Beste Inhalte

There's always going to be a need for bad champs. They're put there to balance out the "good" champs.

I don't think that is true. But I'm not sure of the best way to explain the subtle distinction.

Let me try this. There is no game design reason why there should be "stronger" or "weaker" champs per se. However, there *is* a very strong game design reason to ensure that for any one player, that one player *desires* some champs more than others. If they are all equally desirable, that's problematic, because psychologically valuation is relative. If they are all equally desirable, they will eventually all become equally undesirable. If the game was full of nothing but "god-tier" champs, those god-tier champs would all be meh in time.

Having said that, there's no game design reason why every single player should *agree* on the order of desirability, and that changes everything. If every champ had strong uses, but we all disagreed about which uses were ultimately more valuable, that would be perfectly fine. In fact, that should be the ultimate goal. Every player would have a priority of preference and wouldn't get bored with champions, but every champion would have its followers. But this is a tricky thing to achieve. We're still debating endlessly over which Starcraft race is the best, so it is an achievable goal in theory. But in practice, this takes very solid design fidelity.

A long time ago I used to play hex board games, and one of my favorites was a game called Ogre. Off and on, I've been studying this game for literally forty years. The fact that we're still arguing over which side has the advantage in *that* game is impressive. But also it is my go-to example whenever someone says that "balance is impossible." This game is one of the best teaching aids for what "balance" even is (it isn't synonymous with equality in any form) and how even the most asymmetrical game in existence can present a choice to players for which there is no correct choice and everyone disagrees over the best choice.

If the Ogre can be balanced against the army in terms of the meta game, then champions can be balanced in terms of different people choosing different champs as the best without any of them actually being the best.

Not saying it is easy, and I'm not even saying Kabam itself is capable of doing it. Only that it isn't impossible. And there's hints of it in the game. Killmonger is seen as fantastic by some, average by others. Crossbones is another such champion. It is possible to make champs that are impossible to say are "bad" but nevertheless polarize the players in terms of whether they are worth pursuing and investing in. That sort of thing is better than "good" and "bad" champs but produces similar psychological results.

TL:DR, just kidding. But to sum it up, what DNA3K is saying is that for us to appreciate certain champs there have to be champs that are not as strong in comparison, it’s all about relativism.

Hey everybody,

Nothing to say right now, but I've raised this with the team. This is an event that is live tomorrow, so I'm not sure what is possible/if anything is possible.

Oh then why didn't kabam posted the announcement earlier?

I know this is later than usual, but there's been a lot going on lately that has required our attention. That one is on me, and I apologize for that.