To What Level Should the Game Be Balanced?

[HorseDad]

Hello.

I recently became interested in the balance discussion for the exact same reason that this post was created it seems, that the game is being balanced but I am confused what it is balanced towards, so thank you for a great thread!

I would like to add to this debate that the difference lie in competitive and non competitive games this meaning e.g. E-sports VS F2P pup games. What I really find to be the problem with the balance so far is that while heroes might be easily countered in a competitive game and 5v5 team, in solo puplic games they are almost unstoppable - Even with best intentions of the team (especially strong jungle farmers)

This also explains the fair amount of "whine" from players over certain heroes.


While I can relate to the logic behind balancing from the top-->down, and to balance to make games more interesting to watch, perhaps one should keep the f2p and solo queue status of this game in mind as this ALSO forms the market of the game now.


(For everyone who does not read everything here is the point

The point that I think I am arriving at is that when a hero scores less than 5 "team dependency" (think its a good indicator), it becomes "OP" in pub games, and is hardly used in competitive games anyway since they do not bring anything to the team.

[Anakha]

No. Nobody cares about how bad pubs get shitstomped by heroes. It is on them to get better, not for s2 to counter to bad players. Enough.

[nkari]

No. Nobody cares about how bad pubs get shitstomped by heroes. It is on them to get better, not for s2 to counter to bad players. Enough.

Problem tho is that the pubs are the ones giving money to S2. OR the very least, the largest part of S2's income comes from pubs..

[Salem1]

You speak like there doesn't exist imbalance in public games and where there does it's the same as that which exists in competitive gaming. It's not a coincidence that people who stomp games are drawn to certain heroes. That heroes like Ra are fine is simply a disconnection from reality and I would like to hear why such heroes are balanced.

[HorseDad]

The point that I think I am arriving at is that when a hero scores less than 5 "team dependency" (think its a good indicator), it becomes "OP" in pub games, and is hardly used in competitive games anyway since they do not bring anything to the team.

What I am trying to say is that we need to fix both.

[Anakha]

Problem tho is that the pubs are the ones giving money to S2. OR the very least, the largest part of S2's income comes from pubs..

And? If you want to be coddled, **** off back to LoL where the game is designed on making things easy for you, and as a consequence, has the depth and warmth of a kiddy pool that's been pissed in.

You speak like there doesn't exist imbalance in public games and where there does it's the same as that which exists in competitive gaming. It's not a coincidence that people who stomp games are drawn to certain heroes. That heroes like Ra are fine is simply a disconnection from reality and I would like to hear why such heroes are balanced.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

What I am trying to say is that we need to fix both.

One often precludes the other. Competitive always has priority.

[BaneElement]

Most of dota heroes can't farm at all but there's a minority that does it 2 well like furion.

[[MLJ]lolbreeze]

Most EA S2 heroes have the skillsets of several DotA heroes simultaneously while also often having excellent scaling and animations/base stats/stat gains. Since hero redesigns are unlikely some straight nerfs to the utility of problematic S2 hero skillsets should be in order. Any hero that does something extremely well should do something poorly and have to choose between spending gold towards improving on his strengths and covering his weaknesses unlike heroes that can simply build on whatever they want since they farm, escape, scale and fight (slow, stun etc) very well just with their base skillsets which causes them accumulate gold/experience too easily. One other thing about heroes with skillsets that are 'too complete' that could use some nerfs is how little mana management most of them require. If a hero has scaling, stuns and mobility there should be something to prevent the hero from having it all available at all times, otherwise heroes that don't have it all can only compete through somehow having significantly higher raw numbers (which, sadly is never the case). Make heroes with 'complete' skillsets have 14 starting strength. Make them have 0.6 starting armor. Make them start with a 180 mana pool. Give them 330 range. If the skillset is not going to be a limitation make something else be one.

[Jeffbelittle]

Someone said we should focus it around specific heroes, I think they were close to getting it, but we still aren't there yet:

It's more or less that every hero in HoN should have a purpose. Meaning a hero can't have A, B, and C attributes and their A and B attributes are the best in the game when there's another hero that ONLY has A and B attributes and just does it "well"

There are currently 3 heroes in the game that take the jungle and can be considered pushers that are melee:

And when you look at them, you'll notice characteristics.

Warbeast and Wildsoul are both Carries that focus on movement speed, pushing, and farming the jungle. They lack initiation properties.

Zephyr and Keeper both have carry potential, but both are known for initiation properties.

Zephyr has the most survivability of the 4 mentioned, pushes just as well (aside from not being able to backdoor), has initiation abilities, and has disables.

Warbeast doesn't have a disable. Keeper's ultimate is a disable that is easily dealt with.

And now we see why Warbeast and Keeper aren't picking often competitively; however, Zephyr is. Only 1 of the 3 melee get so many additional benefits.



We can't let heroes that fill similar hero roles and descriptions be distinctively better at some things and NOT have drawbacks in other regions.


And I'm not saying there can't be a "group" of best initiators. I mean, there's nothing wrong with people going Magmus/Behemoth/Pharaoh/Hammerstorm as the sort of "go to" examples of great initiators. But you can't make it such a way that there isn't a reason to go Moraxus.


Heroes with great pros need great cons. It's how balance works, it's how a heroes direction works. Even magebane has the con of not having an actual disable and his damage being completely melee. There are in fact cons to picking mage bane which makes magebane a good HERO CONCEPT, so that it's only a matter of tweaking numbers to fix the hero.


A good hero concept is one that can be simply buffed or nerfed back into a competitive, possibly niche choice via number changes. Longer/shorter cooldowns, longer/shorter ranges, +50 - 50 damage on a spell.

The only bad part of Engineer's hero concept is his mines. Everything else circles around area denial which makes him a cool hero and there's a reason to pick him.

The only bad part of Balphagore is his numbers on certain abilities. It's a great concept that you have an anti-spell casting initiator like Balphagore. He wouldn't be considerably broken unless you completely bastard his ultimate.




We need more hero purpose. We need more trade offs. That's what makes a hero unique and not a "hey I'm going to pick such and such hero because he's fun and works in every damn line up without consequence"

[[COE]simena]

From now on, S2 should stop implementing stuns and slows.

Start making heroes viable with other reasons that stuns and slows:

Unique Range
Unique Projectiles
Channeling Powershots
Anti-focus fire
Cast on ally spells


I hate seeing:
300 aoe
600 range
300 damage
150 mana
15s cooldown

These are all generic, uninteresting numbers! Get creative!

I just want to mention Berzerker.

He's basically a Single Player hero, offers nothing new, just a different playstyle.
Sad thing is you can't come up with synergizin with him because all he does is self-buff and smack enemies.

No room for creative combos.

[[CNMB]UCF_Knightro]

A game balanced to the highest levels is a deep game with multiple strategies and dozens of viable heroes.

A game balanced for the general public is a shallow game that revolves around flavor of the month heroes that could be played with one's face.

[GregerMoek]

There are many heroes, not only S2 heroes, who have features that has "no room for creative combos" if you put it like that simena.

[Jeffbelittle]

There are many heroes, not only S2 heroes, who have features that has "no room for creative combos" if you put it like that simena.

I agree not everything needs a "creative combo", not every hero can be Flux, but his list wasn't bad at all.


Unique Range
Unique Projectiles
Channeling Powershots
Anti-focus fire
Cast on ally spells


Any reason we shouldn't see more Skill Shots?
Channelled abilities (I liked Artesia a LOT)
Team Buffs?

I feel like Auras are a thing of the past now lol.

[[LsE]Hsssh]

There are currently 3 heroes in the game that take the jungle and can be considered pushers that are melee:

And when you look at them, you'll notice characteristics.

Warbeast and Wildsoul are both Carries that focus on movement speed, pushing, and farming the jungle. They lack initiation properties.

Zephyr and Keeper both have carry potential, but both are known for initiation properties.

Zephyr has the most survivability of the 4 mentioned, pushes just as well (aside from not being able to backdoor), has initiation abilities, and has disables.

Warbeast doesn't have a disable. Keeper's ultimate is a disable that is easily dealt with.

And now we see why Warbeast and Keeper aren't picking often competitively; however, Zephyr is. Only 1 of the 3 melee get so many additional benefits.

Seriously dude, stick with abstract examples instead of giving direct examples. This is on same level of derp as Rhapsody and Revenant being nonpunishable for their bad plays.

While reading this thread i can't stop thinking that you got good idea but for all the wrong reasons.

[GregerMoek]

I was amazed too, when I read that.

[[GR]XFlame]

We can't let heroes that fill similar hero roles and descriptions be distinctively better at some things and NOT have drawbacks in other regions.


And I'm not saying there can't be a "group" of best initiators. I mean, there's nothing wrong with people going Magmus/Behemoth/Pharaoh/Hammerstorm as the sort of "go to" examples of great initiators. But you can't make it such a way that there isn't a reason to go Moraxus.


Heroes with great pros need great cons. It's how balance works, it's how a heroes direction works. Even magebane has the con of not having an actual disable and his damage being completely melee. There are in fact cons to picking mage bane which makes magebane a good HERO CONCEPT, so that it's only a matter of tweaking numbers to fix the hero.


A good hero concept is one that can be simply buffed or nerfed back into a competitive, possibly niche choice via number changes. Longer/shorter cooldowns, longer/shorter ranges, +50 - 50 damage on a spell.

The only bad part of Engineer's hero concept is his mines. Everything else circles around area denial which makes him a cool hero and there's a reason to pick him.

The only bad part of Balphagore is his numbers on certain abilities. It's a great concept that you have an anti-spell casting initiator like Balphagore. He wouldn't be considerably broken unless you completely bastard his ultimate.




We need more hero purpose. We need more trade offs. That's what makes a hero unique and not a "hey I'm going to pick such and such hero because he's fun and works in every damn line up without consequence"

This single piece of post speaks a whole lot of truth.

[foxmindedguy]

I had made a thread earlier about us as a community coming up with Guidelines and restrictions that the developers would use to balance all old and upcoming heroes.

Such an idea was immediately shut down by many renowned posters here because they feared having sanctions like those would discourage creativity in heroes. But really the fact of the matter is that IT WOULD ENCOURAGE creativity.

If developers were restricted to only have 1 disable / slow per hero. Or perhaps a blinker could not have a stun, then they would need to think outside the box for heroes, rather than giving every hero a different form of stun, slow and blink. Games would actually require team-work to win and well "all-rounder" heroes would not exist.

HON has reached a whole new level of power-creeping where crazy amounts of heroes are imbalanced and overshadowing a plethora of others. It is time for a major overhaul balance patch (AND I MEAN A REAL MAJOR BALANCE PATCH).

Where we should expect drastic changes to heroes like Kraken (take away his psuedo-blink), Amun RA (rework him completely), Valkyrie etc. We need more one-dimensional heroes, NOT KING OF ALL TRADES.

[GregerMoek]

Such strict design rules would be bad.

Only thing that matters is that the hero has defined strengths and weaknesses, features can be number-fixed, always.

[foxmindedguy]

Such strict design rules would be bad.

Only thing that matters is that the hero has defined strengths and weaknesses, features can be number-fixed, always.

Seeing as HON Developers do not want to indulge in rigorous trial and error testing, principles are mandatory to achieve true balance.

Really, it is almost impossible (taking in account human error capabilities) to not make a set of rules and balance about 100 heroes to be completely viable. None of whom are preferred over the other in their respective roles, everyone having roughly an equal probability to be picked.

Such perfection can only be achieved by abiding on guidelines. Sorry, but that is the harsh truth. Of course, as agreed, rigorous testing and tweaking is the other option, which no one in their right minds would agree to.

[GregerMoek]

It would take years to even set up a -good- pair of rules. I think we'd find ourself adjusting them instead of the actual balance heroes.

And seeing that current balance is far from super terrible, I don't think overhaul adjustments to newer heroes are impossible at all. Especially not now when some things has shifted around for a bit.

And I agree it would be impossible to balance if some of these changes were implemented to try and balance stuff.

I just wanted to get competitive player's insight on what they think about the following changelog, if it were ever to be incorporated in game.



Cthuluphant
- Obliterate damage per water wave adjusted from 80 / 140 / 200 to 80 / 160 / 240.



Plague Rider
- Plague Carrier no longer mini-stuns
- Plague Carrier bounces increased from 7 to 10 bounces
- Plague Carrier per bounce damage readjusted from 280 / 370 / 460 to 196 / 259 / 322

Pollywog Priest
- Morph stun duration readjusted from 1.25 / 2 / 2.75 / 3.50 to 0.8 / 1.6 / 2.4 / 3.2 seconds.
- Tongue Tied stun duration readjusted from 2.5 / 3.25 / 4.0 / 4.75 to 1.25 / 2.50 / 3.75 / 5.0 seconds.

Silhouette
- Death Lotus no longer passively deals damage.
- Tree Grapple stun duration fixed to 1.5 seconds for all levels instead of the scaling 1 / 1.5 / 2.0 / 2.5 seconds

Swiftblade
- Initial Swift Slash no longer mini-stuns


Witch Slayer
- Graveyard no longer unit targetable, just ground targetable
- Graveyard stun duration readjusted to 0.6 / 1.2 / 1.8 / 2.4 from 1 / 1.5 / 2 / 2.5
- Mini stun duration readjusted to 0.8 / 1.6 / 2.4 / 3.2 from 1.25 / 2 / 2.75 / 3.5