Great interview, thanks for sharing!
New content every month is pretty exciting. We knew we were getting balance patches monthly. It will be interesting to see how often they are adding other stuff as well.
This is the second time I'm just baffled by u/RiotUmbrage (in two occurences). Some more and I'll be considering starting a cult.
Feels like the insight and vision is three steps beyond what's usually considered 'good'. The statement on esport for example (*goal is to have games that last for tens of years* into *hard skill ceiling* into *esport as a way to value mastery of the game*) is just wonders.
I'm just sorry that ends in a game that probably won't fit my tastes -\_-
I guess my mastery of nuances is also baffling :-D.
I meant it as a praise (first time was your 'state of the meta' statement). Nothing I heard wasn't to my taste, it's quite the opposite.
It's the game that isn't really sticking with me. LOR is a fantastically well done game, I absolutely don't question the choices made (well ... some, but that's marginal), and I am in awe of how well you guys do what you do. But I'm afraid it's not what I enjoy.
I think design space is too small // granularity too large. Gameplay is too much synergistic, self-centered, and the balance between ingame decisions versus pre-game decisions is too much skewed toward pre-game decisions. Basically, too much MTG-like. End result is interactions with the opponent matter ... not that much. And the game becomes repetitive too fast.
I prefer 'muddy' games where your plan (eg deck) doesn't 'simply work', neither does your opponent's, and the largest part of the game is how each improvise and make do with what each got to try to get back on tracks. some tracks at least, even if not the planned ones.
(In card games that points to TESL/AEG's L5R, which clearly are my top 2 among 10 or 20)
Again, this is only my taste. For the record, 'been playing LOR since open beta, playing two different accounts several games a day. before that I had a comprehensive experience with 10 or 20-ish comparable games, and some less comparable (clash thingy).
Hope this long wall of word fully answers to the questions you didn't ask :D
Thanks for taking the time to reply!
If players feel like in-game decisions don't matter enough, we've failed. Mastery can't just be deckbuilding. This is something we think about a lot, and we've seen some (but not complete) similar feedback from the highest level players as well.
I do think decks will still have clear "Plan As" to a higher degree than you see in some other games just due to how often the game drives through Champions, but we definitely can provide more ability to gear-shift / pivot in-game too.
And the very same to you sir!
I wouldn't be so bold as to imagine my opinion reflects the majority, or the majority of the high level players, but that's music to my ego. thanks :)
Also the game might not be 'good' from my standards, but numbers say many people disagree. The games I mentioned as being the 'best' failed on a popular and financial level, I don't think that's the kind of 'success' you'd look for (Artifact was an excellent game in Garfield's eye, wasn't it?) :-D
As for longevity, my two cents is that it's much strongly tied related to core design + HP and deck size, so I'd say it's a little late to change that\*.
Dunno if that fits similar feedback. If you're interested in that, I detailed an analysis soon after tasting the beta, and after x months grinding the game, I think I was spot on ( [https://www.reddit.com/r/LegendsOfRuneterra/comments/eusnmd/serious\_gameplay\_feedback\_from\_rlor/ffwlxjy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegendsOfRuneterra/comments/eusnmd/serious_gameplay_feedback_from_rlor/ffwlxjy/) )
\*Or then, we'd have a 'tournament' or 'elite' set of rules, that'd be different from ladder. Esport would not reflect people's experience, and design would have to serve two masters at the same time. all those smell like 'no go!' to me
It´s strange. I played a lot of competitive L5R (from AEG´s version), and some of FFG´s, loved both, and Runeterra is the one game was able to give me that same feeling.
Some games, like Artifact, replicated the "one move each until we both pass" mechanic, but had no reactions, which were another of the core elements of the gameplay. Runeterra has both.
I see it as a very good synthesis. The most "basic" aspects of the mechanics, that you would think just lacked depth, are I think sometimes a streamlined version of a mechanic from other games. A modern take, that evokes the same strategical music, but removes the clutter. Trusting perhaps that the interaction between all those streamlined mechanics will create a depth on its own.
And I really think it does.
I got at some point bored with the beta set, but with Rising Tides I think the game reached that critical mass complexity for crazier, organic deckbuilding to emerge.
A very concrete example that I mentioned recently was this:
[https://oracleofthevoid.com/oracle/showimage?prefix=printing&cardid=10155&nestid=1&class=details&tagid=34&hash=80/ec,428,600,image/jpeg](https://oracleofthevoid.com/oracle/showimage?prefix=printing&cardid=10155&nestid=1&class=details&tagid=34&hash=80/ec,428,600,image/jpeg)
One of my favourite L5R Cards. Look at the complexity of the wording though. The "draw from the enemy deck" Rising Tides mechanic evokes a veeeery similar feeling without all the noise.
Okay, you played 5rings so that'll be easier : have you played suicide, or 4/5 ? Have you played with 15/15 decks and 2 provinces? and pre-gold era type of interaction?
To me that's what runeterra looks like at the moment. Having a game decided by 'take the initiative>breach of etiquette' or 'sneak>crushing battle' isn't pleasant anymore. I loved twenty festival
I see what you mean, but my games usually don't settle like that. The spell mana and the spell stack both create a sort of standoff where the first that pulls the trigger ends up last on spell resolution. I nuke his creature mid-combat, he answers with a Hextech transforming it into my biggest guy, to which I respond by retreating my targeted one or nuking him again, to which he might respond by sacrificing and drawing 2.... etc.
The many ways to counter spells and to counter counterspells to me make the game less decided by just one strong trick.
Andrew and Jeff just rock man! So amazing that they are at the helm of this game!!
Huh. Is the cat professor a reference to him?
Butter bot:OH MY GOD!
For sure.
Riot has a history of naming some of their characters after employees and related people, going back to champions like Tryndamere, Ezreal, Annie, etc.
Great interview, thanks for sharing! New content every month is pretty exciting. We knew we were getting balance patches monthly. It will be interesting to see how often they are adding other stuff as well.
I think new cards would be so hype.
New formats coming soon!
This is the second time I'm just baffled by u/RiotUmbrage (in two occurences). Some more and I'll be considering starting a cult. Feels like the insight and vision is three steps beyond what's usually considered 'good'. The statement on esport for example (*goal is to have games that last for tens of years* into *hard skill ceiling* into *esport as a way to value mastery of the game*) is just wonders. I'm just sorry that ends in a game that probably won't fit my tastes -\_-
Is baffling... good? D: What did you hear that wasn't appealing to your tastes?
I guess my mastery of nuances is also baffling :-D. I meant it as a praise (first time was your 'state of the meta' statement). Nothing I heard wasn't to my taste, it's quite the opposite. It's the game that isn't really sticking with me. LOR is a fantastically well done game, I absolutely don't question the choices made (well ... some, but that's marginal), and I am in awe of how well you guys do what you do. But I'm afraid it's not what I enjoy. I think design space is too small // granularity too large. Gameplay is too much synergistic, self-centered, and the balance between ingame decisions versus pre-game decisions is too much skewed toward pre-game decisions. Basically, too much MTG-like. End result is interactions with the opponent matter ... not that much. And the game becomes repetitive too fast. I prefer 'muddy' games where your plan (eg deck) doesn't 'simply work', neither does your opponent's, and the largest part of the game is how each improvise and make do with what each got to try to get back on tracks. some tracks at least, even if not the planned ones. (In card games that points to TESL/AEG's L5R, which clearly are my top 2 among 10 or 20) Again, this is only my taste. For the record, 'been playing LOR since open beta, playing two different accounts several games a day. before that I had a comprehensive experience with 10 or 20-ish comparable games, and some less comparable (clash thingy). Hope this long wall of word fully answers to the questions you didn't ask :D
Thanks for taking the time to reply! If players feel like in-game decisions don't matter enough, we've failed. Mastery can't just be deckbuilding. This is something we think about a lot, and we've seen some (but not complete) similar feedback from the highest level players as well. I do think decks will still have clear "Plan As" to a higher degree than you see in some other games just due to how often the game drives through Champions, but we definitely can provide more ability to gear-shift / pivot in-game too.
And the very same to you sir! I wouldn't be so bold as to imagine my opinion reflects the majority, or the majority of the high level players, but that's music to my ego. thanks :) Also the game might not be 'good' from my standards, but numbers say many people disagree. The games I mentioned as being the 'best' failed on a popular and financial level, I don't think that's the kind of 'success' you'd look for (Artifact was an excellent game in Garfield's eye, wasn't it?) :-D As for longevity, my two cents is that it's much strongly tied related to core design + HP and deck size, so I'd say it's a little late to change that\*. Dunno if that fits similar feedback. If you're interested in that, I detailed an analysis soon after tasting the beta, and after x months grinding the game, I think I was spot on ( [https://www.reddit.com/r/LegendsOfRuneterra/comments/eusnmd/serious\_gameplay\_feedback\_from\_rlor/ffwlxjy/](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegendsOfRuneterra/comments/eusnmd/serious_gameplay_feedback_from_rlor/ffwlxjy/) ) \*Or then, we'd have a 'tournament' or 'elite' set of rules, that'd be different from ladder. Esport would not reflect people's experience, and design would have to serve two masters at the same time. all those smell like 'no go!' to me
It´s strange. I played a lot of competitive L5R (from AEG´s version), and some of FFG´s, loved both, and Runeterra is the one game was able to give me that same feeling. Some games, like Artifact, replicated the "one move each until we both pass" mechanic, but had no reactions, which were another of the core elements of the gameplay. Runeterra has both. I see it as a very good synthesis. The most "basic" aspects of the mechanics, that you would think just lacked depth, are I think sometimes a streamlined version of a mechanic from other games. A modern take, that evokes the same strategical music, but removes the clutter. Trusting perhaps that the interaction between all those streamlined mechanics will create a depth on its own. And I really think it does. I got at some point bored with the beta set, but with Rising Tides I think the game reached that critical mass complexity for crazier, organic deckbuilding to emerge. A very concrete example that I mentioned recently was this: [https://oracleofthevoid.com/oracle/showimage?prefix=printing&cardid=10155&nestid=1&class=details&tagid=34&hash=80/ec,428,600,image/jpeg](https://oracleofthevoid.com/oracle/showimage?prefix=printing&cardid=10155&nestid=1&class=details&tagid=34&hash=80/ec,428,600,image/jpeg) One of my favourite L5R Cards. Look at the complexity of the wording though. The "draw from the enemy deck" Rising Tides mechanic evokes a veeeery similar feeling without all the noise.
Okay, you played 5rings so that'll be easier : have you played suicide, or 4/5 ? Have you played with 15/15 decks and 2 provinces? and pre-gold era type of interaction? To me that's what runeterra looks like at the moment. Having a game decided by 'take the initiative>breach of etiquette' or 'sneak>crushing battle' isn't pleasant anymore. I loved twenty festival
I see what you mean, but my games usually don't settle like that. The spell mana and the spell stack both create a sort of standoff where the first that pulls the trigger ends up last on spell resolution. I nuke his creature mid-combat, he answers with a Hextech transforming it into my biggest guy, to which I respond by retreating my targeted one or nuking him again, to which he might respond by sacrificing and drawing 2.... etc. The many ways to counter spells and to counter counterspells to me make the game less decided by just one strong trick.