League of Legends

Someone's a little cranky. They're just my thoughts on the game. If you disagree, then fine. People evaluate game quality with different standards. I don't expect you to stop playing or rethink your life because I dislike it.

It's a thread about the game and I have as much a reason to post why I dislike it as you have to post why you like it. Why does there need to be an argument?

This is entirely different, Civ. It's one thing to say "I personally found LoL boring because of the experience gap" and another entirely to say "there is no strategy or skill involved in the game, which is just a grindfest and poorly designed." You're making assertions, really extreme assertions, and not supporting them whatsoever.

Your posts are literally the equivalent of going into a StarCraft II thread, saying that the game requires no skill, there is no strategy involved, and it's just a poorly designed grindfest. How do you honestly think people would react to that?

I said IMO at the end of my first post. Do I need to put it on all of them?

I agree with civ but everyone already knows my opinion on Dota clone games. The way someone becomes 'good' at them is like any custom game, trial and error.

Even with someone telling you how everything works you will still do bad. Then if the enemy team isn't bad there's no room to even learn since you will walk out into a lane and get ganked.

And yes, Technically it is a Tower defense game. Literally that's what Aeon of Strife games are, Hero based Tower Defense. Instead of building units/Towers you build a hero over the course of a game. Very Warcraft3 esq.

And Yes it is Grinding even in the fancy conquest ripoff your hero is crap until hes leveled (unless its a certain few good in the earlygame and thus better overrall), All the strategy is is utterly group up and swarm people, Grind on Creeps outside the lands, or Grind in the lanes. For Money and Experience both. Maybe once the heros are of a level to be able to solo a few mobs it stops being that way but that's how every game starts, If you want to win anyway.

Very unforgiving playerbase. Because of the nature of how the game works, Any team worth its salt will identify a weak player on a team, and Ruin his entire experience in said game. He leaves a tower, hes dead, He stays at a tower, Ganked and it snowballs because that player will now stay weak for the entire game, Where as a strategy game like Starcraft its always possible to come back, you lose your hero one to many times in an AoS its over even if you have the advantage in towers.

This is why in WC3 the playerbase was so paranoid about players Dling the map, Because usually a Dler meant new player and they didn't want that bastard on their team since they knew they'd have a weak link, and in a game like this that's exactly want you don't want.

This is out of Years experience with Aos Games on Starcraft, Starcraft 2 and Warcraft 3, and a bit of Lol. It's my own opinion but these are the reasons a lot of people don't like these games.

CivBase wrote:I said IMO at the end of my first post. Do I need to put it on all of them?

Sorry. Your posts are literally the equivalent of going into a StarCraft II thread, saying that, in your opinion, the game requires no skill, there is no strategy involved, and it's just a poorly designed grindfest. How do you honestly think people would react to that?

dragoon9105 wrote:I agree with civ but everyone already knows my opinion on Dota clone games. The way someone becomes 'good' at them is like any custom game, trial and error.

And this is different from every single other game in existence how?

dragoon9105 wrote:Even with someone telling you how everything works you will still do bad. Then if the enemy team isn't bad there's no room to even learn since you will walk out into a lane and get ganked.

And this is different than every single other game in existence how?

dragoon9105 wrote:And Yes it is Grinding even in the fancy conquest ripoff your hero is crap until hes leveled (unless its a certain few good in the earlygame and thus better overrall),

But you get XP by basically being in lane. You aren't grinding, you are fighting some other player. That's like saying that playing Counter Strike is a grind because kills give you money, which you use to buy better guns in the next round.

dragoon9105 wrote:All the strategy is is utterly group up and swarm people, Grind on Creeps outside the lands, or Grind in the lanes. For Money and Experience both. Maybe once the heros are of a level to be able to solo a few mobs it stops being that way but that's how every game starts, If you want to win anyway.

When you oversimplify the game to that degree, all games lack strategy. Chess is just about moving pieces so that the enemy king is taken. StarCraft II is about building units and destroying your enemies buildings. Battlefield 2 is about shooting people and capturing their flags.

dragoon9105 wrote:Very unforgiving playerbase.

Just like every other game out there. As it so happens, people on the Internet are unforgiving.

dragoon9105 wrote:Because of the nature of how the game works, Any team worth its salt will identify a weak player on a team, and Ruin his entire experience in said game. He leaves a tower, hes dead, He stays at a tower, Ganked and it snowballs because that player will now stay weak for the entire game, Where as a strategy game like Starcraft its always possible to come back, you lose your hero one to many times in an AoS its over even if you have the advantage in towers.

That's bullshit. You can come back in a LoL game just as easily as in a StarCraft II game. It's hard in both games. However, that's why it tries to throw you in with people your skill level. Your entire argument is based on one new guy playing with a bunch of good guys.

dragoon9105 wrote:This is out of Years experience with Aos Games on Starcraft, Starcraft 2 and Warcraft 3, and a bit of Lol. It's my own opinion but these are the reasons a lot of people don't like these games.

And in my decade of experience with shooters and RTS games, I've found that playerbases are always unforgiving, teams will always focus weakness, and if you play with people above your skill level, the game won't be much fun. Naturally, this extends to LoL. How this is a flaw specific to LoL is beyond me.

Everything you two are saying is so vague.

How doesn't it have strategy, because I can give examples that it very much does have strategy.

It is not pointless grind at the beginning, not even close. If you've played the game, you'd know this. There is a constant battle in your lane for dominance over it. It's never just standing there and right-clicking on creeps, this I know from experience.

LoL does have a middle ground when it comes to player experience. There are bads, there are okays, there are goods, and there are greats. How do I know? Because I actually play the game and experience this.

Civ wrote:Microing in a strategy game is okay because you're actually using your brain to quickly process, decide, and respond. LoL is missing the middle part. It's like playing a game with nothing but quick time events.

There's argument to support micromanagement being the opposite of strategy, because it'll boil down into "who can click buttons faster" instead of "who's actually the better strategizer"

And LoL has plenty of micro if that's what turns you on! There's plenty of making decisions, clicking buttons to make actions, and then seeing the result of your actions. Your analogy between LoL and quick-time event games is just wrong. That's saying that you can just brainlessly make a decision and still be rewarded favorably from that. No, you do that and you get your everliving shit rocked.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
But you get XP by basically being in lane. You aren't grinding, you are fighting some other player. That's like saying that playing Counter Strike is a grind because kills give you money, which you use to buy better guns in the next round.

Yes but you actually can do things in Counterstrike round 1. Pistol Round is Fun in CS, Nobody has any abilities round in an AoS is boring. Any game action can be compared to Grinding, What makes it grinding is when it becomes tedious. Throw in that some characters are rediculous in the early game you have a recipe for frustration. In CS everyone starts with the same gun choice more or less, Nobody is packing a Sniper Rifle in the Pistol round in CS.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
When you oversimplify the game to that degree, all games lack strategy. Chess is just about moving pieces so that the enemy king is taken. StarCraft II is about building units and destroying your enemies buildings. Battlefield 2 is about shooting people and capturing their flags.

How about instead of being vague back to me, You give me an example hmm? What strategies are there in League of Legends besides, Ganking and Farming Mobs.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

dragoon9105 wrote:Very unforgiving playerbase.

Just like every other game out there. As it so happens, people on the Internet are unforgiving.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
That's bullshit. You can come back in a LoL game just as easily as in a StarCraft II game. It's hard in both games. However, that's why it tries to throw you in with people your skill level. Your entire argument is based on one new guy playing with a bunch of good guys.

No my Entire argument is based on the fact that league of Legends can snowball, Ridiculously easily, You don't lose a game in battlefield from one bad player. But if one Player is just a bit under par or gets some crappy luck in an Aos you might as well just quit. If someone gets a lucky kill and gets some free gold and a level ahead of everyone else, that means they get their Ult Earlier, Which for some characters translates to even more kills, more Gold, More Levels. Other games give you a means to stop it, an Aos puts you in respawn jail preventing any way to bounce back. If someone kills some workers in Starcraft your allowed to counter them. All you can do after losing your hero in an Aos is watch a timer tick down.

dragoon9105 wrote:This is out of Years experience with Aos Games on Starcraft, Starcraft 2 and Warcraft 3, and a bit of Lol. It's my own opinion but these are the reasons a lot of people don't like these games.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
And in my decade of experience with shooters and RTS games, I've found that playerbases are always unforgiving, teams will always focus weakness, and if you play with people above your skill level, the game won't be much fun. Naturally, this extends to LoL. How this is a flaw specific to LoL is beyond me.

its Specific to Lol because as i said above, You don't lose because of one person in an FPS, And people can win 1v2's in RTS games. I have never, seen a 3v4 an average AoS game end with the 3 winning, Ever.

I don't think you understand to the extend i'm saying this, The fact i bring it up as a Valid point is because they are unforgiving to the point where they aren't justified anymore. Kicking someone from a Custom game lobby for not having the map is over competitive and frankly overreacting.

What would be the point of explaining strategies to you in LoL? There are many strategies, there are many meta-builds in the game. There's so much you can do, you over-simplify it to "ganking" and "grinding".

LoL is technically an RTS, or at least it has it's roots in an RTS. Came from Defense of the Ancients, a Warcraft mod.

You can snowball well in the game, but that will be directly proportional to the effort you put into how much you try at the game. You can't not try and do well, unless your team carries your sorry ass (but they'll suffer for it). I've come from situations in LoL where an enemy team that is absurdly fed and has tons more gold than our team fucks up in one teamfight, then we push into their base and destroy the nexus. The game is never over until it's over, there's always a chance.

Strategy game: A game that emphasizes skillful thinking and planning to achieve victory. They emphasize strategic, tactical, and sometimes logistical challenges. Many games also offer economic challenges and exploration.

If you don't think or use tactics in LoL, you're going to get your shit rocked unless like I said, your sorry ass is carried. There's even an economic system! suck it

LoL is basically an RTT like Myth. You only get a set number of units or a set number of units that come in reinforcement waves out of your control.

You can only control your champion, but you can use the assumed motions of your troops to your own advantage.

Sounds like a strategy game to me.

It's an Action RTS.

just like monday night combat, and starcraft tug of war games.

dragoon9105 wrote:Yes but you actually can do things in Counterstrike round 1. Pistol Round is Fun in CS, Nobody has any abilities round in an AoS is boring.

Then you're doing it wrong. The laning phase should be a constant back and forth between its occupants. Everyone starts with their auto-attacks and one ability, which is comprable to starting with pistols. It's only fun because you make it fun. If you say "ugh, pistol round is boring, I want to use real guns, this is gay," the pistol round will not be fun. Similarly, if you say "ugh, laning phase is boring, I want all my abilities, this is gay," laning phase will not be fun.

dragoon9105 wrote:Any game action can be compared to Grinding, What makes it grinding is when it becomes tedious.

Any action in any game can then be compared to grinding. Taking a flag in BF2? You're grinding your enemy's tickets down. Killing an enemy? You're grinding your KDR. Healing a buddy? You're grinding your support score. When fighting with another player in a dynamic back and forth becomes a grind, you need to stop playing video games, because you are impossible to please.

dragoon9105 wrote:Throw in that some characters are rediculous in the early game you have a recipe for frustration. In CS everyone starts with the same gun choice more or less, Nobody is packing a Sniper Rifle in the Pistol round in CS.

Then let's compare it to StarCraft, eh? Zerg have a really strong early game, especially in 1v1. The Roach all-in and 6 pool are both really strong moves that are hard to deal with. But they aren't impossible to deal with. Learning how to beat cheese is part of StarCraft. Learning how to beat characters who fall off late game like LeBlanc, Renekton, Garren, etc is the same thing. Is it harder? Sure. But then you kick their ass late game because you were smart and didn't feed and they pay for their choices.

dragoon9105 wrote:How about instead of being vague back to me, You give me an example hmm? What strategies are there in League of Legends besides, Ganking and Farming Mobs.

Well, positioning, for one. Knowing when to push, when to retreat, when to flank, when to engage, when to turn and burn, when to support and when to abandon a teammate, when to go for dragon, when to try and steal dragon, and when to just let the enemy have it. All of these things constitute strategy. Warding is a huge part of it, too. The name of the game is map control. If you know where they are, it is much easier to control them. If you know when they're going for dragon or baron, or when one is alone, it is easier. Team fighting is a huge part of strategy. You need to know who initiates, who to focus, where you need to be, etc. When you get out of the figurative Bronze League, it stops being about grouping up and rolling and becomes much more tactical. Even on the low level that I play, this is very regular. You can go in 2v5 but if you're just A-clicking it is easy to get outplayed and lose the fight. Moreover, what you are building is huge. You have an overall goal, depending on what you're playing, but any good player is going to tweak how he builds depending on who he's against. As before, once you get out of the figurative Bronze League, static builds aren't always going to cut it. If you're a tank and they're more AD heavy, you may skimp on magic resist and get some armor. Maybe their AD is really shutting you down, so you pick up a thornmail and a frozen heart. Maybe you're the AP mid, but you're in lane against a tanky assassin like Akali. You'll do well to forego that early Deathcap and get an RoA instead, because you're going to need the health to survive the burst. Maybe you're getting your ass handed to you in mid by Veigar, so you rush a Banshee's Veil to shut down his burst. All of these sorts of things depends on what kind of team you have, what kind of enemy you are facing, how the game has gone so far, and a dozen more variables. And that's without touching runes, masteries, jungling, deciding on team comps, draft pick, off-meta roles, etc.

So no, simplifying it down to "farming" and "ganking" and then saying the game is a grind is just stupid. It is simplifying BF2 down to "killing" and "capturing" and saying that it is a grind. It is simplifying SC2 down to "building" and "attack moving" and saying that it is a grind. It is simplifying Portal to "walking" and "shooting" and saying it is a grind.

dragoon9105 wrote:No my Entire argument is based on the fact that league of Legends can snowball, Ridiculously easily, You don't lose a game in battlefield from one bad player.

Actually, one bad Commander, one bad Squad Leader, or just one baddo in the back who fails to call out a backcap can cost you the game. But more importantly, you normally can't blame a single bad player in BF2 because you have 30 other teammates. The effects of one bad are lessened. Now go play BF2 competitively in 5v5 Infantry Only. One bad player can and will lose you the game. It doesn't matter what role he fills. Because he's filling a role, and if he's bad at it, it affects everyone. Now go play 4v4 in StarCraft 2. One bad player can and will lose you the game, because he'll be behind, and the enemies will smell blood and take him out, and then you'll be facing that much larger an enemy for the rest of the game.

dragoon9105 wrote:But if one Player is just a bit under par or gets some crappy luck in an Aos you might as well just quit. If someone gets a lucky kill and gets some free gold and a level ahead of everyone else, that means they get their Ult Earlier, Which for some characters translates to even more kills, more Gold, More Levels. Other games give you a means to stop it, an Aos puts you in respawn jail preventing any way to bounce back. If someone kills some workers in Starcraft your allowed to counter them. All you can do after losing your hero in an Aos is watch a timer tick down.

If someone takes out your econ in StarCraft 2, you can try to counter, but it's not likely to be successful, and such a move would likely be an all-in just to get some damage done. Either way, having your economy shut down early will make it harder for you to be aggressive, allowing the enemy to take more bases, which quickly snowballs into a loss. When you are at a disadvantage in StarCraft 2, it is ridiculously easy to snowball, and very hard to come back from.

In LoL, if you get killed early in the game, you're out of lane for ten-twenty seconds. Your enemy gets some free boots and you need to play a little smarter. But if you play better than him, it hardly matters, because if you force him out of lane more, you'll quickly catch up in levels. A few early kills won't end the game for you, unless your opponent is also legitimately better than you.

I can't tell you how many games I have been in where our team as a whole was down twenty kills, we were on our last two base turrets, and we got to the team fighting phase of the game and the enemy team failed to work together or synergize whatsoever, and we turned around and wrecked them. Dozens and dozens (and I don't play very often). I would say a tenth of my wins are huge comebacks like that. Hell, just the other night, I was in a game. I was bot support Lulu with a Draven, we had a Morgana in mid, and a Nocturn in the jungle and a Nasus in top. We were against Draven and Sona bot, with a Nautilus in the jungle, an Akali in mid, and a Jax in top. Our mid kept failing to call MIA, and we got shut down HARD in bot by both Akali and Nautilus ganks. Our team was down some fifteen kills because mid and bot were just getting shut down so hard. It was so bad that our Draven, our AD carry, ragequit. But meanwhile, Nasus has been farming all alone up top, because their Jax was really bad and Nautilus had been so busy ganking the fuck out of us in bot that he'd neglected top, and suddenly, half an hour into the game, Nasus comes out of lane and we move into team fighting. We Ace their team thrice in a row, 4v5, and then push their Nexus and win.

dragoon9105 wrote:its Specific to Lol because as i said above, You don't lose because of one person in an FPS, And people can win 1v2's in RTS games. I have never, seen a 3v4 an average AoS game end with the 3 winning, Ever.

I've lost maybe six or seven games that I can remember in a 5v4 situation, where my team was up. I've won probably twice that in the reverse situation. We actually won a game a while back against some bads 3v5, when our Egyptian teammate's Internet buggered out and our British teammate had to leave. And please, don't understate the importance of numbers in RTS. It takes a VAST skill difference for a player to win a 1v2, a 2v3, or even a 3v4. You rarely see a team who is down a player win, unless they were better. It is the exact same with LoL.

dragoon9105 wrote:I don't think you understand to the extend i'm saying this, The fact i bring it up as a Valid point is because they are unforgiving to the point where they aren't justified anymore. Kicking someone from a Custom game lobby for not having the map is over competitive and frankly overreacting.

You do realize that this kind of behavior is everywhere, right? In BF2, there is a server option to autokick anyone whose ping exceeds a threshold that you determine. Often, that threshold is set to 150. Is this any different? Having a high ping doesn't guarantee that you will play poorly, but it is more common for someone with a high ping to play poorly, so they just kick them all. If there was a way to kick people in StarCraft 2 random ladders, I guarantee you it would be used frequently to the same degree.

My experiences with LoL is just watching some of my dorm mates playing it...

And... thats literally all they do. like they'll be done with classes around 4pm and continue playing it till 4am.. During this time theyre is yelling, cursing, and bitching.

Some of them dont shower. So combine a rank BO and that nerdy pimple look and im already about to puke.

I mean, they tried getting me to play it.. But i looked at it and im like... I rather get drunk and play mario kart... And thats what i did. Like a FUCKING BOSS.

I can kinda see how it can be entertaining, but its just not my kinda game. I like games where even if you are losing you can still have fun.. IE Just Dance, Battlefield, Mario Kart, etc. But from what ive seen and been told, LoL is a "only fun when you win" kinda game.

So in conclusion of all that random crap i just typed... Yeah okay you can tell me its a good game, but when i think of LoL i think of the gross smelly people that do nothing but play that game. And that deters me greatly...

Spekwyse wrote:My experiences with LoL is just watching some of my dorm mates playing it...

And... thats literally all they do. like they'll be done with classes around 4pm and continue playing it till 4am.. During this time theyre is yelling, cursing, and bitching.

Some of them dont shower. So combine a rank BO and that nerdy pimple look and im already about to puke.

I mean, they tried getting me to play it.. But i looked at it and im like... I rather get drunk and play mario kart... And thats what i did. Like a FUCKING BOSS.

I can kinda see how it can be entertaining, but its just not my kinda game. I like games where even if you are losing you can still have fun.. IE Just Dance, Battlefield, Mario Kart, etc. But from what ive seen and been told, LoL is a "only fun when you win" kinda game.

So in conclusion of all that random crap i just typed... Yeah okay you can tell me its a good game, but when i think of LoL i think of the gross smelly people that do nothing but play that game. And that deters me greatly...

You have very stereotypical friends.. also: I'm finding myself agreeing with Rot in this thread.

RX wrote:
You have very stereotypical friends.. also: I'm finding myself agreeing with Rot in this thread.

Oh i never said they were my friends... theyre just people that lived in my dorm and hogged every seat in the lounge....

My friends and i had fun doing random shit. From 4am Wawa runs and Nerf gun battles, to campus wide man hunts and streaking...

Pretty much the only time i play video games at college is when there's a Halo 3 dorm competition which is stupidly easy to win at. They have to do 2 v 1 with me to be fair and i still win by like 15 kills at least. Or like i mentioned i drink with my friends and we play party games. My friend group is a mix of both sexes and the girls arent the gamer type so we play games like Mario Kart and Just Dance, which are really cool games if you are willing to have fun with it.

=D

So you're going to let your dorm mates represent a sample playerbase of over 11 million people?

Every genre has their fanatics, LoL is no different.. I'm sure there are hardcore mario kart fans (although probably less common).

Just Dance is a fantastic game by the way.

I don't play LoL like an obnoxious smelly 3-year old by the way. (just putting it out there >_>)

Spekwyse wrote:I can kinda see how it can be entertaining, but its just not my kinda game. I like games where even if you are losing you can still have fun.. IE Just Dance, Battlefield, Mario Kart, etc. But from what ive seen and been told, LoL is a "only fun when you win" kinda game.

I can agree with you there, to a degree. Who you play with is absolutely key to how much fun the game is. It's always fun when you're winning, but when you're losing, you have to have a good, solid group who don't give a fuck, because it takes one elitist fuck to really ruin the fun for everyone. Everyone yells every once in a while, but there are definitely a lot of people out there who just rage and play the blame game, and then it just sucks.

Rotaretilbo wrote:

CivBase wrote:I said IMO at the end of my first post. Do I need to put it on all of them?

Sorry. Your posts are literally the equivalent of going into a StarCraft II thread, saying that, in your opinion, the game requires no skill, there is no strategy involved, and it's just a poorly designed grindfest. How do you honestly think people would react to that?

Hopefully with respectful disagreement and examples of the game's strategic value.

Gauz wrote:So you're going to let your dorm mates represent a sample playerbase of over 11 million people?

Yup. Kinda like you really want to name your kid this one name... but it was shared by some douchebag and he/she ruins the name for you. It's that kinda deal.

Gauz wrote:
Every genre has their fanatics, LoL is no different.. I'm sure there are hardcore mario kart fans (although probably less common).

Okay.

Gauz wrote:
Just Dance is a fantastic game by the way.

Mhmm, people blast it for dumb reasons. Its really fun when you can get over that "Im a lil bitch im not going to play this" thought process. XP

Gauz wrote:
I don't play LoL like an obnoxious smelly 3-year old by the way. (just putting it out there >_>)

Noted.

It's understandable, I've played with some of friends all the way up until 3 am playing LoL. It's addicting and fun I'll give it that, but tensions do rise even between friends.

If you actually play the game, civ, you'd know there's strategic value. It's an action RTS, of course it has strategy.

Just went a perfect game as Soraka. 6 kills and 11 assists and wasn't even battlemage. FUCK YAH

Gauz wrote:If you actually play the game, civ, you'd know there's strategic value. It's an action RTS, of course it has strategy.

Oh. You and a few other people labeled it as an RTS? I'm clearly wrong, then.

I've played DOTA (in SC2), LoL, and HoN. All of them. Felt the same about all three, too.

Civ the only person that doesn't think it's a strategy game is you, I think you're the delusional one. Not us.

Gauz wrote:Civ the only person that doesn't think it's a strategy game is you, I think you're the delusional one. Not us.

And I'm the only one who has commented on this who doesn't especially like the game.