasn't already taken, the second person would have an 80% (4/5) chance their chosen role was free, the third person 60%, the fourth 40%, and the fifth 20%. Since they are independent events, multiplying them out should give the probability that no two players want the same role.
(1)(.8)(.6)(.4)(.2) = .0384, i.e., your team has less than a 4% chance of having all the roles filled and a 96.16% chance that you are fucked.
If just one person is completely flexible and willing to play any role, you get:
(1)(.8)(.6)(.4) = .192, i.e., you've improved your chances of having a proper team comp to nearly 20 percent, so even if every other player on your team is an inflexible douche, by just you being flexible, you've increased your chances of having a standard team comp from four to nearly twenty percent.
If you figure it out for each number of flexible players, you get:
No one willing to change: ~4% chance of good team comp
1 willing to change: ~19% chance of good team comp
2 willing to change: ~48% chance of good team comp
3 willing to change: ~80% chance of good team comp
4 or 5: 100% (obviously)
Therefore, assuming you as an individual in solo queue is able and willing to play any role needed, and you allow all other players to pick first, you always bump your probability of good team comp one notch up into the next better probability bracket. So assuming the other random 9 people (between both teams) are equally likely to be ass hats, you being flexible significantly improves your odds for solid team comp and thus improves your winning percentage in solo queue. This also helps explain why duo-queueing can improve your chances or victory greatly because if both you and your friend are flexible with your roles, your odds of having a proper team are vastly better than if you were just flexible by yourself. If you duo-queue, if at least one of the three randoms you're with is willing to do whatever, you're already up to an 80% for a good team, if the other two people absolutely unwilling to bend.
I followed the guide's advice and changed all four katarina abilities to smartcast. It feels so right. :O
Although, why can't you bind normal cast to shift-QWER after you rebind the smartcast values? That seems odd.
I still need to remember to activate gunblade and add a smartcast to wards.
And then I need Riot to make silences not stop kat's channel, and delete about 75% of champions with CC, and I'll be set.
Although, why can't you bind normal cast to shift-QWER after you rebind the smartcast values? That seems odd.
I still need to remember to activate gunblade and add a smartcast to wards.
And then I need Riot to make silences not stop kat's channel, and delete about 75% of champions with CC, and I'll be set.
kiunchbb
www.dictionary.com
That's if you assume everyone can only played one role. The only important role that take unique set of skill are jungler and support. Jungler need to know how to balance farm vs gang, and control/time dragon/buff/baron. Support need to know how to baby sit their ad carry, prevent gang, help escape, time jungle, ward, clear ward, surviving/contributing with welfare item.
Top, mid and AD basically is farm farm farm farm, kill enemy more than they kill you, and group up in team fight. If you know one you know how to do them all.
Right. I'm operating on the assumption that any player can at least become proficient at each role, and even if you're not spectacular, it's better to have all roles covered rather than sticking to what you're best at even if your team comp is strange.
VanillaCakeIsBurning
Member
Wow, how did that ever get past testing?
Have you ever played any other online game before? Testing only reveals so much before the general public gets ahold of the character/champ/etc and puts a real spotlight on how it effects the overall metagame. Every game, whether it's WoW or Diablo or whatever has had problematic classes that stand head and shoulders above the rest. Release Death Knight was one of the most broken classes in the game. It's the nature of the beast. If you have that much of a problem with it then stop playing the game. You're not paying a monthly fee for it.
1. I have not played LoL for a few weeks now, though I always come back for a game or two to check out the latest waifu.
2. I'm not sure how that relates to what I'm saying at all. I'm talking about Riot favoring profit over purity of competition.
3. Imagine if, every three months, Blizzard released a new Talent tree for every class, and let's ignore the impracticality of this for the sake of argument. However, you could not access those trees unless you played a few hundred Arena/BG games, OR, if you pay them $10.
In this hypothetical situation, Blizzard does PVP balancing under the assumption that every Talent tree is available to every class. So, maybe Feral would get nerfed because of its synergy with a new tree, let's call it Dragonform. However, you do not have Dragonform, so basically if you were a Feral druid, you either respec or play with an explicitly disadvantaged class/spec.
An extreme exaggeration, sure, but that is effectively what Riot is doing.
This is what I have trouble with. No responsible designer should do that, because it shows that they are willing to compromise their community/competitive scene for the sake of profit. What's especially insulting is that during the early stages of the game, Riot made a big deal about "not selling power". Well guess what? Choice IS power. Rune pages are proof of that, yet people hold champions to a different standard.
Even worse, LoL works as an industry-wide proof of concept. As long as a developer can be sneaky enough about selling power under the guise of "convenience", their playerbase won't mind at all, and will in fact throw money at them for more. By succeeding so fantastically at their experimental business model, Riot has set an awful example for the rest of the industry
2. I'm not sure how that relates to what I'm saying at all. I'm talking about Riot favoring profit over purity of competition.
3. Imagine if, every three months, Blizzard released a new Talent tree for every class, and let's ignore the impracticality of this for the sake of argument. However, you could not access those trees unless you played a few hundred Arena/BG games, OR, if you pay them $10.
In this hypothetical situation, Blizzard does PVP balancing under the assumption that every Talent tree is available to every class. So, maybe Feral would get nerfed because of its synergy with a new tree, let's call it Dragonform. However, you do not have Dragonform, so basically if you were a Feral druid, you either respec or play with an explicitly disadvantaged class/spec.
An extreme exaggeration, sure, but that is effectively what Riot is doing.
This is what I have trouble with. No responsible designer should do that, because it shows that they are willing to compromise their community/competitive scene for the sake of profit. What's especially insulting is that during the early stages of the game, Riot made a big deal about "not selling power". Well guess what? Choice IS power. Rune pages are proof of that, yet people hold champions to a different standard.
Even worse, LoL works as an industry-wide proof of concept. As long as a developer can be sneaky enough about selling power under the guise of "convenience", their playerbase won't mind at all, and will in fact throw money at them for more. By succeeding so fantastically at their experimental business model, Riot has set an awful example for the rest of the industry
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"
I think you might think Riot has some evil agenda with pushing OP champs for the sake of cash. There's plenty of champs that have released and been turds, why do you over look them? I don't think riot purposely makes OP champs, because I don't believe they have to generate sales. People are going to buy heroes regardless, and most people know even if a champ is OP it'll be nerfed down to size anyways.
I think Haly's just trying to argue that champion choice = power, and being able to buy them (with money) is selling power.
This is true for very low numbers of champons, but as more people have a bigger pool of champions to play, buying one - unless it is ridiculously OP has no real impact. And pure choice doesn't equal power at the competitive level. The mere fact that one competitive player can buy a champion has no advantagous effect because it takes a large amount of practice to play them at a competitive level anyway.
This is true for very low numbers of champons, but as more people have a bigger pool of champions to play, buying one - unless it is ridiculously OP has no real impact. And pure choice doesn't equal power at the competitive level. The mere fact that one competitive player can buy a champion has no advantagous effect because it takes a large amount of practice to play them at a competitive level anyway.
I dunno, I think DotA2 is going to be fucking massive, and I love LoL.
I'm not even talking about new champions being OP (because I know they're not).
It's the actual act of selling champions I disagree with.
It was hard enough for me in the days of APEM and auto attacking creeps, I can't even imagine how mind boggling it is now.
It's the actual act of selling champions I disagree with.
Aware of this, and I know that ultimately selling champions does not affect the game at all, because what really matters is what happens at the pro levels. Even though Riot, for some reason, does balance for casual play (another thing I disagree with).
I think it suffers from accessibility issues. Valve, so far, has shown no plans on how to ease new players into the genre. So until they do, I'm going to assume that DOTA will be harder to get into the later you join the party.
It was hard enough for me in the days of APEM and auto attacking creeps, I can't even imagine how mind boggling it is now.
New League of Legends Supremacy game mode is likely on its way
Riot have apparently registered a lot of 'supremacy' websites recently. Could be the hinted PvE mode?
Riot have apparently registered a lot of 'supremacy' websites recently. Could be the hinted PvE mode?
- Status