[2.6.14] Patch Reception

[Ekamo]

== Item Balance ==

:bloodchalice: Blood Chalice
- +50% Mana Regeneration added
- Mana gained decreased from 100 to 85


== Hero Balance ==

:amun: Amun-Ra
- Strength gain increased from 2 to 2.5

:drun: Drunken Master
- Drink : Charges gained increased from 3/6/9/12 to 4/7/10/13
- Drink : Charges expire time increased from 3 seconds to 4 seconds
- Stagger : Movement Speed and Attack Damage bonus increased from 15/30/45/60 to 30/40/50/60

:engi: Engineer
- Spider Mines : Cooldown decreased from 7 seconds to 3.5 seconds

:mart: Martyr
- Sol's Conviction : Amount healed increased from 20/30/40/50% to 35/40/45/50%

:slit: Slither
- Starting Intelligence increased from 15 to 16
- Toxin Wards : Vision increased from 600 to 650.
- Poison Burst : Mana cost decreased from 200/300/400 to 175/275/375

:souls: Soulstealer
- Soul Burst : Damage is now based off number of souls; 20/30/40 per soul + 150/225/300 static damage within 100 range
* Damage decreases linearly to 0 at max distance. Snare and damage reduction apply with the damage now instead of separately

Thoughts?

No QQ or things that could rather belong in The Dump (http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/showthread.php?344261-Balance-Dump). Forum rules apply as always.

[Antimodus]

I don't get the purpose of the BC change. In terms of how much mana you get out of it total, it seems like a tiny buff early game and a big one late game. Also makes it stronger on INTs like Aluna. But the lower burst mana makes it work less well for clutch plays and against mana drainers like magebane. I'm not sure if it was even supposed to be a buff or nerf to roamers.

[Jezu]

I don't get the purpose of the BC change. In terms of how much mana you get out of it total, it seems like a tiny buff early game and a big one late game. Also makes it stronger on INTs like Aluna. But the lower burst mana makes it work less well for clutch plays and against mana drainers like magebane. I'm not sure if it was even supposed to be a buff or nerf to roamers.
It started out as a buff, and as one, they added the 50% mana regeneration which its components have, but the actual item doesn't - Thus removing an inelegant aspect from the item, while also buffing it. It turned out that it was too powerful (I assume), so they slightly reduced the mana gained by activating it. It still remains as a buff, and a rather useful one at that.

Other than the BC change, I love the SS change for rather obvious reasons (the random factor was simply horrific), and can't say I disagree with the other changes either, though I will leave further details out.

I would still love to see Engineer's mines removed and a new skill created, but the buff was great, as you'll save lots of time when placing mines in the enemy jungle or so between ganks and such.

[Sire]

they greatly buffed dm's early game with the chalice change and the other buffs. awesome!

[soitcause]

they greatly buffed dm's early game with the chalice change and the other buffs. awesome!

You would post about anything pertaining to DM lol.

OT: I'm really pleased with the slither and ra changes. Pre-patch using your ult+poison spray drained almost you're entire mama pool and you'd often find yourself oom after ulting if you'd used Q within the post minute. As for ra, I've found him really lackluster since the nerf to his passive. Maybe the change to his STR growth can make him a little beefier early gain without making him unharassable

[foxmindedguy]

I like all the changes, but watch out people Drunken Master is gonna become Dunk Masta now. At least I wish :D

Also, add range indicators for SS's demon hands and RA's stun (I will post in the suggestion sub-forums how to do this with minimalistic work on programmers).

[MushidoZ]

Quite frankly, this patch has boosted a bunch of heroes that didn't need buffs, and I really do not like the changes.

Amun-Ra: A character that farms extremely easy, no mana cost, at the expense of some of his own HP (which he regens anyway). Already hard to kill due to an ultimate that makes him revive with half healt. He now gains more HP per level, as well as more damage... Broken cheap hero made even cheaper.

Drunken Master: I never understood why the hell people complained and called him weak when pretty much 100% of the times I see him in are ruined by an unstoppable random dude that takes no damage whatsoever, runs and chase hard, hit even harder, and blocks your spell with his free nullstone. That character is extremely underrated, and I believe any buff to the character is a change in the wrong direction.

Engineer: One of the only agi heroes I enjoy and found balanced.. I don't think making his mines skill stronger (lower cooldown) is a good idea. That thing is a good up-close nuke, and a game-changing lane/rune/path control tool. Making it have half the cooldown is not a good idea in my opinion. I will ask the question here, do you honestly think Engineer needed a buff? All of his skills rape.. they just need skill to be used perfectly.

Martyr: He's got the least significant buff out of that patch and is easily the weakest of the list. He is in my opinion the only hero that needed a buff out of those, and the buff he got only affects his early play.. where he's mostly useless late game (or at least significantly less useful than any other support hero, like say, overpowered polywog priest that rapes tower and double disable everyone while farming with his lightning fork all game long.. which martyr cannot do). A change in the right direction at least.. but maybe too minor (at least I won't feel as cheap letting my heal level 1 all game now). Also.. since when has he healed 50% of hp? The hero page on the website is pretty badly done and doesn't even mention the skill heals, but I remember something like 20% + some health missing %.. So that 50% would only be when he's freaking near death? If so, why is the patch note somehow hinting that it is auto 50%? (maybe it is, I just don't recall)

Slither: Sure, let's make all of his skills stronger. It's not like he deals 108 X 12 dmg every 60 second in a LARGE area of effect that is near impossible to run away from.. The only way to fight back that ultimate is to runaway and go heal, since fighting with that thing on is sure to get you killed most of the time, so yeah, let's make the mana cost cheaper. If anything, slither needed to be nerfed down hard, not the other way around. Worst uncalled for buff I've seen in a long time in my opinion (maybe with drunken master)

Soul Stealer: Not sure about that. He got his damage potential reduced HARD, but his ultimate has been made noob-friendly? I would personally have kept the ultimate hard to hit perfectly and lowered the damage anyway.. but meh, will have to see how it turns out when I face him. So far the most controversial change in the patch, but in my opinion not the worst or most out of place at all (might actually be a good thing!). Character can still massively damage heroes with his hands, massive quick farm, and al the while gaining a huge boost in auto attack damage. I don't feel bad with any nerf to his one-shotting-hero-destroying potential.

[man_guy]

Slither: Sure, let's make all of his skills stronger. It's not like he deals 108 X 12 dmg every 60 second in a LARGE area of effect that is near impossible to run away from.. The only way to fight back that ultimate is to runaway and go heal, since fighting with that thing on is sure to get you killed most of the time, so yeah, let's make the mana cost cheaper. If anything, slither needed to be nerfed down hard, not the other way around. Worst uncalled for buff I've seen in a long time in my opinion (maybe with drunken master)It's really a small buff. It maybe lets him get two sprays with an ult or use all three skills once, without any items at all, something he could do with starting items before.

[Kainiet]

The chalice change was a big nerf for str heroes like hammer/ devo with low manapool and a small buf for int. Dunno if I like that.

~230 more hp for Ra is big, haven't seen that comming.
DM changes were good, it helps his early game presence and makes drink more consistent for longer teamfights.

[Jezu]

The chalice change was a big nerf for str heroes like hammer/ devo with low manapool and a small buf for int. Dunno if I like that.
Considering a level 3 Hammerstorm with a Chalice and 2 Minor Totems (usually he's higher leveled once he acquires a Blood Chalice - if he does that is - but let's imagine a situation like this.), he gains 0.44 mana regeneration from the Chalice buff. With a cooldown of 35 seconds on Blood Chalice, he loses 0.43 mana regeneration with the -15 in the active effect. Once he gains more items and levels up more, the +50% mana regeneration starts to give even more than what it does at that point.

Sure you could say that the instant mana is better than passive mana regeneration, but the difference is negligible, since if you end up in a situation where you don't already have that 55 mana, you wouldn't have the 40 mana you used to need before the change since you wouldn't have the passive mana regeneration either. It CAN make a difference when combined with a power supply/mana burn, but generally it is a buff to Chalice for ALL heroes, and makes Chalice scale much better into the mid game.


Inb4 restoration stone+chalice brought up.

[Area11]

:amun:Amun-Ra
- Strength gain increased from 2 to 2.5

:mart:Martyr
- Sol's Conviction : Amount healed increased from 20/30/40/50% to 35/40/45/50%

...You know, just these two changes, you can tell the bias of this patch. The hero that is already borderline OP like Amunra, which has lots of survivability, no mana cost, mobility, huge AOE stun, ridiculously high damage, farms so easily, he got a freaking 2.5 str growth. And ofc, he's freaking fun to play and very popular among the players.

A hero that's ppl don't really play >constantly<, his heal that costs mana and health, not that tanky, no ability to farm, die a lot, become useless very quickly when the game goes on.... he got a tiny ability buff for the early phase that no one picks for the early game to begin with.

... you know, put that 2.5 str for Matyr would be much much better patch change than giving it to a hero like Ra.

[girard`]

noraging is raging.

[MacroHard]

The chalice change was a big nerf for str heroes like hammer/ devo with low manapool and a small buf for int. Dunno if I like that.

please read this post (http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/showthread.php?442638-v2-6-14-Blood-Chalice-change&p=15253681&viewfull=1#post15253681)

[Martym]

Chalice buff is great, I never understood why the mana regen was lost in the recipe.

Ra buff... That's something I don't get, he was good before that, already hard to kill, no need to had him an extra +0.5str/level

Engi: RLY? I'm not fond of the mines (except to block all neutral spots when they got a jungler) but 3.5 s cd seems way too short for a damage burst like this.

Martyr: nice one.

[BowieFunes]

To all the people complaining that Ra is OP, please... stop. Ra isn't that good, it's popular because newbies like to burn things and get high gpm in order to believe they're awesome. The hero itself is pretty lackluster in late, a carry simply destroys him without much issue (Ra usually goes for high HP builds but has VERY low armor compared to other "tanks"), and he's slow as hell. You can rape pubs in low brackets but when you get to 1650mmr (not even a high rating...) he's already easily countereable.

Concerning the patch, i LOVE the change to BC. It's one of my favorite items and the mana regen makes me love it even more.
Also, the buff to Martyr is pretty neat too. While i don't play him much, the times when i do, i feel like his supporting side in early is pretty... i don't know, unnoticeable. It's basicaly a Retribution spamming machine until he can get some decent HP items in order to sacrifice his own healt to heal his partners (when his ult is off cd, of course).

[Alten]

To all the people complaining that Ra is OP, please... stop. Ra isn't that good, it's popular because newbies like to burn things and get high gpm in order to believe they're awesome. The hero itself is pretty lackluster in late, a carry simply destroys him without much issue (Ra usually goes for high HP builds but has VERY low armor compared to other "tanks"), and he's slow as hell. You can rape pubs in low brackets but when you get to 1650mmr (not even a high rating...) he's already easily countereable.



Pretty much this. Ra is a pitiful hero, outshined signifcantly by several others in the same general role and easily shut down by any team (at least, hopefully) past the 1700 bracket. He is redeemed only by how simplistic and safe he is for even the most braindead HoNmonkey; better to have that terrible, brain-addled player play Ra as opposed to, say, Soulstealer or Silhouette.

[PzKw]

It started out as a buff, and as one, they added the 50% mana regeneration which its components have, but the actual item doesn't - Thus removing an inelegant aspect from the item, while also buffing it. It turned out that it was too powerful (I assume), so they slightly reduced the mana gained by activating it. It still remains as a buff, and a rather useful one at that.

Other than the BC change, I love the SS change for rather obvious reasons (the random factor was simply horrific), and can't say I disagree with the other changes either, though I will leave further details out.

I would still love to see Engineer's mines removed and a new skill created, but the buff was great, as you'll save lots of time when placing mines in the enemy jungle or so between ganks and such.

I've seen you do this a number of times. You seem to confuse simplicity with elegance (one carries no connotation of value, the other carries a positive value connotation). Simple is not necessarily elegant. Simple can also be crude, stupid or unrefined. Simple in many contexts means the opposite to elegant. For something to be elegant, it needs to be non-standard and highly effective as well as displaying economy of effort (which is the only part that aligns to simplicity). The BC change is not elegant. It is simple.

Nothing about the concept aligns to the new change. The new item is actually more complicated and in the transition from it's basic element something totally new is gained from no where. Previously, the passive mana regen was "converted" into the active mana regen. Now, the passive mana regen remains as well as (something that's not there) magically appearing and becoming the active component. The concept of the item is a unique mana item that lets you trade excess HP for mana which therefore gives heroes with high innate survivability the capability to sustain offensive action longer. The game has many passive mana regen items but only one that had anything to do with this niche. This solution does not align with any of the concept, and has, indeed, added a second concept to the item which happens to be the same as one on many other items. This change reduces the positive aspects of the item (unique niche), unique set of tactics ("big" chalice plays) in favour of a homogeneonising solution.

An elegant solution to BC would have been rebalancing the HP:Mana trade to reach optimum effectiveness for the concept. That would allow you to solve several problems at once to do with who can use it, as well as potential risk:reward of using it.

More broadly, I think you have a personal predeliction for simple things. You can't stand randomness, even when it can be shown to have positive gameplay implications, such as randomised damage ranges encouraging different laning patterns, or Soulstealer having a distinct playstyle built almost entirely on high positional risk, high damage reward ("big") plays with very little tolerance for deliberate mediocrity. As a person, it appears you would rather a homogeonised game with very little randomness and no second order analysis required.

In general, I have a very, very low opinion of you. I happen to think that your "consistency" patches are a blight on some of the best enduring features of this genre (and therefore this game). I do, however, agree with you on Engineer's mines.

[Jezu]

I've seen you do this a number of times. You seem to confuse simplicity with elegance (one carries no connotation of value, the other carries a positive value connotation). Simple is not necessarily elegant. Simple can also be crude, stupid or unrefined. Simple in many contexts means the opposite to elegant. For something to be elegant, it needs to be non-standard and highly effective as well as displaying economy of effort (which is the only part that aligns to simplicity). The BC change is not elegant. It is simple.

An elegant solution to BC would have been rebalancing the HP:Mana trade to reach optimum effectiveness for the concept. That would allow you to solve several problems at once to do with who can use it, as well as potential risk:reward of using it.

More broadly, I think you have a personal predilection for simple things. You can't stand randomness, even when it can be shown to have positive gameplay implications, such as randomised damage ranges encouraging different laning patterns, or Soulstealer having a distinct playstyle built almost entirely on high positional risk, high damage reward ("big") plays with very little tolerance for deliberate mediocrity. As a person, it appears you would rather a homogeonised game with very little randomness and no second order analysis required.

In general, I have a very, very low opinion of you. I happen to think that your "consistency" patches are a blight on some of the best enduring features of this genre (and therefore this game). I do, however, agree with you on Engineer's mines.
Inconsistency for no apparent reason seems very inelegant to me. Thus, removing unnecessary inconsistency is elegant. Consistency is often the same as simple, thus I often find simplicity to be the same as elegant.

The original Blood Chalice was, in my opinion, a good concept, however the item turned to be too strong balance-wise. They couldn't find an elegant solution, and abandoned one of their general rules - recipes have every aspect of their components, since they are upgrades of the items - and made an effective, but inelegant nerf to Blood Chalice. Now they reverted the inelegant change, which means that it was an elegant change.

And yes, I have a predilection for simple things, and I hate randomness in most of the cases. I can live with randomness when it's something like randomized attack ranges because I can see a proper reason for it. Although I still don't like it, I know what removing it could do, so I'm not striving for its removal. As far as the Soulstealer's ultimate is concerned, I'd like to present you the following quote for comparison.

Skill vs. Impact: Tower kills now give global gold. Once upon a time in DotA, towers only gave gold to their killer. One day, they started giving 200 gold to the entire team. However, if you denied a tower, the enemy team would receive no gold at all. Again, we have the conflict of skill vs. impact. Surely it takes skill to deny a tower as five players rained on it–there’s no denying that fact. However, the impact of that denial is that you’re depriving your opponent’s team of 1000 team gold. For a binary swing, that is a very large discrepancy. DotA has always been about large swings; getting beat to the rune means you die, getting caught before a team fight means you lose your barracks 4v5, losing one lane’s barracks means you now lack map control and will likely lose the game. There are both positive and negative aspects to creating a gap in advantage based on skill. On one hand, if the ratio of skill to impact is too high, you end up with boring, snowballing, one-sided games. On the other hand, if the ratio of skill to impact is too low, you have luck-based, drawn-out, uncompetitive games. The sweet spot is somewhere in-between, and so the result is that denying your tower still provides your opponent’s team 500 team gold. The swing between 500 and 1000 is still very noticeable, but less impactful in an arbitrary way.

As far as my suggested changes are concerned, I don't see a negative aspect in changes like Gravekeeper's Zombie Apocalypse spawning 10/17/24 Zombies instead of 10/16/24, or Madman's Barrel Roll having a range of 405/470/535/600 instead of 400/465/530/600, or Arachna's Spiderling's gold bounty normalized from 60-70 to 65.
Or in general, why does someone else get 300 gold from killing Transmutanstein, and I only get 53? Or 200 gold from a creepwave, when I only get 140? Or why does someone else get (an average of) 150 gold and 284 experience from a neutral camp, while I get 94 gold and 160 experience from a camp of the same difficulty, but arguably even harder to kill?

I understand randomness for things like runes, neutral spawning, attack damage ranges, certain skills (Blacksmith) and such, but I would still try to reduce it as much as possible without making the games completely one-sided and snowballing, or making very inelegant changes (for example, I can't think of an elegant and effective way to change runes, nor do I even find it necessary). But certain things could be normalized with no bad consequences.

That's the way I look at randomness and inconsistency, and I understand your point of view and respect it, but I don't think anybody will ever change my opinion of these things.

[Ekamo]

Inconsistency for no apparent reason seems very inelegant to me. Thus, removing unnecessary inconsistency is elegant. Consistency is often the same as simple, thus I often find simplicity to be the same as elegant.

...

And yes, I have a predilection for simple things, and I hate randomness in most of the cases. I can live with randomness when it's something like randomized attack ranges because I can see a proper reason for it. Although I still don't like it, I know what removing it could do, so I'm not striving for its removal. As far as the Soulstealer's ultimate is concerned, I'd like to present you the following quote for comparison.


Google's definition of consistency: Conformity in the application of something, typically that which is necessary for the sake of logic, accuracy, or fairness.

In HoN we usually do not have to worry about the latter two, so let us focus on the first. Notice that it does not say simplicity anywhere. If simplicity was applied as consistency, that would instead fall under the category of logic, hence it being a logical choice to make it simpler. It is the logic behind a change that has to be scrutinized and debated and nothing else. Simpler does not equate consistency, and should only be considered through logic.

What does this practically mean?
It means that any time you are going to argue for something becoming simpler, there has to be a significant logical base behind the argument, and not just something that you arbitrarily perceive as "simpler". Each and every change has to be considered individually; grouping changes tog ether and stating that "these are basically the same and should all be made more consistent indiscriminately because of that" ignores the very real effects some of these changes can have on the game. There are tons of changes in the previous consistency patch that simply couldn't have received a closer examination and was passed with this precisely this arbitrary logic. Judging off some of the changes it becomes very evident, SBT access or not, that not all changes have a logical fact basis to support them. They more than likely warranted extra debate before they went into the game, and many of them probably wouldn't have went in if such a debate had occurred.

From that patch (Patch Notes here (http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/showthread.php?435183-2-6-10-2-Patch-Notes)) I'm going to show an example of a good change, and a change which consequences are beyond a neat looking number and actually will affect consistency and game balance negatively.

:bloo: Blood hunter
- Hemorrhage: Damage rescaled from 190/310/440 to 190/315/440
I think you would be hard pressed to find a reason why this should not go in, considering Blood Hunter is not a very mana reliable hero to being with. If a change like this pleases the people who plead for "consistency", then be my guest.


:chip:Chipper
- Rocket Barrage: Manacost rescaled from 50/60/70/85 to 45/60/70/85
- Rocket Barrage: Damage rescaled from 85/115/145/180 to 80/115/145/180
The new iteration is worse than the old iteration, no matter how you look at it. Some one wanted to make Chipper more consistent apparently. Don't ask me what their thought was though, because this is everything but that. Logically speaking, an increase in both damage and mana cost between the levels should occur between level 2 and 3, considering you get no additional rockets at level 3. Instead it is the other way around, for no apparent reason.
This change would definitely not pass any kind of closer scrutiny, on any basis, but yet it passed. Why? Because it was labeled as "consistency" and then several assumptions were made that this was, in fact, a good change. Which in hindsight anyone can disprove without too much effort.

From a balance point of view, this change actually buffed his early game (assuming you are hitting all rockets) from a strict mana-to-damage ratio which is the only thing that should really matter at this point in the game. I do not think that was the intended consequence, but I might be wrong here.



As far as my suggested changes are concerned, I don't see a negative aspect in changes like Gravekeeper's Zombie Apocalypse spawning 10/17/24 Zombies instead of 10/16/24, or Madman's Barrel Roll having a range of 405/470/535/600 instead of 400/465/530/600, or Arachna's Spiderling's gold bounty normalized from 60-70 to 65.
Or in general, why does someone else get 300 gold from killing Transmutanstein, and I only get 53? Or 200 gold from a creepwave, when I only get 140? Or why does someone else get (an average of) 150 gold and 284 experience from a neutral camp, while I get 94 gold and 160 experience from a camp of the same difficulty, but arguably even harder to kill?
Quickly going to cover these one by one:


Gravekeeper change: When he tapered off late-game due to all the extra armor and HP people has received, that extra Zombie gives him an extra push toward staying relevant then. If your change should be considered, you would have to argue for why his mid-game should be buffed.
Madman change: Look again at your numbers. First of all, they're made even more inconsistent. Secondly, it is a highly irrelevant change that really would achieve nothing.
Arachna change: I would absolutely be for such a thing, because this has no (to my knowledge) logical basis behind it.
Not discussing Outpost balance.
Creepwave gold among other things:


2.5.6:
Gold gained from creeps and neutrals now normalizes over time* An example: Two heroes farm a lane for 20 minutes getting equal creep kills. Before, their gold values would have differed greatly. Now, they will have nearly equal amounts of gold.
2.5.8:
Gold received for getting the last hit on Kongor normalized from 300-400 to 350Gold received for getting the last hit on Towers normalized from 452-470,502-520,552-570,602-620 to 460,510,560,610Gold received for getting the last hit on a Structure normalized from 102-120 to 110
Differing experience could be discussed though, seems to be an oversight to me and something that maybe should be looked into.


But certain things could be normalized with no bad consequences.

I can definitely agree with this. However, this should be a result of a factual and logical debate, and not a lucky strike under the "consistency for consistency's sake"-policy.

[Dominare]

Just want to briefly mention that consistency isn't always fun either. We have Blacksmith in HoN because he was ported before the Agreement was made, but imagine the outcry if someone similar to Chaos Knight (http://www.dota2wiki.com/wiki/Chaos_Knight) was added next week. Yet for some, these types of heroes are the most enjoyable.

[`11411181]

That's the way I look at randomness and inconsistency, and I understand your point of view and respect it, but I don't think anybody will ever change my opinion of these things.

"I have an opinion about something, and I will stubbornly keep that opinion to high hell and back because I would never want to admit I was wrong."

[GregerMoek]

@randomness in creep bounty

Farming becomes safer if you know the exact amount of gold you will get from a set amount of creep kills, meaning it will be an even more important part of decision making.

Thing is that farming is what wins you games most of the time, randomness in awards for farming makes it a slight bit more risky in short periods of time. It will in many cases not matter, I suppose, but the times it does matter will be removed. Reliable farming and farming you can calculate before you even did it makes farming more safe in a sense. I believe most people find farmfests close to not entertaining at all (unless they watch Testie's stream! j/k). If you make farming more reliable even if the average income is close to the same then we will eventually see people take less risks, less gambling and so on. Taking risks is a big part of the game, even if in this matter it is simply about a couple of creep kills.

[PzKw]

Inconsistency for no apparent reason seems very inelegant to me. Thus, removing unnecessary inconsistency is elegant. Consistency is often the same as simple, thus I often find simplicity to be the same as elegant.

The original Blood Chalice was, in my opinion, a good concept, however the item turned to be too strong balance-wise. They couldn't find an elegant solution, and abandoned one of their general rules - recipes have every aspect of their components, since they are upgrades of the items - and made an effective, but inelegant nerf to Blood Chalice. Now they reverted the inelegant change, which means that it was an elegant change.

And yes, I have a predilection for simple things, and I hate randomness in most of the cases. I can live with randomness when it's something like randomized attack ranges because I can see a proper reason for it. Although I still don't like it, I know what removing it could do, so I'm not striving for its removal. As far as the Soulstealer's ultimate is concerned, I'd like to present you the following quote for comparison.


As far as my suggested changes are concerned, I don't see a negative aspect in changes like Gravekeeper's Zombie Apocalypse spawning 10/17/24 Zombies instead of 10/16/24, or Madman's Barrel Roll having a range of 405/470/535/600 instead of 400/465/530/600, or Arachna's Spiderling's gold bounty normalized from 60-70 to 65.
Or in general, why does someone else get 300 gold from killing Transmutanstein, and I only get 53? Or 200 gold from a creepwave, when I only get 140? Or why does someone else get (an average of) 150 gold and 284 experience from a neutral camp, while I get 94 gold and 160 experience from a camp of the same difficulty, but arguably even harder to kill?

I understand randomness for things like runes, neutral spawning, attack damage ranges, certain skills (Blacksmith) and such, but I would still try to reduce it as much as possible without making the games completely one-sided and snowballing, or making very inelegant changes (for example, I can't think of an elegant and effective way to change runes, nor do I even find it necessary). But certain things could be normalized with no bad consequences.

That's the way I look at randomness and inconsistency, and I understand your point of view and respect it, but I don't think anybody will ever change my opinion of these things.

Note bold: Your powers of observation are inadequate. The majority of the things you suggest serve a purpose which is beyond you. But like a snowball, by the time I have any cause to comment on them, they're too big to stop and suddenly all abilities follow a linear scaling path even in examples where a specific design reason could be cited for it or a negative balance implication could be drawn. Your concept of design is completely backwards. You start with a principle that bears little or no relevance to balance or enjoyment (except to you, because you seem to need neat lines and linear progressions), then use a variety of inaccurate descriptors to justify how it links to the overall health of the game (elegance, simplicity, consistency to name a few) and sell it on those grounds even when it can clearly be demonstrated that your proposed changes will have net negative effect of the game.

No argument is worth anything unless it can be argued from first principles. Your first principle is that consistency = fun. I submit the opposite. If your principle were the case, then HoN would have had sufficient heroes at 10, and each of them should have been a consistent copy of the others. This genre, this game, this design is founded on assymetry and inconsistency. All of the things that have made this game great and get somewhere have been differences, not similarities. If you had your way, every hero would be like a pizza that smells different and looks amazing, but tastes like every other pizza. As a matter of absolute fact, all tactics are based on assymetry, and the more you reduce it, the more tactics you eliminate. All of your changes reduce diversity, difference and assymetry which are fundamentally driven by mutual inconsistency accross a wide variety of distinct capabilities. Your changes revert progress and undo development, unmaking the game piece by piece. No one denies that a degree of internal consistency, a sense of fairness and intuitive design are all important to the framework of a game, but they're only means to achieve a diverse and fun game - if these are not the correct tools at a given time, they should be set aside in favour of creativity and bold (elegant?) design to push the boundries of a game (ie. to develop it).

I do not respect your opinion, because I don't believe it is a respectable opinion. I think it's a strangely biased opinion that can be demonstrated to be flawed right from its first principles, through the actioning of those principles into concepts, through to the implementation of those concepts into the game. I vehemently disagree and sincerely hope nothing more comes of your suggestions.

[PzKw]

It should be explicitly noted that consistency is not necessarily a bad thing, but all principles need to be tied to an effect. If, for example, a mechanical inconsistency is frustrating, or negatively effects balance, there are grounds to amend it. An example of this is Bloodhunter. Who is trash (apparently S2 likes the way he plays - I think S2 is virtually alone in this sentiment).


Concept:
Bloodhunter's ultimate deals damage when heroes move proportionate to the distance they move. Concept is straightforward.

Implementation:
Bloodhunter's ultimate does not deal damage when heroes are compelled to move (push tablet, fear, rampage's ultimate, abilities which push such as Flux's or Rampage's horned strike).

Bloodhunter's ultimate does not deal damage when heroes move long distances (teleportation, swap etc).

Actual mechanical concept:
Bloodhunter's ultimate thus only deals damage when heroes are ordered to move by their player.

Now in ALL of your "consistency" changes, I've never once seen you look at big cases of inconsistency which actually have a negative impact on the game. Bloodhunter's ultimate is the biggest and best example. Bloodhunter does not really synergise with anyone on any level (superficial, tactical, operation, strategic), and he is not particularly impressive on his own. Fixing his mechanical interraction with forced movement would be a painless way to make him actually work with certain heroes so there'd be some kind of a real reason to play him. Making teleportation consistent with the theme would make him more frustrating to play against than he would be made less frustrating to play with - net effect, better to leave this inconsistent with the concept of the ability. This is an example of linking a positive change to the game with making something more "consistent". Note how the fact that it is consistent has nothing to do with the value of the change (whether it's "good" or "bad"), but rather the effect determines the actual value.

I'm going to get personal if I go further, but basically I think you have a thing for neatness and numbers which has no place in design.

[Jezu]

"I have an opinion about something, and I will stubbornly keep that opinion to high hell and back because I would never want to admit I was wrong."
An opinion cannot be tested, and since it generally relates to your personal view about the world it cannot be wrong. You feel what you feel, you like what you like, that cannot be wrong or right.

[Gorb]

That does not invalidate the quoted statement.

Nor should it form the basis for balancing the game (the opinion, that is). If balancing was done on an opinion (or set of opinions) we would have a very subjective state of affairs. That is why constructive discussion is encouraged even when people vehemently disagree over whose opinions are supported with more valid evidence (as that is how you conclude the veracity of such opinions).

This is simply my opinion as a player, however. Differences in conflict resolution have nothing to do with moderation except when rules are breached.

[Dominare]

An opinion cannot be tested

Of course it can. For an example, you need only look at the reaction to the recent change to Blood Chalice - many players looked at that and immediately came to the conclusion that it was a nerf to the item. That was their opinion based on a cursory glance at the patch notes. However, all it took was a quick math-slap (http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/showthread.php?442638-v2-6-14-Blood-Chalice-change&p=15253681&viewfull=1#post15253681) from MacroHard and all those opinions were PROVEN to be incorrect.

It's perfectly okay to have personal beliefs about things and to feel very strongly about them, but it is definitely not okay to declare, "You will never change my mind about this!" while at the SAME TIME trying to bring other people around to your way of thinking. If I'm debating you and you dig your heels in, then my natural response is to do the same thing, and then neither of us can move and nobody goes anywhere. That's why you're getting such negative responses, because the people ITT recognize the inherent danger in your kind of attitude.

[iHipster]

Of course it can. For an example, you need only look at the reaction to the recent change to Blood Chalice - many players looked at that and immediately came to the conclusion that it was a nerf to the item. That was their opinion based on a cursory glance at the patch notes. However, all it took was a quick math-slap (http://forums.heroesofnewerth.com/showthread.php?442638-v2-6-14-Blood-Chalice-change&p=15253681&viewfull=1#post15253681) from MacroHard and all those opinions were PROVEN to be incorrect.

It's perfectly okay to have personal beliefs about things and to feel very strongly about them, but it is definitely not okay to declare, "You will never change my mind about this!" while at the SAME TIME trying to bring other people around to your way of thinking. If I'm debating you and you dig your heels in, then my natural response is to do the same thing, and then neither of us can move and nobody goes anywhere. That's why you're getting such negative responses, because the people ITT recognize the inherent danger in your kind of attitude.

An opinion cannot be tested. Believing the BC change was a nerf is not an opinion but a fact.
Opinion: "The BC change sucks" - Cannot be tested or determined to be true because what sucks and doesn't suck is up to perception.
Fact: "The BC change is a nerf" - Determined to be false.

[PzKw]

Really? We're going hard line existential? ****, can't test a subjective view. Better do whatever we want since nothing in our minds can be linked to the real world and have ethical or empirical burdens placed against it. To be more accurate, your opinion should have no bearing on suggestions you make - as opinions are, according to you, not testable or accountable, they should not influence the creation of an empirice, testable system. If you want to rationalise your opinion into an argument so we'll listen, you'll leave yourself open to actual testing where it'll be destroyed as unfounded crap, so it's probably safer to hide your arguments as opinions with a subjective justification so it can't be argued against. Subjectivists make me sick - stick to fields that don't involve rational analysis please.

[`11411181]

An opinion cannot be tested, and since it generally relates to your personal view about the world it cannot be wrong. You feel what you feel, you like what you like, that cannot be wrong or right.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-belief-perseverance.htm

"Awareness of belief perseverance does not seem to offer much protection. Alerting subjects by asking them for unbiased opinions does not appear to alter the results. Even when people are made explicitly aware of belief perseverance and asked to consider opinions in this light, beliefs are likely to remain unchanged."

Irrational is the nicest word I can think for you here, and I sincerely hope that you never are put in an position where you can influence anything, let alone something of importance.

[Jezu]

Awareness of belief perseverance does not seem to offer much protection. Alerting subjects by asking them for unbiased opinions does not appear to alter the results. Even when people are made explicitly aware of belief perseverance and asked to consider opinions in this light, beliefs are likely to remain unchanged.
What does this have to do with you claiming an opinion 'wrong'?

[`11411181]

I see you didn't read the link.

[Jezu]

I see you didn't read the link.
Yes, I did read it. Not sure what do you base that assumption on.




For me, a change is supposed to have a positive, or a +/-0 net-weight balance-wise, and as far as other categories are concerned - For example linear scaling/consistency/randomness, considering the side-effects for balance are already taken into account, are a good enough reason to do the proposed change.

Now, considering the changes I've mentioned earlier:

:madm: The Madman: Barrel Roll range is 400/465/530/600.
- Range to 405/470/535/600

I think it's safe to say that balance-wise the effects are negligible, and I don't think anyone is going to disagree with this. It makes the numbers easier to remember, as it makes them scale linearly as well as keeping the same interval of numbers (what I mean by that is that the numbers are at a precision of 5) - Thus increasing simplicity as well as consistency. To make it even more simpler:

- Range to 420/480/540/600

Even with this, the effect on balance is extremely minimal but if someone feels it actually changes the viability of Madman, I think it's for the better direction as I feel the hero is slightly under-average balance-wise at the moment. (Reasoning for that does exist, but I don't think starting up a debate on whether or not Madman is balanced/too strong/too weak is going to be necessary here.)

Yes, this is basically only noticeable by looking at the exact numbers, but that doesn't mean the change is completely pointless because things like this can annoy people (I know some people who hate it like I do), and I have yet to meet a person who wouldn't want to make this change only because he likes the inconsistent scaling for the sake of liking inconsistent scaling.

A change with an effect on the actual gameplay:
:defi: Defiler: Power in Death adds 1/2/3/4 - 1/3/4/6 - 0/2/4/7 spirits to Unholy Expulsion.
Unholy Expulsion summons 5/10/16 spirits.
- Power in Death adds 3/4/5/6 spirits to Unholy Expulsion
- Unholy Expulsion summons 3/10/17 spirits.

Would make Power in Death much simpler, while not affecting the amount of spirits summoned considering you level up Power in Death over Attribute Boost (which everyone always does) and only take 1 point in Silence before it's maxed. However opens the possibility to get more points in Silence without suffering THAT much for not maxing out Power in Death asap. So in the end adds more variation to the build, but with the usual build the amount of spirits summoned remain the same.

This change actually has an effect on the balance, but I feel it's for the better (Defiler is currently set at her skill-build, and could use a little more diversity in her skill-build to give her a little boost as she's a bit on the weaker side IMO - Feel free to start up a thread about Defiler if you wish to discuss her balance more, this is just my quick opinion on her), and the effect on the simplicity is a lot bigger than it is for the above Madman change.

Then, a change with possibly a bigger impact on the balance:
:pyro: Pyromancer: Phoenix Wave currently costs 90/105/125/140 mana.
Dragonfire costs 90/100/110/125 mana and deals 90/150/210/280.
Blazing Strike has a 150/90/55 second cooldown, costs 280/420/680 mana and deals 450/675/950 damage.
- Phoenix Wave manacost to 95/110/125/140.
- Dragonfire manacost to 90/100/110/120 and damage to 100/160/220/280.
- Blazing Strike cooldown to 145/100/55, manacost to 280/450/620 and damage from 450/675/950 to 450/700/950.

Just by looking at this, you should notice some 'small' number changes, which could ultimately lead into completely breaking the hero if the changes are not thought through carefully. Overall, I feel the changes are near +/-0, but further discussion is required for a change like this.

Lastly, a change which would have a huge impact:
Booboo's Entangling Claws: Rebalance the proc from 20% chance to proc on every 5th hits.
Do I even need to talk about this? By itself, it would completely change the way people would gank with Wildsoul, and this would make the hero completely overpowered (not saying he isn't already.. ;))

[`11411181]

Yes, I did read it. Not sure what do you base that assumption on.


What does this have to do with you claiming an opinion 'wrong'?

The very first paragraph of the link clearly explains the relevance.

Either way, I'm reporting you for deliberately attempting to antagonize people in this thread by playing dumb.

[Jezu]

That's the way I look at randomness and inconsistency, and I understand your point of view and respect it, but I don't think anybody will ever change my opinion of these things.

"I have an opinion about something, and I will stubbornly keep that opinion to high hell and back"
The above two quotes mean two different things, you distorted my original sentence.

because I would never want to admit I was wrong.
As said, an opinion can't be wrong. An opinion is usually claimed to be "better" if, for example, the majority thinks that way, but even in that case, everyone is entitled to their opinions and their value is equal. If there was only one person in the world who thinks apples taste bad, while others think they taste good - His opinion is still completely valid.

Either way, I'm reporting you for deliberately attempting to antagonize people in this thread by playing dumb.
Why are you trying to provoke me? We both know the only rule I've possibly broken in this thread is off-topic discussion, but even so, considering the thread-starter (Ekamo in this case) participated in the 'off-topic' discussion, it could be assumed that he is allowing the 'discussion' - Hasn't been much of that as of lately (and if that isn't the case, then just cut off the discussion already, before we go any further), and the starter generally can adjust the original topic to fit in possible discussion arising

[Gorb]

Moderator Intervention

Neither `11411181 or Jezu shall post in this thread while I go through the discussion and note exactly what has gone down. Jezu, as an aside, you should bear in mind that you haven't responded to a single person beyond `11411181 on the subject despite comprehensive replies from both Ekamo and PzKw.

There is no need to reply to this message, but please abide by it.

Everyone else, feel free to debate the patch itself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update

Ekamo and I have conferred on the subject.

This discussion is over in this thread. If you wish to proceed, PMs or the Balance Dump is the place to go.

A general rule of thumb in all kinds of discussions though is that one should always be open-minded and sumbit to superior argumentation, especially when dealing with factual things. Balancing of a game such as Heroes of Newerth definitely deals with this kind of knowledge, as patterns are objectively discerned, virtually anything CAN be measured and determined through analysis. There is always room for subjectivity, but it should be, if possible, kept to a minimum.

And in future, Jezu, please attempt to respond to all counter-arguments. For the sake of consistency, if nothing else. I am not targeting you here; it is simply too easy to assume negative intent r.e. `11411181 if you are not replying to others on the same subject.

[Gorb]

Archive time!