Jump to content

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, ElementUser said:

Just wanted to clarify a few points regarding long-term design decisions:

 

For the first 2/3 of HoN's lifetime (shortly after the official release of the game), the meta has always been 1-1-2-jungle and it led to repetitive games. Around 2016/2017, Orb of Zamos was conceived to replace Merrick's Bounty to shift the meta to 2-1-2 (even if it was slightly ). It did work, it just took a few years for NAEU to shift their mindset & meta.

 

For long-term, we want the viability of each option to be more or less comparable in terms of tradeoffs. I can tell you that for the next patch (4.8.4), there will be small nerfs to Orb of Zamos & Grave Locket so that jungling/suicide lanes become more viable options. In 2 patches from now (hopefully - no promises), we will have a small map update that favour jungle & suicide lanes even more slightly, to the point where the power discrepancy between the different laning setups is lessened (but still has unique tradeoffs).

Thanks for the information.

36 minutes ago, ElementUser said:

We understand the possible points of frustrations for playing on a team with a jungler & a suicide lane, but forcing the removal of early jungling's viability would ruin a big part of HoN's identity. HoN is a team game & it's up to the team to organize themselves properly before the game starts. Even if jungling was removed early on, imagine starting jungling at 3 or 5 - you're gimping your lane partner if they're going up 1v2 against heroes of the same level later on. In a way, doing this would make the situation even worse.

If you anticipate, that nerfing Zamos+Grave and buffing the map for jungle will lead to frustration, why do you implement it at all? One could get to the impression this change is intented to frustrate the players.

HoN is a team game for sure. What a pity a lot players actually don't give a flip about their team. So as good as the intentions with that change are, encouraging the aspect of the game which contains killing computer controlled units as efficiently as possible, can hardly be considered an improvement of the team aspect of the game.

Actually since so many players are giving so few thoughts about their team a tilt towards jungle could probably not end up leading to the intented effects.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting rid of jungle is foolish, HoN's been built around it and heroes have been balanced around it. Certain heroes are good at certain things, good at adapting to certain situations. The existence of jungle and junglers creates another dynamic to 3 lanes, allowing some hero designs to work or even have any value. Otherwise you will see the same optimal heroes every game because the game's laning phase will have been flatten.

It's a 10 people game, don't expect to be able to completely remove frustration created by other players.

Also, arguing that jungle is inherently bad because "it's just killing computer controlled units" is wrong, matter of fact, it's a part of the game that made it good. Just take a look at HotS, or Battlerite (lol).

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rezziedahl said:

Getting rid of jungle is foolish, HoN's been built around it and heroes have been balanced around it. Certain heroes are good at certain things, good at adapting to certain situations. The existence of jungle and junglers creates another dynamic to 3 lanes, allowing some hero designs to work or even have any value. Otherwise you will see the same optimal heroes every game because the game's laning phase will have been flatten.

The discussion here has recently shifted towards nerfing the jungle, not removing it.

9 minutes ago, rezziedahl said:

It's a 10 people game, don't expect to be able to completely remove frustration created by other players.

Of course. But the amount of griefing in this game compared to similar ones brings the term ridiculous to my mind. It could be reduced heavily, but that to happen is written in the stars.

11 minutes ago, rezziedahl said:

Also, arguing that jungle is inherently bad because "it's just killing computer controlled units" is wrong, matter of fact, it's a part of the game that made it good. Just take a look at HotS, or Battlerite (lol).

You are neglecting a huge factor. As far as I know experience in HotS is splitted between the whole team. Thus to farm in the jungle is unconditionally benefiting every single player in the team. In HoN, this is not the case at all. You can farm all game, buy the most expensive items, then sell them before leaving and very probably get away with it too. Since as far as I know there is no gold nor items in HotS, there is no way to play for you own benefit and hurting your teammates at the same time, as there is in HoN.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Falk1 said:

The discussion here has recently shifted towards nerfing the jungle, not removing it.

Of course. But the amount of griefing in this game compared to similar ones brings the term ridiculous to my mind. It could be reduced heavily, but that to happen is written in the stars.

You are neglecting a huge factor. As far as I know experience in HotS is splitted between the whole team. Thus to farm in the jungle is unconditionally benefiting every single player in the team. In HoN, this is not the case at all. You can farm all game, buy the most expensive items, then sell them before leaving and very probably get away with it too. Since as far as I know there is no gold nor items in HotS, there is no way to play for you own benefit and hurting your teammates at the same time, as there is in HoN.

You can remove the jungIe to stop peopIe from "griefing" you by afk farming. Guess what: peopIe wiII "grief" you by afk farming short Iane. So you can remove short Iane. Guess what: PeopIe wiII "grief" you by afk farming mid. So you can remove another Iane just so there is onIy 1 Iane Ieft. Guess what: We aIrdy have that it's caIIed midwars and even there peopIe compIain about griefers.

My point stands: The probIem is not the design of the game but the peopIe pIaying it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sorais said:

Being pedantic now are you? If you dislike the word "hate", replace it with "dislike" and read my post again.

You are free to give suggestions for improving the game, but nobody is obliged to agree with you.

When you jungle your team doesn't play 4v5 for 10~15 minutes. Unless you're a bad player of course. But it's no different from being bad at any other role. I know some people who've complained that their mid player was terrible making them play 4v6 for the entire game. Clearly that's worse than playing 4v5 for 10~15 minutes, so we should also remove the mid lane. /sarcasm

HoN isn't DotA 2, and arguments based on "they did this, we should too" don't automatically apply. I don't follow that game and don't know what Iron Talon is, for example. Further, you already make me skeptical: many heroes right now can jungle without items except regeneration consumables. Plus, how would you know the result in DotA 2 was great? Do you have statistics?

It sounds like you want to believe it worked great, therefore you see that it worked great. You wouldn't be the first person to fall prey to confirmation bias. 

Not going to say anything more.

Dude? Can you chill? Why are you so upset about the suggestion to remove the jungle early game? Are you a jungle player?  I'm not going to bother to check your status, but I'm pretty sure it is.

 

2 hours ago, ElementUser said:

Just wanted to clarify a few points regarding long-term design decisions:

 

For the first 2/3 of HoN's lifetime (shortly after the official release of the game), the meta has always been 1-1-2-jungle and it led to repetitive games. Around 2016/2017, Orb of Zamos was conceived to replace Merrick's Bounty to shift the meta to 2-1-2 (even if it was slightly ). It did work, it just took a few years for NAEU to shift their mindset & meta.

 

For long-term, we want the viability of each option to be more or less comparable in terms of tradeoffs. I can tell you that for the next patch (4.8.4), there will be small nerfs to Orb of Zamos & Grave Locket so that jungling/suicide lanes become more viable options. In 2 patches from now (hopefully - no promises), we will have a small map update that favour jungle & suicide lanes even more slightly, to the point where the power discrepancy between the different laning setups is lessened (but still has unique tradeoffs).

 

We understand the possible points of frustrations for playing on a team with a jungler & a suicide lane, but forcing the removal of early jungling's viability would ruin a big part of HoN's identity. HoN is a team game & it's up to the team to organize themselves properly before the game starts. Even if jungling was removed early on, imagine starting jungling at 3 or 5 - you're gimping your lane partner if they're going up 1v2 against heroes of the same level later on. In a way, doing this would make the situation even worse.

We can only wait then...

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Froschbein said:

You can remove the jungIe to stop peopIe from "griefing" you by afk farming.

You can. You can also put an elephant in a tutu and let him throw confetti into the air while doing pirouettes.

My first sentence was:

39 minutes ago, Falk1 said:

The discussion here has recently shifted towards nerfing the jungle, not removing it.

Nevertheless you bring up removing the jungle. Could you please read what I have written before posting and not quote me if you don't refer to what I have posted at all? Thank you.

20 minutes ago, Froschbein said:

My point stands: The probIem is not the design of the game but the peopIe pIaying it.

And it's an excellent point of view. Agreed to 99%.

Edited by Falk1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Falk1 said:

The discussion here has recently shifted towards nerfing the jungle, not removing it.

You are neglecting a huge factor. As far as I know experience in HotS is splitted between the whole team. Thus to farm in the jungle is unconditionally benefiting every single player in the team. In HoN, this is not the case at all. You can farm all game, buy the most expensive items, then sell them before leaving and very probably get away with it too. Since as far as I know there is no gold nor items in HotS, there is no way to play for you own benefit and hurting your teammates at the same time, as there is in HoN.

One can do literally anything and still grief in the game, conflating any mechanic to this behavior makes no sense. Jungle/suicide is already bad as is, how is nerfing it not basically removing it?

I was addressing your notion that balancing jungle/suicide vs laning would somehow increase frustration to the point of not worth implementing it, despite its obvious good effects on the well being of the game. You argue semantics too much instead of addressing the core arguments.

Edited by rezziedahl
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, rezziedahl said:

One can do literally anything and still grief in the game, conflating any mechanic to this behavior makes no sense. Jungle/suicide is already bad as is, how is nerfing it not basically removing it?

For me it does, because you can encourage behavior through changing mechanics. Nerfing by the very mean of its word is not basically removing. It is still there, though doing it will probably make no sense. Something I would endorse, but that is a matter of taste of course.

22 minutes ago, rezziedahl said:

I was addressing your notion that balancing jungle/suicide vs laning would somehow increase frustration to the point of not worth implementing it, despite its obvious good effects on the well being of the game. You argue semantics too much instead of addressing the core arguments.

Thanks for the clarification, it helps me understand your position. Though I do not see the obvious good effects on the well being of the game, I see the bad ones.

Argumentation styles are different, mine has served me well so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Falk1 said:

If you anticipate, that nerfing Zamos+Grave and buffing the map for jungle will lead to frustration, why do you implement it at all? One could get to the impression this change is intented to frustrate the players.

HoN is a team game for sure. What a pity a lot players actually don't give a flip about their team. So as good as the intentions with that change are, encouraging the aspect of the game which contains killing computer controlled units as efficiently as possible, can hardly be considered an improvement of the team aspect of the game.

Actually since so many players are giving so few thoughts about their team a tilt towards jungle could probably not end up leading to the intented effects.

That's a misinterpretation of my post. Buffing jungle/suicide and nerfing Orb of Zamos/Grave Lockets/dual lanes won't lead to frustration on its own, it's moreso players leveraging the pros/cons of these lane setups & team composition incorrectly that does so.

The other posters in this thread are also correct when they say the issue isn't with the game, but rather with the players.

Edited by ElementUser
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ElementUser said:

That's a misinterpretation of my post. Buffing jungle/suicide and nerfing Orb of Zamos/Grave Lockets/dual lanes won't lead to frustration on its own, it's moreso players leveraging the pros/cons of these lane setups & team composition incorrectly that does so.

I am very curious if those changes including pro/con leverage plus composition will reflect themselves in my HoN experience.

10 minutes ago, ElementUser said:

The other posters in this thread are also correct when they say the issue isn't with the game, but rather with the players.

As I replied to those other posters, I deem this true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Falk1 said:

For me it does, because you can encourage behavior through changing mechanics. Nerfing by the very mean of its word is not basically removing. It is still there, though doing it will probably make no sense. Something I would endorse, but that is a matter of taste of course.

Focusing on semantics drags out conversations and it is pointless, like how i have to reiterate my argument because you went for the dry definitions instead when in reality they are essentially the same thing. Nerfing jungle to the point of not worth doing, is basically removing it, yes. We could have skipped the arguments around this entirely by not arguing semantics. Therefor let's not talk any further about this.

 

48 minutes ago, Falk1 said:

Thanks for the clarification, it helps me understand your position. Though I do not see the obvious good effects on the well being of the game, I see the bad ones.

Bad effects being players being players. Good effects being good game balance, viability of tons of heroes, and maintaining a part of the game that absolutely adds to the game's enjoyment. Jungle being viable is vital in making sure the risk/reward calculations of both team's gameplan and hero picks interesting, it allows them to be greedy and to be able to punish greed, this creates an aspect of the game where some heroes can be good at while being worse elsewhere. HoN is currently being balanced and held up with jungle as one of the pillars, removing/making it irrelevant is the same as pulling a leg from a chair.

Edited by rezziedahl
Link to post
Share on other sites

I come back and everything is gone.

Oh well.

Jungles are plenty fun. A good chunk of junglers can be killed by a well timed rotation to a rune, or even just waltzing off the lane once in a while. They are the reason you get imbalanced lanes, which gives a good chunk of the hero pool an extra bump towards usability by devoting a safe, defended lane to them against reduced opposition or, conversely, a location where experience is plenty for the few heroes capable of safely acquiring it.

Rezzie's got it. HoN is built with the jungle in consideration, a lot of heroes would feel a swing if you messed with it in an effective way.

Oh, and on the Dota 2 thing. Dota does a lot of really, really dumb things. Some of them work. Some of them don't. Just because Dota removed the jungle doesn't mean it was a good idea to do so. Fun thing about having money, time, developers, money, players, hats, and money to throw around is you can toss darts spinning blindly and tweak the ones that hit the wall the dartboard is on. It's not a strategy I'd suggest for a company not named Valve.

Edited by Psionic
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rezziedahl said:

Focusing on semantics drags out conversations and it is pointless, like how i have to reiterate my argument because you went for the dry definitions instead when in reality they are essentially the same thing. Nerfing jungle to the point of not worth doing, is basically removing it, yes. We could have skipped the arguments around this entirely by not arguing semantics. Therefor let's not talk any further about this.

You brought up semantics as a topic, not me. For me it prevents discussions from meandering astray for example by equaling the unequal, as you did. We obviously have different opinions on jungling, writing about our ways of arguing will not change that.

58 minutes ago, rezziedahl said:

Bad effects being players being players. Good effects being good game balance, viability of tons of heroes, and maintaining a part of the game that absolutely adds to the game's enjoyment. Jungle being viable is vital in making sure the risk/reward calculations of both team's gameplan and hero picks interesting, it allows them to be greedy and to be able to punish greed, this creates an aspect of the game where some heroes can be good at while being worse elsewhere. HoN is currently being balanced and held up with jungle as one of the pillars, removing/making it irrelevant is the same as pulling a leg from a chair.

Bad effects being encouraging players to play badly. As we're at analogies, in my harmful opinion the game lacks a seat and a backrest anyway. Tables built appropriatly of three legs do not wobble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ElementUser said:

The other posters in this thread are also correct when they say the issue isn't with the game, but rather with the players.

This is the first time I've every disagreed with you, old friend.

How people play the game is precisely what makes the game is what it is. 

Toxicity breeds toxicity.  Break the cycle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I brought it up because you started doing it. Did it stop the discussion from going astray or did it make it go astray itself. I addressed it because i felt like it would benefit any further discussion. What did arguing "no it's not about removing jungle, just nerfing it to irrelevancy" bring about to the table other than being a waste of time and space?

Your analogy makes no sense and doesn't have anything to do with any relevance of the discussion, really pointless. Ask anyone if removing a leg from a chair/table that currently has/was built originally upon all 4 is somehow a good idea. You are not building something with 3 legs from the ground up, you are pulling from something that has 4 legs to begin with.

If by not exterminating something bad at the expense of also cutting anything and everything good related to it, you are encouraging it to happen, then we might as well prevent players from playing together at all, we shouldn't encourage anything bad that can happen that way. No, saying that this encourages players to play badly doesn't make sense, you still saying this while acknowledging it's not an issue with the game, but with players, also doesn't make sense. There's no conceivable downside to buffing jungle to match laning other than what's already there to begin with.

Discussing meaningless dribbles further will be a waste of time.

Edited by rezziedahl
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MacroHard said:

This is the first time I've every disagreed with you, old friend.

How people play the game is precisely what makes the game is what it is. 

Little OT: are the accounts ElementLuser and MacroTard yours? ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MacroHard said:

This is the first time I've every disagreed with you, old friend.

How people play the game is precisely what makes the game is what it is. 

That's pretty much what was said/implied.....no matter how much we change game mechanics, the players will shape it. We can do certain changes to influence changes, but ultimately the players still shape it.

 

So in other words, jungle won't be removed even if a majority of bad junglers are the only junglers playing our game. You're not disagreeing with me at all, in fact it's quite the opposite.

 

Also to clarify: I'm not saying I'm making changes to accommodate bad players - I'm just trying to make the jungle/suicide laning setup's viability more comparable to 2-1-2, rather than 1 option being obviously better than the other in most cases. Jungle/suicide is a perfectly valid strategy with its own pros & cons, and right now the balance between this strategy & 2-1-2 is just a little too unfavourable in most cases. That is all.

Edited by ElementUser
Link to post
Share on other sites

@rezziedahl

You are not getting it. Which is fun for me to read. Please continue, you are cheering me up.

9 minutes ago, rezziedahl said:

I brought it up because you started doing it. Did it stop the discussion from going astray or did it make it go astray itself. I addressed it because i felt like it would benefit any further discussion. What did arguing "no it's not about removing jungle, just nerfing it to irrelevancy" bring about to the table other than being a waste of time and space?

I will state this the last time for you. I never demanded to remove the jungle completely. I am in favor of nerfing it in order to encourage team playing from the very beginning of every game. If you can't get it after this, there is nothing I can do for you.

15 minutes ago, rezziedahl said:

Your analogy makes no sense and doesn't have anything to do with any relevance of the discussion, really pointless. Ask anyone if removing a leg from a chair/table that currently has/was built originally upon all 4 is somehow a good idea. You are not building something with 3 legs from the ground up, you are pulling from something that has 4 legs to begin with.

Again it is your analogy I am using. However you prefer to set the imaginary boundaries of it to the extent which fits your opinion most. Even funnier. Not even talking about the bulk of stuff you put into the sentence "Tables built appropriately of three legs do not wobble."

20 minutes ago, rezziedahl said:

If by not exterminating something bad at the expense of also cutting anything and everything good related to it, you are encouraging it to happen, then we might as well prevent players from playing together at all, we shouldn't encourage anything bad that can happen that way. No, saying that this encourages players to play badly doesn't make sense, you still saying this while acknowledging it's not an issue with the game, but with players, also doesn't make sense. There's no conceivable downside to buffing jungle to match laning other than what's already there to begin with.

Things should be exterminated which harm more than help. Encouraging team play is what I endorse, something which buffing jungle will not do in my opinion. You obviously see mechanics and player behavior as two separated topics with no links in between. Something pretty far away from reality if you ask me.

30 minutes ago, rezziedahl said:

Discussing meaningless dribbles further will be a waste of time.

If you think so, do not reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm closing this thread since I already know what we're going to do for the Jungle/Suicide, as it's devolving into a semantics war (not the purpose of these forums).

 

Semantics wars are a great way not to get any constructive discussion going.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...