Bounty and killing sprees

[gozo1985]

I keep it simple with a small statement, hopefully I am not right but if the new spree system stays that way (ofcourse without the bugs ) I think people will use Longrange more often. Its easier to start sprees. Shortrange benefit was the +200, +300 for multikills nevermind if you get killed afterwards. Like I said hopefully im not right - but maybe the playstyle of many shifts into using more ranged weapons. This will not affect many pros or high quality games, but everything below... ?


/split into a new thread

Exodus

[Max]

Hi,

I just want to react to your post Gozo : I don't think this would be a huge problem. I mean : if you keep assist spree on top of it, you still don't get same money than the killer. But you are still part of the kill and that's the aim of the spree : promote team play.
Lr aren't a problem, after a while all players know it sucks, and most of the users of those weapons don't even have a good start with ^^.
I also like the bounty change : if you win more gold it's higher. Btw assist gold count in this : so...

[stibi-]

Multikills no longer grant extra gold

woooooot

[gozo1985]

Multikills no longer grant extra gold
woooooot

Thats why i started a short feedback here. Imo people prefer running there killing sprees with LR instead of harsh short range teleporting, nevermind if they get killed - becouse of the multikill gold

[EarthR]

killing spree will actually make some players avoid fights/cp defense/suicide to keep cp timer from going down "because they will die" while making other assist players playing with no weapons imo

[Prog]

killing spree will actually make some players avoid fights/cp defense/suicide to keep cp timer from going down "because they will die" while making other assist players playing with no weapons imo

My first reaction: Then they will lose, so what?

[EarthR]

killing spree will actually make some players avoid fights/cp defense/suicide to keep cp timer from going down "because they will die" while making other assist players playing with no weapons imo

My first reaction: Then they will lose, so what?

only few player play competitive, they will screw them thats all

[Prog]

I do understand that it may be a problem insofar as it would be very unfun if it became a widespread issue. If it turns out that way we could always add another bounty modifier for situations when you die at an allied cp. I don't think something like this would be necessary though.

[Exodus]

Alright. Let me start by saying that your feedback is really important and it might lead to changes to the current system in the beta. But as it is often the case, there are also other sides to consider.

The point has been raised that people might tend to be more careful or not commit to dangerous situations, just to keep their current streak, overall leading to a more passive playstyle. But you could also see it from the other way round. People with a high streak tend to have a big bounty, so you now have to reasons to hunt those players specifically. First you want to get that bounty and second you want to end his spree, to ensure that his gold income does not grow out of control.

Which brings me to another matter. With such a system in place, it very well may lead to good or unopposed players to quickly snowball out of control. You could say this is one way of shortening games ;) But this was not the reason for this change. Now you have to be more aware of your team. If someone struggles against his enemy, you have to make sure you help him from time to time. Otherwise you might regret it later, moreso than right now. I'm pretty sure that some people won't like that, but in the end, teamplay is always required. If you like it or not, it will be more important now.

Now on to another scenario. This is more related to possible comebacks. As I already said, the new system enables fast snowballing players and so might lead to more onesided games. It's debatable, if this removes chances for the defending team or just speeds up, what might have happened anyway. When the defending team is finally pushed into its own base, it generally has a small advantage, since they are surrounded by their own buildings and healing auras. Provided that the attacking team does not just steamroll over them, they now have some time to defend. At the beginning of that time you should usually see a situation like this:
the average bounty of the attackers is substantially higher than that of the defendes. This means, that anyone that is not on a streak, will get less gold on the attacker side. So there is a time, which the defending team might use to get itself up and use these higher bounties as a source for the possible comeback.
But if they don't manage that and the siege drags on, the new system should now lead to another, different situation. If the defenders can hold themselves up, this usually means, that they get equal or more kills than the attackers. So their bounties will rise and rise faster than the bounties of the attackers, since with the base factories destroyed, the bounties of the attackers won't increase by creep kills anymore (or at least not that fast).

So to make a short statement out of that: the new system should favor the defenders in short siege and favor the attackers on a longterm siege and so make both comebacks more likely, while also shortening games in certain situations.

Well, in (my) theory anyway. It very well may be, that it actually influences the game in a totally different way. But now you know, what the motivation behind the change was. If it turns out, that it harms the game more, than it helps it, I have to change / revert it again.



Also, regarding the multikills. The bonus gold has been removed, because of the killing sprees, there already is a pretty big gold source for players. Having both the sprees and the multikills seemed a bit too much. I thought about other rewards for multikills, like a bonus kill on your streak or something, but I'm not really sure about that.

[gozo1985]

I do like the current spree system, but if possible whats the downside of giving extra cash to a double or multikill or better, what was the reason for removing it?

[BENNIE.FM]

I like this idea, obviously will have to play to see this in game.

[Max]

Hi,

I tried the map with bots and there's something I'd like to say about killing spree : I understand now how this can promote ego playing. I think something has to be added : stop the spree when getting an assist.

It's easy atm to camp and kill and just go back : getting spree. Then if team keeps attacking you just have to go back not to die (and keep the spree on) no matter if they die or not. If team makes a kill (easier to get an assist) this way the guy just stop his spree.

Maybe this idea isn't the best but there's another one : make the spree last 1 min (for example) to avoid camping naps who troll to get mass gold with spree and then win easy.

[griffin1987]

Hi,

I tried the map with bots and there's something I'd like to say about killing spree : I understand now how this can promote ego playing. I think something has to be added : stop the spree when getting an assist.

It's easy atm to camp and kill and just go back : getting spree. Then if team keeps attacking you just have to go back not to die (and keep the spree on) no matter if they die or not. If team makes a kill (easier to get an assist) this way the guy just stop his spree.

Maybe this idea isn't the best but there's another one : make the spree last 1 min (for example) to avoid camping naps who troll to get mass gold with spree and then win easy.

You can't win with camping the whole game either way, objective of the game is to destroy the enemy HQ. So the only situation where you win due to camping is when the enemy feeds you, which is the same no matter if you camp or not. I think you're mixing camping with peole who don't get that there's advantages and disadvantages to staying at your CP.

But I see this kind of wrong conclusions very often - for example people tend to stop attacking as soon as they lost all CPs, which might be fine for a short time, but long time it's just dying slowly without a chance to recuperate vs. dying more often with a chance to get back.

Anyway, I like that you think about this "problem", but I don't think that your proposed "tweak" would "fix" this.

IMHO.

cheers

[Max]

Well we can't see spree effect before a lot of games, it was just a thought. I just played a game where luckylucker (what a surprise, no?) just camped all the game which made him win (+ leavers gold advantage but nvm). He just camped mid as much as he needed to destroy his lane. Then got gobo tp (again, what a surprise...) and camped all over the map to last hit and go back. That's the kind of behavior I'm afraid we could see more often.

I don't really think as it is a problem, but as it might be, but again, we'll see that only after a lot of games...

[EarthR]

although in theory camp = lose might be true in real game not so much. If you camp and the enemy is on the offensive you can gain tremendous advantage over your enemy in lane and if used wisely you can turn the entire game.

[griffin1987]

although in theory camp = lose might be true in real game not so much. If you camp and the enemy is on the offensive you can gain tremendous advantage over your enemy in lane and if used wisely you can turn the entire game.

You mean, if you camp and the enemy feeds you the whole time. Yes, I also see this quite often - people not knowing how to handle camping enemies. And yes, I'm also doing it wrong sometimes, because I get a bit enraged by the enemy "lucking away with 10hp". But if you don't feed aggressively, and instead focus on e.g. creeping, you can't lose to someone who stays at his CP and gets less creeps due to that.

Enemy getting TP is something different although, you just have to put some TP breakers and get a TP yourself, if the enemy has been camping so far, you should be ahead of him in terms of money and level anyway.

I know it's different in qualify games, but alas, most players in qualify (and ranked as well these days) are so bad, that things like these don't even matter - or why do you think it's possible for players like galadion to nearly reign over the whole league, when he's in fact not even that great skill wise (but knows what to do)?

[EarthR]

well thats the problem with mid. nobody buys tb even if you warn them that the enemy lanes has tp. And there are different ways to camp if you dont want to lose money and xp you can always let your enemy kill your tower and if your teamates have a bit map awareness it becomes easy to counter anyone. Galadion reigned over because there wasnt anyone else to oppose him skillwise, all the old pros either were too rusty or trolling, i dont think thats the case anymore.

[gozo1985]

I do like the current spree system, but if possible whats the downside of giving extra cash to a double or multikill or better, what was the reason for removing it?

Would be great if this question could be answered :>

[Max]

To not stack with killing spree. It's the first or the second, not the two. That would be too much. If you make a multikill you would have +900 with multi and extra cash from killing spree too. That would be too much.

But maybe you question was about why a new killing spree system?

[gozo1985]

Nono.. that was the qustion.. Yeah that might be a downside. But a few coins for a multikill would be OK imho. Lets say +66 for each.

Doublekill = Bounty + 132
Triplekill = Bounty + spree + 198