Ward Stacks

[[ZA]Techies]

Also maybe if those orange wards didn't vanish instantly, they would be easier to take out, giving the team who has vision of that spot first the counter ward advantage. Maybe double the reward for killing an enemy ward?

Right now you have to have clicked that enemy hero and guess where in a radius of 600 they've actually placed it...

[Antimodus]

No need to guess, rev wards detect at like 800 range. Whenever I watch over an enemy hero as it is placing it, I will just set the counterward where the hero stood (or in the immediate vicinity) and it's guaranteed to spot the ward they placed providing I have "normal" sight of it by other means.

On topic, I don't have much to add. S2 has been systematically removing all "chore" elements from the game, components in secret shop, free courier, buying wards one at a time, are all changes geared to make the game easier or more "forgiving" in some way.

I don't think the ward change matters that much in comp tho, I figure wards are going to be bought out and stay bought out, except maybe at the 6-12m window, so it makes no real difference if one could buy them 1 at a time or not.

It does allow people to dodge the gold penalty for death by buying a ward with 100 gold, tho one could already do this with a TP stone at 135.

overall, I don't mind if it stayed the same or reverted.

[Cranium]

It is unfair to say that it is not balanced. Both teams have access to it.

While I respect the opinions made in this thread it just seems hard to believe without playtesting on the issue.

If S2 were going to dedicate resources to playtesting this issue (which they won't) I would suggest adding some play associated with the Observatory.
If you only allow the supports in the Long lane to get single wards and only allow supports in the short lane to get stacks, you effectively set a standard that allows the short lane support to have 1 less health pot or 2 less mana pots, making the sidelane slightly harder for those who have the advantage of more map control there.

[[DRD]china]

It is unfair to say that it is not balanced. Both teams have access to it.

I think that is fallacious logic, as by that thinking, Bulwark is balanced.

Cheap wards is imbalanced, not in the favor of one side over another, but because of how much it sways the early game in a way that awards more negatives than positives. It pours extra gold into the game. If we look at it one-dimensionally, sure, there's nothing to worry about, but at a deeper level, it affects the laning phase in a subtle way that's impossible to avoid or extremely difficult to counter. Something that is difficult to counter or avoid by both sides, is in my opinion, inherently broken and imbalanced.

It's also quite startling how deeply what's being said in this thread contrasts with what is being said by competitors. I think it is simply the result of noticing the deeper and more subtle affects of ward stacks from 2 to 1.

[LegoPirate]

It doesn't hurt them, because no gold loss in exchange for enemy gold loss, as well as XP for surviving allies.

Also, support is about sacrifice.



You noted your own definition for a support hero. Bravo? Shall I define 'support' myself, and say note: there's self-sacrifice there? You really ought to stop pushing your own opinion as irrefutable fact, as it's not a good look for you.

As for self-sacrifice:

Support has no gold to lose. Andro runs in to stun carry, attack a few times, die in the attempt, but enemy carry dies, losing gold and granting XP to allied heroes. Positive overall reward. Not a drastic circumstance at all. Really don't see how you can argue that a suiciding support does not achieve an overall benefit for the team.

The very best support are those that sacrifice everything for the team. I've played as support for top teams over the years, and you can easily tell who's supporting well, and who isn't, on what hero. A glacius who suicides into Kongor pit in order to sac enemy spells, an andro who sacs herself for her carry hero, any support who thinks to buy a tp and buy out wards before even thinking of boots.

But that's OT, and I don't think any talk of that should continue at all. So lets leave it as a difference of opinion.

the problem with this argument is that you assume if andro rambos in that she will cause their carry to get killed. if she fails to do so, then she just gifted the enemy team more gold+exp and is now dead for a little while

also, im confused as to since when is ramboing into the enemy team of 5 as a support been the norm? if the only hero this is really viable on is andro then why change a mechanic that affects an entire class of heroes rather then changing andro? and isnt sacrificing yourself for an enemy hero 75% of the reason to pick andro?

if supports are being too effective without items then nerfing these supports is the way to go, not nerfing their ability to ward. warding is only a good thing, and less wards (both regular and counter wards) leads to less agressive play, not more. it used to be that wards were spammed so often that ganking was impossible, but now counterwarding has become far more common, which adds a new theatre of action to the game.

i do believe counter-wards being unlimited is a little bit ridiculous, but thats another topic.

also, couldnt you do this in theory when it was 200 gold as well, just less often?


Edit: zzz stronk ninja edit china

[[DRD]china]

the problem with this argument is that you assume if andro rambos in that she will cause their carry to get killed. if she fails to do so, then she just gifted the enemy team more gold+exp and is now dead for a little while

also, im confused as to since when is ramboing into the enemy team of 5 as a support been the norm? if the only hero this is really viable on is andro then why change a mechanic that affects an entire class of heroes rather then changing andro? and isnt sacrificing yourself for an enemy hero 75% of the reason to pick andro?

Ancient meta that I used to play in. I'm invalid now. *tears*

The basics are still there. Reacting means dealing damage a bit later. That bit later means a lot, so aggression is really quite good.

I think if I delve into subtle details I'll end up writing an essay, so lets leave it as a difference in perspectives/understanding.

[TRYTROUSERS]

I don't really think the change was directed at competitive play, even though it makes things a bit "easier" there. Nor do I think it was intended as a buff purely for support.

I think the reason they made wards single stack is to make it less important to have a dedicated support players doing all of the warding in MM. Now instead of automatically losing a match making game because you don't have a dsham running around with boots and a power supply 40 minutes in, you generally can afford to ward the typical blind spots and protect yourself from ganks.

Perhaps it's a bad change for 1900 games, but it's also a very good thing for 1800 and below where 95% of the player base is and will forever be.

[[VGG]Glibber`]

A max on the rev wards wouldn't be a bad thing to do.

I don't have any idea about what to do with the pullcamp though (basically gives free denies and gold to supports).

Should it be unpullable because it gives both sides an (unfair?) advantage on their safe lanes? (I like the safety of that lane though ^^)

[LegoPirate]

A max on the rev wards wouldn't be a bad thing to do.

I don't have any idea about what to do with the pullcamp though (basically gives free denies and gold to supports).

Should it be unpullable because it gives both sides an (unfair?) advantage on their safe lanes? (I like the safety of that lane though ^^)

pull camps are stupid because they negate the skill of lane control. push the lane all day, get balls deep in their tower, then just pull the lane back and they lose an entire wave.

[[GDB]Vermillion_]

Hmm I wish my old replays still worked, I think it would be interesting to see how warding has changed in comparison before and after the patch (ie, locations counterward locations how many were placed per game etc). Personally, in pubs it's amazing (playing mid and being able to replace a hp pot with a ward is always good), but I can see it being detrimental in high end games. With the recent courier change supports now have an extra 200 (300 if only one ward is bought) gold, for either consumables/stats or more wards which is a pretty substantial buff for supports.
In fact watching the CoL vs EZ game 2 we see semijew literally warding the entire legion jungle with little trade off. Temp/behe both had a combined 1200 gold, of which flying was bought and the 3 wards, leaving 700 gold between them. Before both of these changes, an extra ward would of needed to be bought and the courier which would of left them with 400 between the two which would of left tempest probably with the same starting items but behe would not of had 4 mana pots, a health pot and runes of blight.

Also, unsure of this but before the change was it possible to split ward stacks? If not it easily allows a support to give one ward to someone in a different lane etc whilst keeping one for themselves as well.

[rayven]

I love the fact that you can buy 1 ward at a time, makes my solo middle more easier when I can buy 1 ward for myself, when the supports aren't doing/aren't capable of doing their job.

[[GnJA]Good_Apollo]

I think it's just a way to keep the gank meta, that S2 pushed, in-line.

[changlingbob]

Also, competitors complain about it.

I'm done leaking bits of competitors just to prove a point though, and really, people ought to quit with the blanket statements.

Fair enough. Obviously I don't have access to that forum, and the points raised are always about 'increased ease of sight', which on first glance is countered by 'increased ease in counterwards'.

Because defining something like support is going to lead to more disagreement than agreement. This thread is about wards, not what support is. Wards can have an effect on gameplay, regardless of who or what buys it, as long as the gold early on is spent.

Ah, but part of the problem people have with wards is that it changes the play style of supports, due to increased gold flow. That this leads to disagreement is why this discussion exists. If you think that this change is bad, and that easier sight is bad, then this change is terrible. If, however, you think easier sight is bad, but prefer the less suicidal support play style, its a neutral change. Its highly likely that pubs almost universally prefer easier sight and less suicidal support, although I agree that pub opinion should not sway here.

It is notable that suicidal support is still available to provide maximum farm to the rest of the team, should the team build require it (say, a 2-1-1 strat). More options, more interesting game.

[[DRD]china]

Ah, but part of the problem people have with wards is that it changes the play style of supports, due to increased gold flow. That this leads to disagreement is why this discussion exists. If you think that this change is bad, and that easier sight is bad, then this change is terrible. If, however, you think easier sight is bad, but prefer the less suicidal support play style, its a neutral change. Its highly likely that pubs almost universally prefer easier sight and less suicidal support, although I agree that pub opinion should not sway here.

It is notable that suicidal support is still available to provide maximum farm to the rest of the team, should the team build require it (say, a 2-1-1 strat). More options, more interesting game.

I tend to think that the ward issue can be seen as detached from support, as the nature of being able to buy 3 wards vs. 4 means extra regen along with two minors, instead of having to forgo 2 minors or extra regen. That's tough.

Then you have this change coupled with free chicken, which means instant crow and wards/counterwards, which forces a certain tactic. Previously, to employ that tactic, you'd have to invest far more gold (purchasing chicken, as well as being forced to buy 4 wards as opposed to 3 due to single stacks.

I tend to ignore pub play completely, because they don't hunger to win as bad as better players. It is why you balance for competitors, because they want to win more than others - to the point where most fun is a result of winning, and not of playing, at least in my view. Those who want to win badly, will play harder, improve faster, and push the game to its limits, which is why they tend to notice subtle details and the impact of such a thing as 'beneficial' as single ward stacks. It enables quick chicken/counter warding, and comes near the point of uncounterable.

All of the other things such a change enables pushes the game towards less intelligent play. Less tactical play. That's better for pubs, but as certain pubs rise out of that arena, they come to realize that it's stupid. A change should increase depth, not decrease it. Risk:Reward should always be there.

[changlingbob]

I tend to think that the ward issue can be seen as detached from support, as the nature of being able to buy 3 wards vs. 4 means extra regen along with two minors, instead of having to forgo 2 minors or extra regen. That's tough.

Ok, I grok where you're coming from now. Even here, you're sacrificing an extra ward's worth of vision for more stats/regen. While this is giving an option that wasn't previously available (technical power creep), this is where my difference of opinion comes in: support should have that option available, rather than being more pigeon-holed into not being able to get stats.

Then you have this change coupled with free chicken, which means instant crow and wards/counterwards, which forces a certain tactic. Previously, to employ that tactic, you'd have to invest far more gold (purchasing chicken, as well as being forced to buy 4 wards as opposed to 3 due to single stacks.

Agreed. Free monkey was obviously only added for the benefit to the pub scene; there it is hugely useful, but that isn't the point when it is blatant power creep in the comp scene.

All of the other things such a change enables pushes the game towards less intelligent play. Less tactical play. That's better for pubs, but as certain pubs rise out of that arena, they come to realize that it's stupid. A change should increase depth, not decrease it. Risk:Reward should always be there.

I disagree that the wards changes push towards less intelligent or less tactical play. In a perfect world, your example of supports being able to spend their gold before dying should never be able to happen at the high end, as the ward will have been bought as soon as the cooldown runs out. Leaving a ward in the shop permanently to be bought in case of sudden gank on a support increases available tactics, safety of gold at the cost of vision - but then, that ward could have prevented the gank. That is risk:reward.

Perhaps a 'better' solution to the problems you have is an increase in cost of wards. I would disagree, as I believe different things about the role of support than you, and others, do.

[[IaF]Skyve]

Would you maybe care to elaborate why it pushes the game towards less intelligence play? Or why adding more gold into the game (in theory), is something you call a negative effect?

Then you have this change coupled with free chicken, which means instant crow and wards/counterwards, which forces a certain tactic. Previously, to employ that tactic, you'd have to invest far more gold (purchasing chicken, as well as being forced to buy 4 wards as opposed to 3 due to single stacks.

No, previously you WERE forced to buy a courier at the beginning (primarily because you couldn't activate a courier unless you are at the shop). You aren't forced to do that now. You have more freedom in your choice now. You don't need a crow in the beginning, you never did, you just usually got it because it's convenient, especially since you can use it to get information you otherwise wouldn't, but now you are definitely LESS forced to do something than you were before the courier change.

[[DRD]china]

No, previously you WERE forced to buy a courier at the beginning (primarily because you couldn't activate a courier unless you are at the shop). You aren't forced to do that now. You have more freedom in your choice now. You don't need a crow in the beginning, you never did, you just usually got it because it's convenient, especially since you can use it to get information you otherwise wouldn't, but now you are definitely LESS forced to do something than you were before the courier change.

My point is that some players instant bought crow (on Andro and Glac heroes, etc.), because it allowed them to counterward the pull. This is before the free chicken and ward stacks.

Now, they can instant crow, have a counter, and have regen/stats.

Before, they had to expend a lot to earn an advantage. Now, they expend nearly nothing to gain an advantage. Two minors and enough regen to effectively lane.

Here's a quote from [MSI]NoVa_

Generally I can say supporting and especially warding became more and more of a no brainer for me and not really enjoyable especially earlygame. It's fine to have a bit more reg but not necessary. I'd go with what was suggested so far, changing either free courier or wards (stacks).

There have been other posts in the competitors thread, but I can say every competitor views it as a dumbing down of the role, and locking the early gameplay into a certain state. The pull ward is ALWAYS countered, with wards/chicken being the way they are. It pushes gold into the hands of heroes that don't need it to do their job efficiently, amongst all the other things I've listed.

It skews the balance and the kind of control, decision-making, and tactics that can be employed in the early game. Irrefutably so, as literally NO competitor has said courier or ward stacks have been beneficial for their play. It does not increase depth, it increases stagnancy, etc.

If you don't feel that way, I'll leave it as a difference in understanding and perspective. The very best support players disdain what it has done to the game, and though that's cannot be taken as completely reflective of the state of balance, it is a cause for concern.

[changlingbob]

There have been other posts in the competitors thread, but I can say every competitor views it as a dumbing down of the role, and locking the early gameplay into a certain state. The pull ward is ALWAYS countered, with wards/chicken being the way they are.

Without meaning to sound super stupid, if they're always going to spend 250g to counter it and then pull anyway, why not make them waste 250g to counter nothing by not warding the pull until the first blue ward runs out? This particular interaction doesn't tend to get shown much in casts of comp games, what with more exciting things like bloodlust fights happening.

E: As noted, I'd rather revert the free courier than ward stacks for comp game balance.

[dazzled`]

Without meaning to sound super stupid, if they're always going to spend 250g to counter it and then pull anyway, why not make them waste 250g to counter nothing by not warding the pull until the first blue ward runs out? This particular interaction doesn't tend to get shown much in casts of comp games, what with more exciting things like bloodlust fights happening.

E: As noted, I'd rather revert the free courier than ward stacks for comp game balance.

Because you could triple stack the pull by then. The resulting advantage their lane would get because of them denying entire waves of creeps would easily crush whoever's in that lane. In any case, early game warding is a joke because of this change. Both warding and counterwarding is a lot easier to do now on the fly (because you need only buy one). I agree with china in saying this has removed a needed element of strategy for warders to properly space their timings out. Before, if a crucial ward got countered and you had none on you, you might have to wait 6 minutes before you could get another up in a similar location, now it's a cap of 3 minutes

[changlingbob]

Because you could triple stack the pull by then.

But if they're going to counterward anyway...? I guess you only counterward as soon as the creeps haven't spawned, which would explain that. Never mind then! I guess that matters less for the very initial starting gold though.