Balance Philosophy Discussion

[[STLI]Doomhammar]

Balancing, and how?

Balancing should be done from top to bottom, not the other way around. By this I mean that balancing should not be performed by buffing or reworking unused/bad heroes, but by reducing the power of "god tier" heroes. Following this philosophy it would be nice to see how much disable stacking would get nerfed. And less disables on ranged carry heroes.

[sharbarachu]

Enhancing older heroes to fit into the modern meta-game so there's less useless ones, while making new, cool looking, alt avatars for said heroes, would probably make money. Combine that with reducing new releases to once a month or so, and I think HoN would be doing better.

Other things might be premium purchases you can buy. Stuff like you automatically get thrown to the top of the queue list for faster games (you'd pay money for this premium).

Really, just anything to make it so S2 stops adding tons of new heroes to a game that's already plagued with balance issues (ie, half the hero pool consists of bad picks in almost any scenario).

[[f13]Demonwing]

Purpose of this forum is not to educate people but to try to have meaningful discussion about balance. If we start writing long and detailed explanation on why it might not be a good idea to buff Glacius or why "1+1=2 so rampage is op" is not a valid argument then we are going to drown in filler posts without achieving anything. I agree that sometimes some people say too much or too little but its not like anyone is being a jerk because he enjoys being a jerk.

If there were a Glacius thread, it would be expected that you fully articulate any reasoning that you used to reach your conclusion. Simpler problems naturally have simpler explanations and solutions. Also, I would say "Wow that's so dumb it doesn't even deserve a response" way more filler and nonconstructive than an actual explanation and just serve to cause hostility and conflict.

And you failed to explain why making everything public is a good thing asides of "i don't trust them". Should S2 also make all their inner forums public too? Because god knows they have people of different skill levels and some people with power in their hands are "questionable" to say the least.

S2 can do whatever they want. This is not about them. People on this forum, on the other hand, should not post conclusions unless they are willing to provide the reasoning and logic behind it. Otherwise, a bare conclusion given by a random player is worthless.

[[Mana]Farosarg]

I have seen far too many (In my opinion soundly false) statements backed up by nothing more than "if you don't understand the logic then you are just stupid" or "we (aka him/her and 1 or 2 friends) analyzed this (privately) and determined that we are right. No need to repeat it."

It isn't like MSI is coming in and giving balance conclusions here. If that were the case, sure I would give a little benefit of the doubt because of reputation. When it's just a bunch of public players of random skill levels, however, they had better make their logic very clear and lay their argument out thoroughly. I should hope this forum isn't just a venue for "elitists" to flame others. Every single reasonable debate I've seen has turned into the "elitists" telling the "commoners" that they are just bad and don't deserve a rebuttal and the "commoners" telling the "elitists" to go stuff it.

There is no point in having a thread at all if everyone is expected to defer to the "elitists" regardless. In that case, it can't really be called a discussion.

This is what I feel about the whole sub-forum as well. It is not always easy to find anything other than "This is how it's been going for me so that is what I think" but there should be more to it than that. I'm also not sure if "elitist" is the right term in this case but... Morelike the post needs to be more thorough for it to have useful value.

[[f13]`11411181]

I feel there are some things that are self-evident enough to not bother with explanation. A random example: Glacius' individual non-ultimate nuke damage numbers being relatively low (260 and 210 at level 4).
Is this worth spelling out? Not really.
Is anyone with any experience of the game really going to contest this? Not really.
I could spend 25min mathing out the nuke damage levels on everyone, getting a mean average and showing standard deviations, but realistically - I think I can expect people to let that slide in favour of making a bigger point.

[[f13]Demonwing]

I feel there are some things that are self-evident enough to not bother with explanation. A random example: Glacius' individual non-ultimate nuke damage numbers being relatively low (260 and 210 at level 4).
Is this worth spelling out? Not really.
Is anyone with any experience of the game really going to contest this? Not really.
I could spend 25min mathing out the nuke damage levels on everyone, getting a mean average and showing standard deviations, but realistically - I think I can expect people to let that slide in favour of making a bigger point.

It is fine to state simple statistics and objective game mechanics without citing game files and individual numbers (although you should be aware of where they are yourself). You are simply taking my statement to ridiculousness. You know there is a big difference between "Thunderbringer has high nuking power" and "Thunderbringer needs a rework". The first is simply statistical common knowledge. The second requires thorough and in-depth explanation and analysis. Something people on this forum general don't feel like doing.

[[LsE]Hsssh]

If there were a Glacius thread, it would be expected that you fully articulate any reasoning that you used to reach your conclusion.

So to "Buff glacius" one liner i should respond with 2 pages of analysis why he shouldn't be buffed?

Also, I would say "Wow that's so dumb it doesn't even deserve a response" way more filler and nonconstructive than an actual explanation and just serve to cause hostility and conflict.

I already said that i don't disagree that there should be less such flame baits in this forum. And filler is filler, it doesn't matter if its one line response or few paragraphs, in first case it might be even easier to skip it/takes less time to read.

You know there is a big difference between "Thunderbringer has high nuking power" and "Thunderbringer needs a rework".

Every old timer here shuns such "X needs a rework" posts, Ekamo even has it in forum rules that such things shouldn't be posted. I'm not sure against what you are arguing here.

[[f13]Demonwing]

So to "Buff glacius" one liner i should respond with 2 pages of analysis why he shouldn't be buffed?

No. One-liners do not deserve large rebuttals. Original, well-intentioned posts and thorough posts (no matter how much you disagree with them for whatever reason) deserve thorough responses (or a citation as to where your argument has been given before. Saying "this has already been discussed before" by itself is rather pointless).


Every old timer here shuns such "X needs a rework" posts, Ekamo even has it in forum rules that such things shouldn't be posted. I'm not sure against what you are arguing here.

Gemini thread.

Also, my last post was grammatically and structurally atrocious. I need some sleep :/

[Gdemami]

Out of all the heroes on the roster, about half almost never see competitive play. This has been the case for a long time, and I think it needs to be addressed.

You are mixing several thing up in your post and mistake Viability for Balance.

Just because heroes are not used does not necessarily make them imbalanced or weak, they as well just might be not viable - they do not offer traits that are desired by current play.


What needs to be done about balancing is to focus more on internal balance of the heroes and certain mechanics - many heroes lack drawbacks for their extraordinary traits they posses.

[[eR]Ekamo]

Also, my last post was grammatically and structurally atrocious. I need some sleep :/

If you are assuming that call for reworks is a staple part of this forum and that they should be allowed, you're wrong. If there is any confusion about this in the Balance Rules, suggestions on how to make that more clear would be very much appreciated.

If you have problem with how any separate thread is dealt with, I strongly suggest that you use the Report Button next to posts that violate the aforementioned rules. That directly brings the problematic post to a moderator's attention so it can be properly dealt with. This also benefits you since you then don't have to give a rebuttal to a poster that clearly does not respect or is aware of the rules of this sub-forum, but instead you can just ignore said poster after your report and move on to focus on responding to the posts with a higher standard of quality, and thus continue the more advanced discussion on this forum.

Honestly, I think we're sort of arguing the same thing here anyway, just with different approaches, and some misconceptions from both sides.

[[N1BR]Vomijaunatre]

I think you guys are so preoccupied by sounding smart, embodying grammatical and rhetorical perfection that you sometimes miss the point and argue about non-factors. And that's to be nice because nothing comes out of this section most of the time. It's endless bashing and nit-picking.
That section is infected with uselessness. Why not having synthesis of the debates ? What about deadlines ? What about multiple deadlines with definite goals ? Nothing comes out of here because it is just a series of undocumented opinions with no practical application. Threads never have have any kind of conclusion where you can actually read clear propositions. The logical consequence is that knowledge never grows. You just repeat yourself again and again in the hope of being heard.
If you just want a section where people "state their opinion" (and clearly nobody gives a damn most of the time), you might as well erase that section because it looks like the "champion feedback" section in LoL. If you want a section where actual problems get addressed with polished propositions, then it's time for some changes around here.
And quite frankly, this is too bad. There are some smart people around here. All that theorycrafting should be synthesized and assembled. You cannot dive into such a subject as balance without trying to build guidelines, goals, etc... and put it somewhere like a wiki, a FAQ or something else so that people can get a clue a of what they're doing.

So, to answer that :

Balancing, and how?

Well, method is the first step in the right direction. Then, maybe, you can start talking about "balance philosophy".

[[RCT]Reldnahc]

I think you guys are so preoccupied by sounding smart, embodying grammatical and rhetorical perfection that you sometimes miss the point and argue about non-factors. And that's to be nice because nothing comes out of this section most of the time. It's endless bashing and nit-picking.
That section is infected with uselessness. Why not having synthesis of the debates ? What about deadlines ? What about multiple deadlines with definite goals ? Nothing comes out of here because it is just a series of undocumented opinions with no practical application. Threads never have have any kind of conclusion where you can actually read clear propositions. The logical consequence is that knowledge never grows. You just repeat yourself again and again in the hope of being heard.
If you just want a section where people "state their opinion" (and clearly nobody gives a damn most of the time), you might as well erase that section because it looks like the "champion feedback" section in LoL. If you want a section where actual problems get addressed with polished propositions, then it's time for some changes around here.
And quite frankly, this is too bad. There are some smart people around here. All that theorycrafting should be synthesized and assembled. You cannot dive into such a subject as balance without trying to build guidelines, goals, etc... and put it somewhere like a wiki, a FAQ or something else so that people can get a clue a of what they're doing.

So, to answer that :



Well, method is the first step in the right direction. Then, maybe, you can start talking about "balance philosophy".

All we can do is analyze and discuss in hopes of getting heard. This forum is for discussing what potential issues regarding balance a hero may have. I don't understand the point of having goals and deadlines in such an open forum. I'm sure S2's SBT balancers and stuff get their own private forum where they handle things in such a manner, but this is more of the public discussion and isn't S2's main source of feedback regarding balance. The problem is that people aren't really discussing much in these threads.

[Gdemami]

Well, method is the first step in the right direction. Then, maybe, you can start talking about "balance philosophy".

In order to setup a method, you need a goal and conditions that needs to be met. That is often started with philosophy shaping those methods.


Forums is not about providing solutions but feedback. People provide opinions and moderators filter and pass the message from forum posters to developers.



I am not familiar with internal process of balancing but I would like to know more as it seems to me that some of your points have a merit there...

[PzKw]

I'll talk about that graph since Ekamo is calling me on it. I really didn't want to do it because I'm feeling lazy.

So the graph isn't far off. The main problem is that any graph like that doesn't have enough axis to accurately describe how the ability or hero interracts at different phases of the game, with different items, with different heroes and so on. The issue with an ability like Dissipate is that there are a couple of triggers to turn it from a very below par skill into a very above par skill that necessarily punishes sound and intuitive play. The graph doesn't go form the hypothetical 0 to 20 when the ability goes from 18-19%, but through a variety of factors its relative usefulness follows a parametric curve where it only sits in the "desirable" range for a very short time.

The first trigger is SW getting enough EHP to outlast the burst that the 2-3 heroes that the other team can afford to use to gank in their stunlock time. At this point, the investment of time and effort required to address a farming SW is disproportionate to the chance of success no matter how well co-ordinated you are. The only workaround for this is having extremely farmed scaling gankers which are then really unhealthy for the rest of the hero pool. Where SW differs to other carries in this respect is that by virtue of his ultimate, he can always be farming until absolute last safe moment, so the other team is forced to address the SW, and forcing the SW into teamfights by pressuring his team offers no real net gain for the other team.

The second trigger is when SW gets enough EHP relative to the other team that it becomes a net loss to hit him. This is the only real example of a skill that doesn't actually have any real counter that I actually buy into being very ordinary design. This is where the graph really kicks in, since the ability is only ever going to realistically be too weak or too strong. If it is too weak, then the damage is negligible to the outcome of the fight. If it is too strong, then the hero becomes virtually uncounterable with farm. The middle ground is a sliver, but it's so dependant on variables mentioned above that it would be different in every game. There are enough levers on the skill to actually avoid this, however they would all actually remake the concept of the skill completely. This is where you talk about an ability that is conceptually imbalanced and no matter what you do with it, it's never going to function in an intuitive matter.

Every other damage return spell in the game has reasonable and finite limitations. On the time that it's "up" for, on the damage sources it reflects, on the range it works over. All of these limitations give these abilities tactics that reasonably counter them, but how do you counter a flat percentage in a huge aoe that's always on, on a hero who is always with your team when he wants to be and will always buy an item that also deals damage to everyone near him if he's not attacked? The problem is that if you change any of those axis, you've essentially remade the ability or the hero anyway.

So concisely, the fundamental concept of an ability like dissipate isn't bad, it's just that all the characteristics the ability has in its execution mean that it can't be balanced in any conventional sense without actually remaking it somewhere along the line, either deliberately or incidently.

[[N1BR]Vomijaunatre]

In order to setup a method, you need a goal and conditions that needs to be met. That is often started with philosophy shaping those methods.


Forums is not about providing solutions but feedback. People provide opinions and moderators filter and pass the message from forum posters to developers.



I am not familiar with internal process of balancing but I would like to know more as it seems to me that some of your points have a merit there...

All of that seems good on paper though in facts, it's clearly not the case. Just read the patch notes. And that is because their is no general agreement. Furthermore, there is never several developped propositions to even chose from or get some insight. What's the interest of that section ? Clearly, when people wanna whine, they go in general discussion. So you would expect actual content coming out from here.
Forums are not only for feedback. I use a forum to coordinate a musical project and it works pretty well. The forum is about providing insight, debates, solutions and feedback. Here, I see none or it's hidden behind a forest of unecessary talking.

Also, think about it : if a moderator has propositions with detailed argumentations that several people have been polishing over a week or two (maybe more) and he gives that to the balance department (Dogkaiser ?), they'll be able to judge of their quality way easily.
There are so much people here spending litteraly hours arguing about what's right or not and nothing comes out. It's pointless. Some others have adopted a "i've reached sufficient knowledge to just drop a few words in each debate like I don't care because i know best" attitude (anakha if you read). I think having more productive and constructives debates would actually bring back a lot of people and maybe some new ones ready to contributes. Even if the propositions are not accepted by S2, at least, they are easy to read, easy to transfer and they actually have some subtance. It's not a full black and white picture leading, as always, to chaos.

So it seems to me that actually having a better organization, a method and some archives would actually be a good start for that thread to lead to a good balance philosophy. It's not that much work and it could have a great impact.

Ps : may I also say that the Mechanics and the Training ground sections have more than a feedback purpose ? They all provide good content (except some part of C&C). The solid organization they have helped a lot of theorycrafting and reserach. There is enough knowledge over there to improve one's gameplay. How come that section doesn't provide anything besides endless arguments made pointless after each patch note ?

Pps : sorry for the mistakes. My english is a little sloppy.

[[f13]`11411181]

Also, think about it : if a moderator has propositions with detailed argumentations that several people have been polishing over a week or two (maybe more) and he gives that to the balance department (Dogkaiser ?), they'll be able to judge of their quality way easily.
There are so much people here spending litteraly hours arguing about what's right or not and nothing comes out. It's pointless. Some others have adopted a "i've reached sufficient knowledge to just drop a few words in each debate like I don't care because i know best" attitude (anakha if you read)

If only you knew. Either way, you're sooking for changes yet the only people who consistently contribute are those everyone has a problem with. Salt and light, be the change you wish to see.

[[N1BR]Vomijaunatre]

If only you knew. Either way, you're sooking for changes yet the only people who consistently contribute are those everyone has a problem with. Salt and light, be the change you wish to see.

Well, this is exactly what i'm talking about. You probably read the whole thing so you should know i'm not giving out blames. It's more because I like reading your posts and seeing you don't even bother anymore always leaves me on a cliffhanger. So I'll ask : what do I don't know ?
On the same note, my point is that people who contributes like you or PzKw among others should have a place where the debates actually leads somewhere. I can understand desperation when you tried to elaborate on a subject and it's instantly burrowed under a pile of horse ****. I actually contributed a lot on another game. But really, there is no point to make any effort posting around here if it's just to waste kilobytes.

Either this post is the place were that sections moves forward or we might as well just end the subject now and just let it all loose. No point in discussing a balancing philosophy in a place that tends to clean itself up after each patch note without any archive to store valuable arguments. There is no knowledge growth.

[LordTroll]

On the same note, my point is that people who contributes like you or PzKw among others should have a place where the debates actually leads somewhere.

He already does. In theory, at least.

[[f13]`11411181]

The reason that was underlined is because that already happens, and has been happening for a good while now. There's just no point advertising it because nobody at s2 needs more mindless drones sucking up.

[[LsE]Hsssh]

But really, there is no point to make any effort posting around here if it's just to waste kilobytes.

This place is read by certain people who forward good analysis/ideas towards S2. So its not a waste, unless you want instant gratification.

I understand that you'd want something more formal and Ekamo is certainly trying to move towards that with his active moderation of this forum. Problem is that there are lots of people who don't care, they lost to something and want it nerfed so they post here. Ekamo deletes their posts then they post again their ****, then someone calls them out for posting **** and they start arguing about their posts being not **** and others being elitist jerks. As a result we have threads that go nowhere. In other words people who post in this sub forum have to level up a bit more before something like what you describe could be actually done in public forum. Otherwise we'd just have bunch of people a) flaming s2 b) posting **** c) sucking it up to S2 d) few posters actually posting something of quality.