Reverse build

[DonaldtheDuckie]

I guess all good players 100% agree with me here, there wont be a single hater comment in this thread!


@ducki: I know those are more or less the changes you wish for the league. It requires a much higher skill lvl and shows who is realy pro... but i hardly doubt this will happen!

You wont get anything but love from me for writing this topic, does that make me good? =P

I'd like you to know that I did not see my warning to you as a threat to unvouch you, I meant it merely to inform you of what I saw as a violation of the below, cause I like to think that I am inherently a rather nice fella who likes to play good legion games and hate to punish my friends with the same desire, unless it is paramount to do so to defend the integrity of the league. No intention to break a rule = no punishment, you did not have any intention so of course you shouldnt be punished.

However it seems I may have been a bit hasty in writing out the rule in the rules section, but then I allways felt that this rule was implied as a result of the following:

You abuse the game mechanics of corresponding leaks gold % corresponding to the value of the natural player of that lane. By building reverse, one player gets an unnatural high value at the natural lane of its partner. The player will be ob on that one lane, and leaks will then take place on the "natural" lane of the ober, building on the reverse lane. Meaning that the leaks of the reverse builders natural lane yields way more gold than it would. This is a direct abuse of the game mechanics.

The purpose of the lihl is to :

In our continued commitment to provide the best gaming experience, we not only encourage fair game play, but there will be consequences for unfair play

Abusing game mechanics to give the team way more gold than it would otherwise get is not fair imo.

Reverse building also makes 1 player get double the creepgold, meaning that his towers, if imbalanced, gets twice as imbalanced! We all know that archers are imbalanced. Making 1 person having archers into 2 persons having archers ruins the fairplay of the league even more. And it is more fun if it is less imbalanced.

You in theory abuse the elo system as well, as you let one player play for the 2, making him able to do all the choices, the other one just incoming.

This ruins the abal too. How can the elo of a player be true if it is from reverse abusing playing the feeder? That takes 0 skill and lets the other player play for 2. The same reasons behind our rules against crossteam swapping apply against reverse, which is technically 1 person playing for 2.

Reverse is also a radical change. It is effectively antistucking all units of the strong army every round.

For the given reasons above, I've allways understood reverse to be against the spirit of the league.

I know that this impression was shared by our former co-mod, Healbycolor.

However, there's been some debate over this in the mod section, and there seems to be some differences in opininion if whether Healbycolor and my impressions of this are actually the case, so I think it would be great to try it out in a "test" week, to see whether it is infact better without it. The question is when ;o), I say asap! (been wanting this change for the league ever since i joined)

I want to thank all the mods and users, especially all posting in this thread, for their commitment and effort to make this league the best it can be! Testing this throughout one week will be exciting!

Peace out

[Drahque]

@Duck, It's an interesting point of view you've shared and I would like to try and share another view of this, hope you don't take it personal but just inspirational instead.

Abusing game mechanics to give the team way more gold than it would otherwise get is not fair imo.

How is it unfair, when both teams have equal chances/rights to cross build? Except of course, if 1 person gets fed and post-20 the other person disconnects, this could indeed be abused to crazy high values - but this we should make a rule against.

Reverse building also makes 1 player get double the creepgold, meaning that his towers, if imbalanced, gets twice as imbalanced! We all know that archers are imbalanced. Making 1 person having archers into 2 persons having archers ruins the fairplay of the league even more. And it is more fun if it is less imbalanced.

You forget that with every choice of tower, there is also it's weaknesses and by deciding to cross build with just 1 tower, you'd not only get double its weakness but also the tactical weakness. When duo building, there is of course the pros you mentioned, but there is definitely also a lot of cons.

One of highest risks that you can have when duo building, is that you ranged units risk getting back-stabbed on sendings or if you underestimated the tanks on the 'income' side. This can cause x2 the amount of leaks, as two solo builders world, especially risky on level 7, if they either pushed income too hard or get blood orcs both sides. On top of this, there is also a bigger risk on boss levels because your units turn around after killing 3 turtles, and most likely gets raped by the 3 turtles behind (those you have less units in middle).

Also, if you only have archers the first 12 levels, it will make you much weaker on levels such as 12 and 17, not only having 7 elite archers but maybe 12-15 instead. The more pierce, the less effective your "value" is on a current level, and one huge problem in cross building is if you don't kill 1 side fast enough, your ranged units ends up being back-stabbed. And another huge factor, is that your units are unreliable, and if you build too close they can end up splitting up, so you have 2-3 tanky units with 10 elite archer 1 side, and those less DPS on the main side, causing you to kill that side slower, lose more towers, and end up being back-stabbed by the other side (evil cycle). ^^,

So as you can see, duo building causes a lot of risks as well:
- By using 1 tower/unit on 2 sides, you'd also get double the weakness of that tower.
- If you kill units too slow on the main side, your ranged units end up back-stabbed.
- Your units can become unreliable, making weird splits and become more vulnerable.
- On hard-sends, the strong side will turn around and face 20-30 units, instead of surviving and going middle, where they get the extreme advantage of units coming one by one.
- There is also a natural higher chance of 'fucking up', since it's 2 human beings cooperating, who can't read each-others mind and if both decide to push income on the same time, they can risk leaking a huge amount of creeps.
- Your units risk being stuck, if they cross the opponents lane - especially Hades have a habit of this - and those losing the towers full time fighting and even causing units to run directly to king, meanwhile you still have units alive; but stuck on lane.

You in theory abuse the elo system as well, as you let one player play for the 2, making him able to do all the choices, the other one just incoming.

The way I usually play cross building, is to let the person build who have the strongest units against the upcoming levels. Whomever have SoD, Archers, Aquas or any strong units for the first 3 levels, stays 2/0 and builds all he can, while the other person pushes 4/1. It's very important though, that the person pushing income make sure he build some units that also gets him some kills, so he's doesn't have to solely rely on his income (which is first noticeable lvl 10+).

So, after the first 3 levels or so, if the person with 2/0 still have the best units to face lvl 5, he keeps building while the 'incomer' pushes 6/2. Or, if the person who's 2/0 have the best towers for lvl 4-7, he'd stay 2/0 meanwhile the other person pushes income. Then after level 7, you either have 4/1+4/1 or 6/2+2/0. If the last option, then the guy with 2/0 starts pushing 7/4, while the person with 6/2 starts building anti-10. If you have strong anti-10 towers it's even possible to hold lvl 10 while both players have 7/4, but if you have too many elite archers, you're not able to push income as hard. Same goes for lvl 12-14, whoever has the best normal towers, stays 7/4 while the other person pushes 7/7 etc.

As you can see, a lot of thoughts is made between the two players, they have to communicate very well about who builds when, so it's not JUST one person building for 2. If one person pushes income only, it means that you only have 6 towers to be able to hold every type of armor. That's will make your team 50 % as good as opponent team to hold, because the person on your team with mutants doesn't get any gold, and the guy who build only made archers. Then how are you supposed to hold lvl 17? This is the reason why it's important that both players builds, otherwise it can cause a huge weakness on certain levels, since it's not just 1 lane leaking lvl 11 and 12 with ToK, but suddenly TWO sides; double amount of leaks.

Reverse is also a radical change. It is effectively anti-stucking all units of the strong army every round.

I think we need to keep in mind what ILOCOS mentioned, about how unfair anti-stucking currently is. It seems as if some people (typically Americans I'd suppose, since they're closer to the server) have much lower delay when anti-stucking than for example Europeans have. Or at least, I'd almost always have 7-20 seconds delay when anti-stucking, making it practically impossible to anti-stuck effectively, meanwhile other people have 2-3 seconds delay. How is this fair? A lot of games is ruined because when you duo build on the 'traditional way' you rely 100 % percent on anti-stucking, and if you miss, you end up loosing a lot of gold (bounty-wise). So, by duo building you give both teams equal chances, because it's not needed to anti-stuck.


Sorry for the wall of text, but I hope my experience/knowledge about cross building can be helpful.

[ILOCOS_NORTE]

You wont get anything but love from me for writing this topic, does that make me good? =P

Yes sure we're fine, everyone has his weak moments sometimes
Glad you posted

You abuse the game mechanics of corresponding leaks gold % corresponding to the value of the natural player of that lane. By building reverse, one player gets an unnatural high value at the natural lane of its partner. The player will be ob on that one lane, and leaks will then take place on the "natural" lane of the ober, building on the reverse lane. Meaning that the leaks of the reverse builders natural lane yields way more gold than it would. This is a direct abuse of the game mechanics.

That's true, the actually leaks should give gold corresponding to value of the leaking player. But since I kill the reverse lane, the leaks to the king by my original lane give around 100% for the first leak and still around 80-90% on the second and third leak. But this only happenes if one player gets much better towers then the other one. Otherwise I dont play the builder/incomer strat in reverse build.
Anyway, how is that any different to the double build, where the player who builds "on" the other one always have the higher value because he gets some of his mates creeps plus his own lane. So the leaks from his original lane will also grant more bounty then they should. Maybe not as much as with crossbuild and one incomer, but wheres the line here?

Abusing game mechanics to give the team way more gold than it would otherwise get is not fair imo.

Big lol here, it's not like i reserverd that building strategy, everyone can use it. It's not my fault if someone cant do that properly and decides to build the (in my eyes) "weaker" solo build with double build later. How do you stand do antistuck then? also abuse of game mechanics, I couldnt perceive your opinion about that.
*Edit plus AS gives a HUUUUGE advage to player without delay.

Reverse building also makes 1 player get double the creepgold, meaning that his towers, if imbalanced, gets twice as imbalanced! We all know that archers are imbalanced. Making 1 person having archers into 2 persons having archers ruins the fairplay of the league even more. And it is more fun if it is less imbalanced.

So what, ban all imballanced towers cause its unfair to use them anyway?
I would suggest a ballace of 3.41 here. In 3.5 beta, Archers are nerfed (less targets, less attack speed, more dmg). Also many other towers are reworked for x3 like wolv doesnt crit on boss, dragon aspect has more attack speed (It was a total waste in 3.41), Violets are cheaper, infernal machine has more hp and so on. Also lvl 31+ are much better. I dont know if ENT has any contact to the creators of legion td, but how about a spezial LIHL version of LTD. Sadly, I quit the developer team years ago when Lisk also quit, after 1.6b was released. But I could ask some buddys from Clan UC, guess they still have contact to Huan AK and PanicX. They dont like the savers, but we will see

You in theory abuse the elo system as well, as you let one player play for the 2, making him able to do all the choices, the other one just incoming.

Again, you cant be serios here. In many 2s games people ask me how the acher water ygg blaster etc. strat works best. I ask for there others towers and then tell them what to do, building/incoming. Dont want to name those players unless they told me they are fine with it. I also make calls (as the higher elo player). So I abuse the team decision? Since I decide when to send, def what lvl. (Well those last two sentences are a bit dramatic, I do listen to my mates opinion. But last word, you know)

This ruins the abal too. How can the elo of a player be true if it is from reverse abusing playing the feeder? That takes 0 skill and lets the other player play for 2. The same reasons behind our rules against crossteam swapping apply against reverse, which is technically 1 person playing for 2.

1.) Well, you never know who got the better towers, the higher elo player or lower elo player. I also play the incomer with bad towers.

2.) In lihl, we should have the most skilled players. Some people said, players with a <45% or 42% (I dont remember) win ratio should be unvouched (which is NOT my opinion). So there shouldnt be a "bad" player whos only usefull for going income.

3.) I wander here a bit, little off topic
On that ominous game, I had a first time lihl player as mate with 1k elo (he deserves 700 at that point). He started with 1 novice, 1 medicine man (at the wall and in a way, that only 3 towers would be affected by oracle!) and one warlock. for lvl 2 another warlock. At that point I told him to stop build and go income. There are many guys vouched lately I would call noobs. I was to cautious to comment the latest vouche request replays cause im also new. But not the game itself, the oldest version I had is 1.29...
New padawans (or seeds in ent ) need 1-3 2s qualify games, where they tell there Master there whole roll. The Master wont give any hints and just judges the build.

Reverse is also a radical change. It is effectively antistucking all units of the strong army every round.

As i said, I cant use the AS function itself.

I want to thank all the mods and users, especially all posting in this thread, for their commitment and effort to make this league the best it can be! Testing this throughout one week will be exciting!

Yeah lets test it!

Someone wrote it would be hard to def a str8 save without double build. Something about a 5 lvl save limit. well thats nonesense a 4s game would just be the same as an 2s game, where you cant db either. And we dont have a save limit for 2s yet

[ILOCOS_NORTE]

Sorry for the wall of text, but I hope my experience/knowledge about cross building can be helpful.

WOW draquhe, you're more or less on the same lvl like me regarding the knowledge of cross build. I read your post rather quickly and may or may not agree with all of your points, but your probably one of the best players in lihl when it comes to cross build.

But.... are you crazy reveal our whole strategy and weaknesses?

[ILOCOS_NORTE]

I feel that what we have is fine, and rule changing would be just rule changing for rule changing's sake.

I also think what we got is fine, I dont need any changes at all. Every LTD community has his own rules and judgement of a good game. In privat UC games your not allowed to save for example, the aim is to get as much value/score as possible.
But if we change something, we have to do it right and dont remove reverse build only.

[DonaldtheDuckie]

@Duck, It's an interesting point of view you've shared and I would like to try and share another view of this, hope you don't take it personal but just inspirational instead.

Sorry for the wall of text, but I hope my experience/knowledge about cross building can be helpful.

Thank you for your input, it is quite clear you also have a lot of experience crossbuilding ;o)

[dweiler]

Alright guys, I know I have proposed to have this 'test week', but I still have some questions I want to have answered by the people who are in favour of the changes.

First I wanna say, I agree that the anti-stuck could be changed. I personally see no problems in how it used it now, but I can see the principle point that anti-stuck should be used to anti-stuck stuck units, hence the name anti-stuck

Secondly, especially the 'third' new rule, that you have to build away far from the middle seems very artificial to me. It inspired me to a couple of related questions:

1. The map is clearly made to make interaction possible. There is the middle zone where the 2 lanes come together and where both players can build. You could say it is in the 'nature' of the map to have two players working together there. Why betray the nature of the map?

2. Legion TD is probably the most played TD on BNet. Apparently people LIKE the way the map is built. Are all those people wrong?

3. The proposed changes bring a lot of statics to the map. Again, no interaction in the middle zone between players anymore. Why do you play this map if you don't like this interaction, and why don't you go play Wintermaul wars or something if you do not like it? (Not ment to chase you away, but seriously? )

4. All of the players in the LIHL have signed up for an LIHL where you can build together and have interaction. If they did not want this, I'm sure they would not have signed or have stopped playing. Why would we force a change upon a community that has clearly chosen for the TD as it is now?

5. Is the current imbalance so big that it is worth the changes?

6. Iznogood spoke out his worries that level 17 and level 20 will be much harder to catch and therefore can lead to imbalances. Do you think the imbalances (not only those, but in general) when those changes have gone through will be smaller/bigger/the same/different than the imbalances now?

[DonaldtheDuckie]

The easy answer to all your questions are, I guess we will find out after testing it one week. What is best is subjective, and thus we need, for the sake of comparison, to find out what playing on your natural lane will mean. I find the answer straightforward though. It will make the gameplay towards such as it is in 2v2. More skill based, less forgiving to failers. If for nothing else, I think a testweek will have a positive effect on the skill of the players in the league.

Let us have the testweek first, then analyze. You need data to compare anyhow.

[dweiler]

A testweek might only answer question 6. The rest of the questions make me very uncertain whether we should force 63 people to test what 4 people want to.

At this moment I feel we should not change so much for a lot of players who never asked for those changes and signed up for a td where you have interaction with your lane partner. After all, if you dont want interaction you can play 2v2 or play on the solo in 3v3.

Let me make this question 7.

7. If you don't like the interaction, you can play 2v2. Why do you want all the LIHL to change something they did not ask for, when you can easily avoid all the negative things you experience by playing 2v2 games, and let the people who do not feel that way play 4v4/on the double lane in 3v3?

I would really like some good answers to this, point by point. There need to be good reasons to change anything or to force 63 people to give up the game they love. @ILOCOS_NORTE, @iznogood , @diablo_ , @drahque

I still think we should just leave it be. Let the meta change and soon people will exploit the weaknesses of cross and double building. I'd rather not interfere with game mechanics due to the current meta.

I agree with this. We are too early with calling it imbalanced. Sending warriors level 1 was hard to deal with for a while, but people adapted and it is not imbalanced anymore (just using an example to show what I mean).

[DonaldtheDuckie]

I agree with this. We are too early with calling it imbalanced. Sending warriors level 1 was hard to deal with for a while, but people adapted and it is not imbalanced anymore (just using an example to show what I mean).

Why do you compare sending warriors with reverse building? Apples and oranges Mick.

edit:

1. The map is clearly made to make interaction possible. There is the middle zone where the 2 lanes come together and where both players can build. You could say it is in the 'nature' of the map to have two players working together there. Why betray the nature of the map?

2. Legion TD is probably the most played TD on BNet. Apparently people LIKE the way the map is built. Are all those people wrong?

3. The proposed changes bring a lot of statics to the map. Again, no interaction in the middle zone between players anymore. Why do you play this map if you don't like this interaction, and why don't you go play Wintermaul wars or something if you do not like it? (Not ment to chase you away, but seriously? )

4. All of the players in the LIHL have signed up for an LIHL where you can build together and have interaction. If they did not want this, I'm sure they would not have signed or have stopped playing. Why would we force a change upon a community that has clearly chosen for the TD as it is now?

5. Is the current imbalance so big that it is worth the changes?

6. Iznogood spoke out his worries that level 17 and level 20 will be much harder to catch and therefore can lead to imbalances. Do you think the imbalances (not only those, but in general) when those changes have gone through will be smaller/bigger/the same/different than the imbalances now?

1. Merc switching is also possible in the "nature" of the map. Why dont we allow this? Cause not allowing it allows for better games. Same applies here.

2. I love the way you argue, 1 billion flies love shit too, does that make shit good? Just cause we propose testing some changes to the gameplay of legion ( obviously proposed by people thinking they are improvements) doesnt make we say that all others with other subjective opinions of what is best is wrong. This should be obvious as peoples preferences are subjective. We will know if the lihl favors these changes after the testweek.

3.Bring a lot of statics? Lessen interaction? I'd say the opposite, there is often a great deal more interaction between the players in a 2man than in a 4man from my personal experience. So these implementations would have the direct opposite effect.

4. All of the players in the lihl signed up for a fun league for highskill, high quality legion gaming. We will only change it permanently if our members like the changes obviously. As it will be a majority vote from the community, there will be no "forcing", unless you believe that democracy is tyranny for the minority.. and that should prob not be discussed here as it would derail the thread, however interesting that discussion is.

5. Obviously some people bothering to spend their time making these suggestions feel so or they wouldnt have made them now would they?

6. Everyone will have worries about changes, before htey find out what they mean and if they like what that means for them. Let's give everyone a chance to find out, before shutting down vs possible changes for the better cause of paranoia that it could be worse. Be an optimist!

[supersexyy]

Don't fix what isn't broken. That's what I think.
Double building is high risk high reward as stated a lot in this thread.

[ILOCOS_NORTE]

[...] force 63 people to test what 4 people want to.

wowowow easy easy

I actually dont want any change at all, I like reverse build. Im just saying that if you ban reverse build (what I dislike, because it fits best for me cause of AS delay) also ban equal stuff like AS, catching leaks outside king area, double build, which does have the same affect as cross build. So the 3s and 4s become just like the 2s games with more players. If we leave it as it is now, all haters can play 2s only

Banning cross build only (which was more or less ducks point) would be very subjective and just strange.

Ducks has only two points that are contra cross and pro double:

1.) Leaks will grant more bounty

Solution: remove GG (what would make leaks less forgiving)

2.) Effect of OP units double

Isnt it the purpose of the game to get out the most out of given towers? In fact, the cross build is nothing but mid with one lane delayed slightly, since you cant enter your mates region => where you build is declared as middle.
And, as draque mentioned, many Archers can also fail with a bad split on boss lvl or lvl 20 anyway.
Fyi, I lost a archer cross build game in lihl, cause I focused to much on archers and got no siege on RR => lose lvl 17.

And I can only repeat myself here, everyone can use crossbuild.... no advantage for only one team -_-

I know the final decision does not belong to me, but I can see only 4 ways:

Leave it as it is
Change with my rules
Remove GG
Ballance 3.41 to x3 (all towers are made for x1 ! )

This whole topic only came up because of a litte overenthusiastic rule change regarding cross build with archers.

I vote for NO change at all or remove GG

[DonaldtheDuckie]

It is broken, which is why reverse should not be allowed.

We're discussing 3 things in the thread.

1. Banning reverse.
2. Banning all uses of antistuck unless the creep is stuck.
3. Banning double building and building outside your own natural lane.

I thought 1 was banned, and would welcome banning 2, and also banning 3.

Ilocos_Norte proposed banning 1, 2 and 3. And that's whats been suggested to test throughout one week.

[supersexyy]

I thought 1 was banned, and would welcome banning 2, and also banning 3.

1 is currently not banned.

Ilocos_Norte proposed banning 1, 2 and 3. And that's whats been suggested to test throughout one week.

I actually dont want any change at all, I like reverse build.

...

I vote for NO change at all or remove GG

ILOCOS is against any changes @Donaldtheduckie

[bit]

I agree with this. We are too early with calling it imbalanced. Sending warriors level 1 was hard to deal with for a while, but people adapted and it is not imbalanced anymore (just using an example to show what I mean).

Do u know what imbalanced means? warriors on 1 never was imba, rofl

anywayz, i suggest to remove 2v2's and 3v3's at all ^^ well, mb allow in !challange, but not in !start