Jump to content

Remove power rune at the 2 minute mark


Recommended Posts

Simply what the title says, i think the very first rune brings too much randomness to the game, that early on even if you know what rune the opponent gets it's simply too imactful. And you can't do anything to prevent it, imagine:

opponent in mid guesses rune at min 2, and gets a:
DD,  now lane is over, either u cannot lane at all because of the kill threat or he will deny every creeps two waves in a row.

Haste, an overleveled hero can now get almost guaranteed kills in a sidelane with no way to respond to it. Or a lot of heroes can pose such a kill threat in the midlane with it that it just wins you the lane just because you opponent has to play passive until you use it.

Illusion, simlpy spams you out of the lane with his spells, if not, u can hold it til minute 4 and send 1 illu to each rune, which forces your opponent to guess if he wants a rune, or if you're to slow u don't get any rune at min 4, which is frustrating. can be used for stacking if the hero farms stacks well. but this is by far the least impactful rune though

Regeneration, oh you used your recourses to try and fource your opponent out of lane, he guesses on the 2 minute rune and gets 100% health and mana? too bad. 

Lastly, the invis rune is not quite as powerful for the midlaner, other than running back mid with it and getting a close up combo off with pebbles or something like that, which can be devastating but usually isn't.  The invis rune is unfair for other reasons, the jungler or a possibly a support that walked to the rune could be given invis, which now poses a threat in both lanes. 

 

Of course there should be some randomness in HoN, this one however is far too impactful. This decides games, based on a diceroll. 
Some of you might say that "well, the rune can be picked up by either team, and both teams have the same amount of heroes to contest the runes with"

Yeah that's my point. Let's assume both teams have a jungler, and they both go for the rune and one of them happens to get a haste. a lot of the time this just results in a kill on the opponents mid or longlane. And how is that fair? both junglers did the exact same thing, and one gets a bottle refill and the other gets that and a random kill.

Don't get me wrong, the rune isn't always that impactful, but in those instances that it really is that impactful, it all happened because of a diceroll.

"But why not disable runes altogether if it's so unfair"

i believe the 2 minute rune is usually the only one that you cannot react to ( from a midlaners perspective), you can't push out the lane that early on qus you're so low level. You can't play passive in the jungle, qus you can't farm there without levels. You're forced to hug your tower unil you know what rune it was, and then until it has run out. that puts you so far behind too early on, in my opinion that random diceroll decides to much about the outcome of the game. 

Just make two merrick's rune spawn pls

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snark said:

Simply what the title says, i think the very first rune brings too much randomness to the game, that early on even if you know what rune the opponent gets it's simply too imactful. And you can't do anything to prevent it, imagine:

opponent in mid guesses rune at min 2, and gets a:
DD,  now lane is over, either u cannot lane at all because of the kill threat or he will deny every creeps two waves in a row.

Haste, an overleveled hero can now get almost guaranteed kills in a sidelane with no way to respond to it. Or a lot of heroes can pose such a kill threat in the midlane with it that it just wins you the lane just because you opponent has to play passive until you use it.

Illusion, simlpy spams you out of the lane with his spells, if not, u can hold it til minute 4 and send 1 illu to each rune, which forces your opponent to guess if he wants a rune, or if you're to slow u don't get any rune at min 4, which is frustrating. can be used for stacking if the hero farms stacks well. but this is by far the least impactful rune though

Regeneration, oh you used your recourses to try and fource your opponent out of lane, he guesses on the 2 minute rune and gets 100% health and mana? too bad. 

Lastly, the invis rune is not quite as powerful for the midlaner, other than running back mid with it and getting a close up combo off with pebbles or something like that, which can be devastating but usually isn't.  The invis rune is unfair for other reasons, the jungler or a possibly a support that walked to the rune could be given invis, which now poses a threat in both lanes. 

 

Of course there should be some randomness in HoN, this one however is far too impactful. This decides games, based on a diceroll. 
Some of you might say that "well, the rune can be picked up by either team, and both teams have the same amount of heroes to contest the runes with"

Yeah that's my point. Let's assume both teams have a jungler, and they both go for the rune and one of them happens to get a haste. a lot of the time this just results in a kill on the opponents mid or longlane. And how is that fair? both junglers did the exact same thing, and one gets a bottle refill and the other gets that and a random kill.

Don't get me wrong, the rune isn't always that impactful, but in those instances that it really is that impactful, it all happened because of a diceroll.

"But why not disable runes altogether if it's so unfair"

i believe the 2 minute rune is usually the only one that you cannot react to ( from a midlaners perspective), you can't push out the lane that early on qus you're so low level. You can't play passive in the jungle, qus you can't farm there without levels. You're forced to hug your tower unil you know what rune it was, and then until it has run out. that puts you so far behind too early on, in my opinion that random diceroll decides to much about the outcome of the game. 

Just make two merrick's rune spawn pls

I'm curious to see some strong arguments in support of the current power rune spawn at 2min. I really can't think of other arguments besides making the matchup/gameplay more random and to shake things up. However, this can be a good thing in one-sided matchups though e.g. camping rune as Pebbles when you're against Arach in hopes of getting Haste/DD to turn the lane around. The question is whether this is a strong enough of a justifition.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a Solstice, I look at the timer and the timer reaches 1:53, it's time to stack the camps and head for the river rune. I head towards the rune, the timer rings 2:00 and the rune spawns. What do I see in-front of me? Haste. In that moment I have a few important things that I look at - Short lane state (Is it pushed? Is it an enemy duo-lane? What is the HP of the enemy hero/es on the lane? Are the allies in the lane able to provide assistance in case I do arrive?), Mid lane state (Is it pushed? Is the enemy midlaner being overly aggressive? What is the HP of the enemy mid hero? Is the ally midlaner able to provide assistance in case I do arrive?). These are a lot of calculations that I have to do in a very brief moment before picking the rune, as every second that I waste is a potential missed stack. I look at mid-lane, I see the lane is pushed towards the enemy side. I look at short lane, it is in fact a duo-lane, and it is pushed towards the ally side; however, the allies are in low HP, and the enemies are at a high HP percentage, a gank at such time, even with a haste, might not be successful and potentially end in a disaster. I take the haste rune to deny it from the enemy, and head back to farm.

 

In most cases, the rune is useless. Most of the times the rune is used as a way to punish an overly aggressive opponent, or an opponent that has made a few too many mistakes in the early laning phase. I personally don't see a reason to remove the rune spawn at 2:00, as I don't feel its unfair, and I see a reason and justification for its existence in the game.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lunarios said:

In most cases, the rune is useless. 

yes that is precisely my point, so why keep it around for those few scenarios where it literally decides games?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Simply what the title says, i think the very first rune brings too much randomness to the game, that early on even if you know what rune the opponent gets it's simply too imactful. And you can't do anything to prevent it, imagine:

Double Damage at 2 minutes is really annoying to play against,  Same with regen to be honest.

Edited by RitchUK
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, GiveUpBra said:

Really? runes make the game a lot more dynamic and less boring, and yes a 2 min gank by your jungler with rune can be very impactfull.

I've thought about this for a while and I feel these rune dynamics tend to most help weak players and do the most to harm skilled players. Say a low Diamond mid goes up against a Legendary with a relatively equal hero match up - the Legendary will more likely have better lane control and harass ability, and is favored to win the lane. The Diamond hedges his bet on the rune and manages to get an Illu/DD rune, which allows him to turn the lane around. If the reverse scenario were to happen - the Legendary ends up getting the power rune since he times the creep push before 2min - then it simply solidifes his dominance over the lane, which relatively isn't as big of a gain since he was already dominating. I'm curious whether people feel these "upsets" are a good or bad thing, which would further point the needed direction for power runes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you admit that the rune plays very significant, although random role, then why not communicate with your teammates and ask them to sit the rune? 

Instead you ask for the removal of it?

Edited by ScrubFactory
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ScrubFactory said:

If you admit that the rune plays very significant, although random role, then why not communicate with your teammates and ask them to sit the rune? 

Instead you ask for the removal of it?

 
It's the same reason why a lot of these players are distraught if someone stays at their lane for more than 1 minute after a kill or generally your silver-gold esque salomon player who doesn't leave jungle for the first 10 min even when there is a kill to be made just by him.

They want their clean, simple laning phase devoid of many problems or hasstles so they don't need to blame themselves or get blamed for "losing mid" or not getting enough exp or not getting their runed cleaver or what ever at the end of that phase. 


But despite being a filthy casual myself at this point I like this game for (whats left of) its hardcore mechanics and dilluting them just pushes me further and further away to other more casual mobas with larger populations and more events and shorter waiting times. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ondis said:

 
It's the same reason why a lot of these players are distraught if someone stays at their lane for more than 1 minute after a kill or generally your silver-gold esque salomon player who doesn't leave jungle for the first 10 min even when there is a kill to be made just by him.

They want their clean, simple laning phase devoid of many problems or hasstles so they don't need to blame themselves or get blamed for "losing mid" or not getting enough exp or not getting their runed cleaver or what ever at the end of that phase. 


But despite being a filthy casual myself at this point I like this game for (whats left of) its hardcore mechanics and dilluting them just pushes me further and further away to other more casual mobas with larger populations and more events and shorter waiting times. 

 

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on what makes the 2min power rune (or even a 0min power rune) "hardcore" for the game. I pointed out in an earlier post that the power rune holds more benefit for less-skilled mid players counting on their luck to get them through a matchup/lane where they're not skilled enough to win e.g. a gold player losing mid v.s. Testie but then lucking into a DD rune enabling him to claw his way back to 4min bottle + boots. Essentially, the power rune is more likely to reward poor play than skilled play (if you're dominating the lane to begin with due to skilled lane control and harassment, getting a DD/regen doesn't really add that much) - this feels like the opposite of hardcore mechanics.

Edited by AgentZer0
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardcore =/= Skill:

Hardcore mechanics for me are complex mechanics that enable a vast array of tools to be used. 

Essentially my view on hardcore is increase complexity without adding additonal hand-holding. (This can be interface improvements which can sometimes be good, all hardcore is not good hardcore even for me. But it can also be incentives that effectively penalize other strategies to shove the one developers want you to use, down your throat which Heroes of the Storm does). 


There are very simple games, casual, that require huge amounts of skill, Tetris forexample is as casual as it gets (easy to pick up, learn and even understand)  but very hard to master. 
A hardcore version of it would be like Nyet 3. 


There are also hardcore games that are relatively easy. I'd say to a degree many of Paradoxes new grand strategy games fall in that category due to their terrible AI and relatively simple min-maxing mechanics that you can exploit while ignoring the more complex aspects of them. In Hearts of Iron 2 that would often be ignoring anti-tank guns and especially self-propelled ones as they simply didn't justify their costs (in R/D and production) while the AI would build them anyway which is why future iterarations of the game added AT value to Artillery instead when researching it. 

A final examples would be normal chess which is more casual than say 960 chess.

So...The rune adds complexity, a 0min rune would *require* communication and strategizing early on and a lot more possibilities would open up the meta. Same with the old Kong that you could kill at level 1. It's a meme-strategy that rarely (but sometimes) worked on high levels or in tournaments but it's still a hardcore element. New kong is casual though his stone-throwing ability is somewhat more hardcore in of itself. 

Now a very mechanically skilled player like you said could beat a less skilled on at the process of last hitting. But last hitting, if we removed all other interactions in the game, is a very casual mechanic. 

Hope that explains it. And I'm not saying that my definition of hardcore is right, but at least that's the type of "hardcore" I enjoy and think of when I think of HoN. 
 

Edited by Ondis
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ondis said:

Hardcore =/= Skill:

Hardcore mechanics for me are complex mechanics that enable a vast array of tools to be used. 

Essentially my view on hardcore is increase complexity without adding additonal hand-holding. (This can be interface improvements which can sometimes be good, all hardcore is not good hardcore even for me. But it can also be incentives that effectively penalize other strategies to shove the one developers want you to use, down your throat which Heroes of the Storm does). 


There are very simple games, casual, that require huge amounts of skill, Tetris forexample is as casual as it gets (easy to pick up, learn and even understand)  but very hard to master. 
A hardcore version of it would be like Nyet 3. 


There are also hardcore games that are relatively easy. I'd say to a degree many of Paradoxes new grand strategy games fall in that category due to their terrible AI and relatively simple min-maxing mechanics that you can exploit while ignoring the more complex aspects of them. In Hearts of Iron 2 that would often be ignoring anti-tank guns and especially self-propelled ones as they simply didn't justify their costs (in R/D and production) while the AI would build them anyway which is why future iterarations of the game added AT value to Artillery instead when researching it. 

A final examples would be normal chess which is more casual than say 960 chess.

So...The rune adds complexity, a 0min rune would *require* communication and strategizing early on and a lot more possibilities would open up the meta. Same with the old Kong that you could kill at level 1. It's a meme-strategy that rarely (but sometimes) worked on high levels or in tournaments but it's still a hardcore element. New kong is casual though his stone-throwing ability is somewhat more hardcore in of itself. 

Now a very mechanically skilled player like you said could beat a less skilled on at the process of last hitting. But last hitting, if we removed all other interactions in the game, is a very casual mechanic. 

Hope that explains it. And I'm not saying that my definition of hardcore is right, but at least that's the type of "hardcore" I enjoy and think of when I think of HoN. 
 

This is a fair answer, and I do agree there's been an increasing shift towards removing complexity for arguably improved quality of life changes e.g. buffing hatchet/addition of zamos/removal of mana battery resulting in more limited starting item pools (i miss the days when 2x +3 stat items, 2x totems, 2x regen builds were commonplace, which were also much more amenable to interesting variations). And certainly increasing the number of ways a game can be played imo is generally good. I've been somewhat on the fence throughout this thread but I feel convinced now I wouldn't want the 2min power rune removed. It compels team movement/dynamics in the early phase of the game, pressures junglers to get off their asses earlier on, and motivates teamplay by having early runes camped or at least warded. 

Edited by AgentZer0
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, sadly change after change has been decreasing that hardcore element.  I wish it had been balanced by new hardcore elements but those steps would have perhaps been too bold for the developers. Like I've now and then tried to suggest that upgradable creep should be a thing.That they should get new abilities or towers that should get new abilities. I'm not even sure about the ideas myself. I would just like to see something, anything to balance these changes that have been creeping up since forever. 

Also used to love those items. As you said it gave more directions to move in, it gave you options depending on how the game developed. 


But it's just clearly going in one direction. There just isn't any other game I know to migrate to.

Edited by ElementUser
Removed political reference
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to step in here to clarify a few things:

 

First of all @Ondis: you're a player with exceptionally controversial viewpoints. For example, you *like* broken and controversial concepts/designs in HoN - you liked old Nitro when he was causing frustration for both teams. A hero that only functions well in the hands of a skilled player is not indicative that of a healthy hero design. You have to understand that there are things called heuristics (guidelines, or rules of thumbs) that keep HoN in check - they can definitely be bent to a certain extent, but if you break those heuristics, the game would be broken.

 

Second: you have every right to have the opinions you do. However, I would like to say that pretty much every player I have been talking to and hearing from publically (minus the oddball haters because of petty vendettas or because they got banned for completely legitimate reasons) agree that the game has been in the best state it has ever been since HoN 4.0 happened (with the immense power creep, that I have had to slowly undo over the years).

 

Third - I can debate and justify everything with rationales, but at the end of the day, that typically won't sway a player's viewpoint, nor will it accomplish anything constructive. I have refrained from getting into extensive debates over these years and have decided to go with my own choices on the direction of the game, and adjust it accordingly depending on feedback received from players of all skill levels. I will tell you that most players are actually happy with the general direction and state of the game, and that I have been the most receptive balance lead. I get changes done at the speed I want them to go into the game (which, generally speaking, is pretty quick), and things actually get done (at least, on the balance/design level). There have been complaints where certain previous balance leads were iron walls and nothing was being done/the cries of competitive players and regular players alike were being ignored, or that the kits of new heroes were too overloaded (the classic lineage of "S2 heroes").

 

As far as development resources go - although we would love to explore new mechanics/options, we are not in a position where we can do this at this time.

 

====

 

In regards to the original post: there are no plans to remove the "real" runes in Forests of Caldavar. Please don't refer to them as "Power Runes" - the name of the rune that Zorgath drops in Mid Wars is actually named "Power Rune".

 

Finally: no political references in forum posts please - especially when you try to compare HoN to it & enforce your own views on politics. These forums are not the place for that, and that was the one thing that was unacceptable to write in your forum post. I have removed that from your post.

Edited by ElementUser
Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly: Just because you've undone the power creep doesn't mean that people agree with these aspects the fundamental changes you're making. Your revisions that people generally support mask the changes they generally disagree with. Have you see anyone agree with this change for example? 
 

Some changes that have not received universal acclaim as you misrepresent your record: from kong, to the constant rebalancing of and change to heroes that keeps happening in an endless circle to the restructuring of the jungle to now the items that had multiple uses and added complexity and variety and especially and most importantly an ability to diverge and adapt. 

Certain other points people may not fully understand what is going missing, such as the deep impact of player behaviour that the Orb of Zamos has, which to his full credit AgentZero mentioned here in relation to the impact which the Power Supply change has without me mentioning it first. Or in other words the limitation of variation and stifling of choice. I.e. increasing the rigidity of the game.

But many may not understand it. I am confident you were not fully cognizant of its effects before I mentioned them. 


Secondly I'm very familiar with heurestics and while you may be applying them I critique and dismantle them. If you bring them up then you should also know the deep critique that exists against them and the discussions in academia about them stiffling creativity. But of course this change has nothing to do with heuristics. If anything you're breaking with them. You're breaking with the traditions of the game and instituting more and more changes to items that require specific item combinations that lead nowhere else than to that particular item. 

Nobody asked for the change, nobody made a complaint about the Power Supply being problematic, abusive, used too much, giving a huge stat boost, etc.  There's no thread in the balancing forums about the "Mana Battery" or "Power Supply", and there wasn't back when it was 2 totems either. Yet you probably crunched some numbers and figured it was too much for what it was giving you. 



___________


Overall I'd say that you have a good grasp on balance but have no or little vision of this game and where it's heading, evident in your proclamation and then rescinding of the notion that the game will be in "maintaince" mode, which overall never happened cause constant revisions of heroes kept happening even then. 


Your lack of vision shows in your bland character designs that have to go through several iterations before a final version is decided upon through sheer force of communty dismay. 

People have generally been critical of the path of MoA,Tremble, DR, Adrenaline, Shadowblade and many others that were changed into casual or nerfed versions, or should I say "less frustrating" versions of themselves. I don't know about the collective opinion of Nitro, I didn't notice too many people breathing sighs of relief in the public forum sections. But I admit, Nitro was a pet-peeve of mine. All these others aren't. 

 

I have less than 10 games on DR over 10 years. But I can understand why people hated what you did to him.

It took you months to get Adrenaline to a playable state because you were afraid of making him frustrating.

Shadowblade was ruined for half a year.

Tremble is a casual mess of himself. 

MoA is half the man he used to be. Literally, he has half the skills. 

Also what's the point of items like the Über Hatchet or the Orb of Zamos if they are more or less obligatory, just to induce the sense of inevitable loss when you ultimately have to sell them to make room for a slot? If an item is obligatory, or so overpowered that it's almost always necessary then you might as well remove the item and incorporate it to the heroes.  

Add a bonus to every heroe when it comes to their creep damage.
Add a laning bonus to every hero. I mean that's the next step. That's the actual synthesis to again open up the early meta of being able to buy any item other than a hatchet on a carry or an orb on a support. 


My general principle is one of "make people love to play a few heroes that suit them perfectly rather than make everyone like the majority of heroes". 
Yours is the opposite, we won't agree on that.  

I could put your strategy in a better light "Make everyone feel at home with and enjoy playing or facing most of the heroes in the game and make that experience simple and rewarding enough that you don't have to make tough choices while (or how) you're playing the game". 

You're turning a hardcore game into a casual game and you've been doing it for 5 years as a team even before you became the lead. 
For good and bad. Some people like it some don't.  But because you refuse to admit this to yourself you get into these kind of issues. 

Set out a vision document and move towards it instead.  Preferably publicly, so you can actually get the publics opinions on it, rather than creep it like a frog slowly being boiled, hopefully that analogy is not too political. 


Edit: To be fair, I think the lack of vision can be an issue of the pressure you're under, the small crew working on the game, the complicated corporate structure and so on. So your incrimental changes are safer bets. So it can be excused because you can't afford a vision but it doesn't mean that the problems aren't there. 

Edited by Ondis
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Some changes that have not received universal acclaim as you misrepresent your record: from kong, to the constant rebalancing of and change to heroes that keeps happening in an endless circle to the restructuring of the jungle to now the items that had multiple uses and added complexity and variety and especially and most importantly an ability to diverge and adapt. 

Certain other points people may not fully understand what is going missing, such as the deep impact of player behaviour that the Orb of Zamos has, which to his full credit AgentZero mentioned here in relation to the impact which the Power Supply change has without me mentioning it first. Or in other words the limitation of variation and stifling of choice. I.e. increasing the rigidity of the game.

But many may not understand it. I am confident you were not fully cognizant of its effects before I mentioned them. 

Secondly I'm very familiar with heurestics and while you may be applying them I critique and dismantle them. If you bring them up then you should also know the deep critique that exists against them and the discussions in academia about them stiffling creativity. But of course this change has nothing to do with heuristics. If anything you're breaking with them. You're breaking with the traditions of the game and instituting more and more changes to items that require specific item combinations that lead nowhere else than to that particular item. 

Nobody asked for the change, nobody made a complaint about the Power Supply being problematic, abusive, used too much, giving a huge stat boost, etc.  There's no thread in the balancing forums about the "Mana Battery" or "Power Supply", and there wasn't back when it was 2 totems either. Yet you probably crunched some numbers and figured it was too much for what it was giving you. 
 

Many of these things existed prior to 2019 (which is when I had final say on every balance/design change). To imply that I caused this is simply a 100% false statement. This includes: the 2x Kongor, the introduction of Orb of Zamos, and the 300 Gold variation of Power Supply. So don't put out some statements as fact when you don't know what's going on - that has generally been my primary issue with you the entire time.

For the record, I have been making changes to mitigate the extremities of these items as you can see - the correct state for these items will be found in the next patch.

For the 2x Kongor point: if I had changed the map back at the time I had the opportunity and power to do so, by that point many players like the new map already and don't want to go back to the old one. There was a realistic chance that changing back to the old map in the International NAEU client would have killed the game - so for obvious reasons, I am not doing that. Would you? Actually consider what you would do, please.

 

Quote

Overall I'd say that you have a good grasp on balance but have no or little vision of this game and where it's heading, evident in your proclamation and then rescinding of the notion that the game will be in "maintaince" mode, which overall never happened cause constant revisions of heroes kept happening even then. 

Your lack of vision shows in your bland character designs that have to go through several iterations before a final version is decided upon through sheer force of communty dismay. 

Your opinion.

What is "good vision"? The definition from you is certainly different from mine. We'll agree to disagree there - just because you don't see things happening the way you want doesn't mean that no/bad/little vision is there.

 

Quote

People have generally been critical of the path of MoA,Tremble, DR, Adrenaline, Shadowblade and many others that were changed into casual or nerfed versions, or should I say "less frustrating" versions of themselves. I don't know about the collective opinion of Nitro, I didn't notice too many people breathing sighs of relief in the public forum sections. But I admit, Nitro was a pet-peeve of mine. All these others aren't. 

 

I have less than 10 games on DR over 10 years. But I can understand why people hated what you did to him.

It took you months to get Adrenaline to a playable state because you were afraid of making him frustrating.

Shadowblade was ruined for half a year.

Tremble is a casual mess of himself. 

MoA is half the man he used to be. Literally, he has half the skills. 

Doctor Repulsor: go ask Normal Mode High TMM SEA players and @Sorais on why DR is so strong in SEA. Then, go talk to NAEU Doctor Repulsor players - they'll say he's fine after he had a reasonably okay laning phase with the E attack reset mechanic change. If you're talking about the limitations of R - it's arguable that the R shouldn't have even been introduced into Dota2 or ported from HoN in the first place. Of course we have to put in some limitations there. In general, I can't address both regions at once, so I picked what I thought was best - and even though some SEA players still think DR is OP, I'm of the opinion that the hero is finally in a state where most NAEU players are fine with him and that most SEA players are silent about him (with the exception of Sorais).

 

Adrenaline: you know reworks take a lot of time, thought and implementation right? Not even going to bother here - it seems like you think a development cycle of a new hero only takes 2-3 months. It takes about half a year to do a proper one with all the art changes accounted for, and the entire process of conceptualization, scripting implementation and then QA. You also know that each patch is 2 months right? Of course it would take months to change if something is released in retail right now. 

 

Shadowblade: that's a fair point, however he will be fixed next patch. I needed to get him to an iteration that doesn't bias Strength mode and give his Int form some kind of use. The nuances of the mechanics were implemented suboptimally - but the general idea is fine.

 

Tremble: this is yet another one of those changes prior to 2019 that was just handed over to me (Shudder not being controllable). It is worth noting that Tremble has never really had an iteration where everyone seemed to be happy about - so once again you're wrong here. One thing we can agree on is that Tremble has pickability issues and that he isn't in a good state though, but he still performs his role well conceptually. It's just the implementation that can be fine-tuned, if anything.

 

Master of Arms: again, a holdover from the great power creep of 4.0. The hero just blatantly became overpowered during that time, and when his massive Attack Speed was gated behind a normal skill that MoA can obtain at level 7 (lol). Like, of course things will go wrong if the hero's peak DPS can be reached at level 7. Come on.

 

Quote

Also what's the point of items like the Über Hatchet or the Orb of Zamos if they are more or less obligatory, just to induce the sense of inevitable loss when you ultimately have to sell them to make room for a slot? If an item is obligatory, or so overpowered that it's almost always necessary then you might as well remove the item and incorporate it to the heroes.  

Add a bonus to every heroe when it comes to their creep damage.
Add a laning bonus to every hero. I mean that's the next step. That's the actual synthesis to again open up the early meta of being able to buy any item other than a hatchet on a carry or an orb on a support. 

My general principle is one of "make people love to play a few heroes that suit them perfectly rather than make everyone like the majority of heroes". 
Yours is the opposite, we won't agree on that.  

First of all, Logger's Hatchet and Orb of Zamos have been made less compulsory to get early on. Hatchet gives less bonus damage than before, and it is still suboptimal for laning performance if you go Zamos first, because getting more regen allows you a higher chance to win the lane - you can always pick up Orb of Zamos a little later in exchange for this performance gain.

Now you're being a hypocrite in your philosophy. Earlier, you had said that:

Quote

Some changes that have not received universal acclaim as you misrepresent your record: from kong, to the constant rebalancing of and change to heroes that keeps happening in an endless circle to the restructuring of the jungle to now the items that had multiple uses and added complexity and variety and especially and most importantly an ability to diverge and adapt. 

Certain other points people may not fully understand what is going missing, such as the deep impact of player behaviour that the Orb of Zamos has, which to his full credit AgentZero mentioned here in relation to the impact which the Power Supply change has without me mentioning it first. Or in other words the limitation of variation and stifling of choice. I.e. increasing the rigidity of the game.

You realize your changes introduce rigid roles in heroes or just makes them OP in other laning positions, right? Let's say I gave every hero I thought were pickable for the solo suicide/offlane lane (throwing out a few hero names here: Bubbles, Grinex, Wretched Hag, Cthulhuphant, Lodestone, etc.) some "laning bonuses" as you said. What if they went mid or dual-laned in their safe lane? Don't you think those heroes would have their performance skewed in those other lanes too? HoN is a game where it's incredibly difficult to just give too many heroes free tools without considering their other laning options. Your post just seems to conveniently ignore that........by introducing something rigid (your "free" bonuses), you remove some of the organic nature of the hero where their lane choices are indirectly determined, rather than forced upon them by a designer.

There is also the notion where you can't take an adjective or general concept ("rigidity of the game") and then just apply it however you want. You're being hypocritical here with the end results of your suggestions. Even if what you said is not what you actually meant, what you stated here as examples does have negative consequences for the game in the long term. Seriously, if I wanted hero X, Y, Z, A, B, C, etc. to all be amazing suicides, don't you think I would have thought of hero-specific bonuses a while ago? Oh, that's because I did - and I ruled it out because of my main points in this section.

 

Quote

You're turning a hardcore game into a casual game and you've been doing it for 5 years as a team even before you became the lead. 
For good and bad. Some people like it some don't.  But because you refuse to admit this to yourself you get into these kind of issues. 

Set out a vision document and move towards it instead.  Preferably publicly, so you can actually get the publics opinions on it, rather than creep it like a frog slowly being boiled, hopefully that analogy is not too political. 


Edit: To be fair, I think the lack of vision can be an issue of the pressure you're under, the small crew working on the game, the complicated corporate structure and so on. So your incrimental changes are safer bets. So it can be excused because you can't afford a vision but it doesn't mean that the problems aren't there. 

I have had next to no say in balance prior to 2017. And even after I have a say, I couldn't have changed some things in the past. In fact, nobody can change the past - so let's move on from that point.

I talk with different players, and you can see some of the changes in the large patches if you actually read the text descriptions for the bigger changes. I don't need to write up a "vision document" like you said - that is something a little too presumptious on your part. 

At least we can agree on the first part of your "Edit" line though.

 

______________________________________________________________________________

 

I am closing the thread now, because a good portion of your statements are actually false statements and serve to spread misinformation. You can provide critique, but no solutions. It's easy to critique, but do you think you can do better than me? Do you genuinely think that if you're in charge of HoN's balance/design and that after your changes are pushed through that it'll be for the greater good? All while accounting for how HoN currently is? If you genuinely do, then write up a series of posts in the Balance Discussion forum - keep in mind your controversial mentality serves as a great barrier for this. Right now I see all talk and no solutions from you @Ondis - if you want to get things done & changes made that you want to see, you have to do the work.

Also - please do not spread misinformation. Get your facts right before you even do any of this - because you're objectively wrong on many points that I have called you out on.

Finally, regarding the thread overall: I will reiterate that the changes to runes proposed in the original post will not be considered at this time. Thank you.

Edited by ElementUser
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...