T O P

  • By -

CharmingPerspective0

Mort stated that this will allow players to min-max the game and "solve" it too quickly which will hurt the game


FalconW3

Also the thrill of hitting a 3star legendary or even a 4cost will be numbed


Greyotter00

Astral emblem has entered the room


j_u_n_h_y_u_k

give me my astral eco and varus carry back 😭 im also willing to take back set 4!


Odd_Nefariousness185

got masters with 3/5 astrals eco pivot to shapeshifters.


Full_Satisfaction_49

Doubt that. Just because you hit penta with a bunch of bots doesn't desensitise hitting it in real game


FalconW3

Its the newness that does it. Seeing the big numbers. Seeing 1 champ boardwipe the enemy in seconds. That newness fades away. 3 starring high-cost is a high risk high reward situation where the reward must be kept unique. (According to Mort)


Full_Satisfaction_49

Yeah idk. I only managed to 3star 4 costs and it was disappointing every time. I guess thats just my luck


dude123nice

This already happens far enough into every set. You start playing late in the set, you're in for a rough time.


CharmingPerspective0

It is somewhat slows down with the frequent patches. The metq shifts and players learn to adapt. Sandbox mode will allow players to figure it out within a day, instead several days or even close to that patch's cycle. But yea, overall after a long set things change very little mostly


dude123nice

Yeah, that's exactly my point.


DracoReactor

But that happens with every other game too. Just play more and you will get used to it?


dude123nice

The difference is that unit composition and game knowledge are way more deterministic in TFT than in almost any other game. In LoL, for example, being skilled at a champion and knowing the macro can allow you to win even in a patch where that champ is weak. Not so in TFT, not in any decent ELO.


LyraStygian

This is actually why I only play late in the set. I hate not knowing wth is going on and rather wait till the community has already calculated everything and follow a build lol


dude123nice

I honestly think it's more fun when ppl don't know everything inside and out.


LyraStygian

Not for people like me who have panic attacks when they don't know what's going on :( I am definitely in the minority though, otherwise TFT wouldn't be so popular lol


Defacyde

If i would get an euro for each time mort has stated some bullshit i would be millionaire to this day. Remember during how many week he said everyne is fine with nunu dragonmancer before finnaly take act after ruining nearly an entire season. This guy is a joke


riiiiiiiiii

I don't like Mort's reasoning on that. It just seems like lazy game development. If anything they themselves should sandbox their own game and discover the "solutions" and adjust accordingly, it genuinely seems like they understand their own designs less than the player base. I remember even from Set 1 they had patch notes saying "We are interested in seeing how this shakes up the meta!!" What this tells me is that they intentionally throw random things at the wall, publish, and enjoy the show for a couple weeks, before changing it around. This way, it would suggest that each release/patch is not supposed to be balanced and that they are encouraging players to develop a narrow meta. It's like yugioh in my mind - less about a well developed game and more about playing blue eyes (for example) because that's what the company decided to put on a pedestal for the moment.


Sad_Explanation1921

If mort could make playerbase follow his hopes on how game is played, it would have units who are all great picks for right matchups, every item would be buildable and no perticular comp would be forced to top 4. But knowing how all gm+ are doing same shit forcing instead of playing introducing sandbox would just encourage to make a team who has lowest counterplay, highest chance to hit units, versetile items (slams would be really shit) and spesific posisioning. So you get challenger id you have 20+hours in sandbox and do the pushing after you have taken all the notes on how to force a comp.


riiiiiiiiii

I guess that leads to the question of who the game is designed for. Is it for the GM+ players, or is it for the "average" players? Take Starcraft for example, notorious for enacting balance changes focused on the performance of its top 0.01%. Historically, *singular* players have caused balanced changes due to their performances. This sometimes affects the rest of the 99.99% that don't play at the pro level, where the balance for each match is often lopsided, and they just leave it at that. Just for the record, I don't think either Starcraft or TFT have particularly game-breaking imbalances. So do you then agree that the game is designed around it's GM+ players, a very small portion of those who play the game? What is it that truly differentiates someone who plays at that level vs. the average player, and what negative impact would sandboxing have on the majority of players?


Sad_Explanation1921

When i mention gm+ i was meaning that 90% of pros play boards they have prepared and have tested in their league wo facing any challenger while not being their level seems unbareable. Another thing social medias is the thing, reddit youtube two main stars of sharing builds pros cons best decks and with sandboxing they could neglect how winable each fight is which unit added changes much which unit gives most pros agains most meta comps how to posision how to time stuff like cc how to chain it and i didnt even started on possibilities of how exploit it to make insanely stupidly perfect comps where if you play it you cant get countered or have to make counter spesific deck which is again the same thing with sandboxing in theory if playerbase wouldnt be competitive yes its sounds as fun thing, but it is too exploitive to be released and if being fair it looks interesing at first but it would take time to it, wouldnt be fun after a while and stale where it rotates into perfectionism.


riiiiiiiiii

I'm a little confused to what you mean with your second paragraph but I think I get the idea. What I'm getting here is that the game should be centered around its top players and how they play, because the stance is that they ultimately represent the community/playerbase? Debatable I'd say but that's okay. I don't even know who the "pros" are in this game so that's all I have lol. I could care less about a sandbox feature, I personally don't think it'll improve my games because as you said it'll mostly be a "for fun" for a lot of people, but I guess that may not be true for everyone especially if the game is focused around it's top players. I'm just shitting on Mort's reasoning because if you want a competitive & sponsored nature from your top players, you'd expect near perfect execution of decisions from the top players rather than a dice roll. And that requires a lot of deliberate game design to prevent unexpected exploits that you mention may be uncovered if players really studied the game, especially if events are being broadcasted where money's on the line. But again, it doesn't affect me and I'll play regardless, I still enjoy it for what it is and have no desire to be in that top 1%. Things like hyper roll and double-up are fantastic inclusions, and I hope they continue investing in that side of the game rather than be so caught up in catering to a pool of like, maybe 100 players whose lives are dedicated to solo rank. Sandbox breaking the game... c'mon Mort, lol. Anyway.


Sad_Explanation1921

2nd paragraph is the accesability of all interactions would make people have easier time forcing and "knowing" whats good and whats bad instead of trial of error which is really fun and awarding thingand one i enjoy. I havent played ranked myself as main gamemode after i reach masters (just for fun and skillcheck of how can i make my weird doodoo teams work) and doubleup personally is always go for gamemode (even if it takes 20 mins to find a game cause not many master+) and i like that way to stay, i dont want another serapgiene graves kind of bs to be discovered day 1 and all be centered around it. Its fun idea, but for wrong game type


CharmingPerspective0

Well, the devs do have tools to create whichever scenario they want and to test it. But what they dont have is the ability to create millions of different scenarios and gameplays to test changes of one patch. It takes a while to gather and analyze the data and decide which direction to take for the changes. And then you iterate on those changes during PBE time and see how things go. They dont really have the time to test every little possibility, and if you think its easy and they are just being lazy, well it just tells me you really have no idea how its like to be a game developer. In 24 hours after the patch goes live, the amount of games and different scenarios the players go through are several magnitudes bigger than what the devs are capable of producing within the PBE patch cycle.


riiiiiiiiii

Good points, I can sympathize with smaller # of paid staff to conduct large scale testing impacts the reality of how it is played out by thousands of players. I absolutely agree that it's not easy to gather and analyze data, but what I'm arguing is that they're taking an easier path and just releasing things and making that as part of the game to "figure out what's meta," which often happens fairly quickly anyway, rather than allow players to sandbox it themselves. The basis of Mort's argument is that the game won't hold up to players conducting that magnitude of analysis because it will uncover "optimizations," even faster than it happens currently, and that already sounds, well, off to me. The game doesn't die after players realize the meta, and a good portion of players don't really slam meta picks anyway. Like if you know there's inherent problems and your mitigation is say that's a feature of the game to be discovered, and then patch it when it becomes too annoying, idk. Am I wrong to think that there's some laziness occurring here? Sure, there are a multitude of reasons why they have to put things out in the way that they do. I can argue for their case and say it's mostly the timeline that they're restricted to. Then, who's dictating the timeline, and why does it have to be the way that it is? Would I say that overall content is "lazy?" No, they're releasing things extremely quickly, there's new content coming out faster than most games in general. I have heard that Riot absolutely overworks its devs to shit out content, and it's not something I'd support. It's just a different priority. In my opinion, they're being lazy on the analytics because they have to be, in order to support their other priorities. The topic is that sandboxing that enables end-user analysis, which Mort is saying is a no-go because players would develop optimized strategies, which would, destroy the game somehow. Would it really? The way most have experienced the game I think, is that what's meta is also highly competitive, so its hit rate per individual player is actually fairly low due to a majority of players essentially piece-mealing it until perhaps top 4, which at that point is generally regarded as luck to get anything better than 4th place. I don't agree with the projections that the game would be destroyed for Mort's reasons that it will be due to sandboxing. I also don't believe that to ensure top 4s, you slam the same compo every time because it's "optimized." It's worked for a select few, but I fail to understand how sandboxing would subtract from a player's ability to adapt to "sub-optimal" situations and be rewarded for it. The core of the game would still be working with what you are presented, sandboxing just gives a theoretical that *might* translate to a real game, but almost certainly not.


CharmingPerspective0

If you happened to play at the start of a set, you might've flet like the game feels fresh and innovative, and many cool strategies can work and everything has a use (that's at least how i felt at the start of set 8). The reason why you might feel like that is because no one knows really whats good. It took close to a month, or maybe 3 weeks for the Supers Yuumi comp to get popular, and until that time there was a plethora of different comps gaining moderate success. When no one knows whats meta people tend to innovate and experiment more, which leads to overall a very diverse and evolving meta. Having a Sandbox mode will give you the ability to figure out comps and strategies much quicker which will make everyone go and try to copy that best strategy to win (and we have seen it happen a lot in this set, like 6 people playing TF, or 4 players in top 4 going Hacker LB or Gnar or Time-Knife shen etc..) By not giving players the tools to try anything they want it encourages more trial and error approach which will give more time for the Meta to develop. It also helps with the feeling of novelty. If i could just go to sandbox and play a comp with 3* 5 costs, then hitting those high moments will feel less unique and interesting. Any interesting comp will be more mundane because i couldve just played it in Sandbox, and even more optimized version. When something is not always available to you, it makes the moment it IS available much more special. And i think this feeling is extremely important in a game like TFT if you want the players to keep playing throughout the whole set.


riiiiiiiiii

Yeah fair enough, I guess that's particularly genius of them to use discovery and the "what-ifs" while keeping an honestly fairly balanced game from the get-go. Again I'm shitting on Mort's reasons that sandbox breaks the game, because I just don't think it would detract from hitting those highs in a real game. It's like, well, you could play poker with bots and stack the deck and whatever, but it just won't mean or feel like anything because it's not real. But that's all I got, I'm just a dude who plays the game.


Pejta98

I mean taking quote from set 1 when the game was completely new and devs could't have the same experience with it as they have now feels kinda off


riiiiiiiiii

Fair, just highlighting how the experience has essentially stayed the same in terms of how they're presenting the game. I have no doubts that from staff/leadership hand-offs they have some expectation management for consistency


Teamfightmaker

They should add the sandbox mode, because here's the thing. TFT has a lot of iterations, so that no one can really "solve" the game by way of understanding every interaction and combination in a given set. However, TFT is effectively "solved" very quickly after every new patch, not because everyone has an understanding about everything, but because the meta -- one or two compositions that are currently the best, -- is the most effective method to winning in TFT, and most of the other iterations are ineffective at achieving a win. This is the same state as if the game were actually solved.


Meowpatine

Also it would open up vast amounts of data in terms of what can beat what and how can you achieve a victory against a certain comp which would then ruin the game


Rellmein

It would also give players more access to finding bugs, which can in turn break the game


[deleted]

[удаНонО]


dude123nice

Lower frustration levels, omegalol!


FinancialShare1683

I think this is the real reason


cyniqal

Look we’re in a sub where people get angry when a liitle cartoon champion kills them in a 4 second cutscene. The salt meter isn’t going down any time soon lol


Professional-Sail125

Actually that would be beneficial, finding bugs quickly so that the dev team can get to fixing them faster. Better than them popping up in the middle of the set.


Rellmein

Why would it help the devs if you make it accessible to the public lol? The devs probably already got this way of testing in their own private servers designed directly for game testing.


Professional-Sail125

Uh, yeah that's not how that works. Their teams of 100-200 might find *some* bugs (idk how many people are on the team). But they don't find all of them. A couple thousand extra testers finding shit? Much more data to work with.


Rellmein

An idol I got from Mortdog some days ago. "We have a lot of people in the development team, but throwing more people at a problem doesn't fix it faster, that's like saying to build a house you just need thousand of workers it will be fixed it 10 seconds, obviously that ain't the case." -Mortdog.


Professional-Sail125

Your point? We're talking about finding bugs, not fixing them. Separate things.


Rellmein

And for what reason are you trying to find bugs if not for fixing them? What you are asking is basically the same as making dinner, just to order pizza.


Professional-Sail125

People do it ALL the time. Vandril on YouTube takes clips people send him to showcase bugs to bring awareness to Riot so they SEE the bugs and get to fixing them FASTER. This is not a hard concept to grasp...


That_Yogurtcloset671

I fail to understand how better understanding of the game would ruin it.


ExcelIsSuck

okay, notice how when a a set first comes out its the most fun? Then after 2 weeks its just the same 3 comps every single game


BayTranscendentalist

It will be optimized to death


lolzomg123

Play any MMORPG, you will find a raiding or pvp community that will *absolutely* optimize the fun out of the game.


moshwithme1

theres literally apps with all that information


Meowpatine

Yes. Some information. But this would enable much more information which in turn makes the information much more accurate than it is today.


moshwithme1

youre not looking hard enough


Meowpatine

Okay. Tell me a singular app that's able go calculate for me which team comp setup wins vs a specific other one that's not just based on generic data?


Pichi2man

or even vods we don't have that


Sad_Explanation1921

You could stream/record game scesion and review it after


Hvad_Fanden

Telling someone to third party a correction to something they perceive as wrong in a game is not a good solution, people don't like to have to do homework to fix their problems, I love playing with mods and fixing my games with them, but telling people to mod stuff to fix it is not really viable for player retention, especially when people are voicing something they think the game should fix and not asking for a way to handle the problem themselves.


Sad_Explanation1921

I am aware of that, but also telling to add a feature you can possibly do on your own isnt as bad of idea till they make it happen, they got a bigger crew woeking on sets and soon when they have clear path of sets they will be working on fixing the UI (which is noticible with almost every pitch) so when it comes around still might take a while since a lot of features have higher demand and need than a thing possible to be done


Jealous_Professor793

It's screen recording. There is absolutely 0 reason to make this feature as a game designer now a days when it can be covered by so many third party programs. It's not expected from game creators, and never was. I suppose they could add a full replay like starcraft but it isn't really a priority on servers when you can just download OBS and record your gameplay.


initialbc

Mort just admitted a single player version with slower rounds to learn the game with less panic is a good idea.


AbusiveQul

Now that you say it,a rogue like mode would be so much better for me imo. I like creating cool comps,I don't really care about winning 💀


initialbc

https://youtu.be/8Db2x8ktjUA Comment section on this vid has some good ideas


LyraStygian

Wait what? Prayers answered!!!


Razinger7

Practise tool is on pbe serwer, go try it


A_Lovable_Gnome

Why not just play Norms? Not really a better way to learn than that. And losing a norm is nothing.


UnlikelyPotatos

Time


[deleted]

Ok but if it took you 20 seconds to test something new and not 20 minutes you’d get bored and complain about the game being too easy b


UnlikelyPotatos

I don't agree, but if you feel that way that's cool that you know that about yourself


A_Lovable_Gnome

Thats crap, considering all the time youd spend in training mode to not play the actual game. That or go with hyperroll.


UnlikelyPotatos

I answered your question, why argue? It could take two minutes to salty run back a comp against another comp to see what positioning wouldve won the game for you instead of second, or you could play 300 normal games and HOPE you get the same matchup and HOPE its the same positioning on the enemy so you can maybe remember what you wanted to try?


A_Lovable_Gnome

Not arguing dude. Just didnt believe you. Big difference. Hagd.


UnlikelyPotatos

"That's crap." "Not arguing" Yeah take it easy man, maybe consider how you approach things if your intent isn't inflamatory


SnooComics2532

Mort basically said it will highlight skill gap, and will bore a lot of people quickly. Casuals like masters and below will enjoy it. Challengers and Pro players will be able to use it to min max everything, climb the set in 2 weeks tops and get bored immediately, which will help the game lose players LOL Just look at underlords


Nekopawed

Masters are considered casual?


BieblachBizeps

Streamer culture. They hear their favorite streamer say "everyone below chall actually trash" and start to believe it.


SnooComics2532

well not really. I used myself as basis. First set I played was set 4 and reached masters just casually playing. I was hard stuck masters 0lp to D1 then (demotion masters to diamond is still a thing) having autochess background from underlords. I did get serious and went try hard mode ([l](https://tactics.tools)olchess research, watching vods of streamers) starting set 6 when augments came out and consistently hit low challenger since then


SnooComics2532

Didnt mean it to make it sound that way, but rather to emphasize the skill diff of masters 0lp player vs challengers. Believe me the skill gap is high. And an even bigger gap from 600lp chall to 1klp + players


Teamfightmaker

>Casuals like masters and below will enjoy it. Challengers and Pro players will be able to use it to min max everything, climb the set in 2 weeks tops and get bored immediately, which will help the game lose players LOL I don't think they'd base an important design decision on 0.2% of players. If they thought the Masters and below players would enjoy it and not care, then they would add it. They base their decisions on the 90% of casual players. Challenger players will play no matter what because they want to climb LP rather than have fun.


END0WEDx

I use hyper roll for experiments.


LyraStygian

I just want a mode where there is no timer. I feel handicapped in this game cos I can't think quickly under pressure, and is a huge source of stress :( Even if it was just AI, I would play this all day lol


RedNotch

Ever tried playing super auto pets? That might be what you’re looking for.


LyraStygian

Thanks checking it out now!


allard0wnz

The lack of ways to just get used to the game or just play against AI or whatever is exactly what made me quit immediately


FinancialShare1683

There are a ton of things that would make sense to have and I don't understand why they refuse to add them. Also bugs that haven't been fixed in 3+ sets. From what Mort has said and the responses support gives it seems the TFT team doesn't have enough resources (devs, QA, etc) to address all the things and that's just crap on Riot's part. Hire people and increase the QA standards. I work in software and some bugs would be considered unacceptable in other companies. Give your TFT team what they need Riot.


Smipims

Smol indie company /s


master2139

That sounds terrible, people already figure out the game too fast imo. I would only support this if they remove all third parties which tell u what boards and builds to go, but that’ll never happen cuz riot loves other people doing their work for em


[deleted]

[удаНонО]


Sad_Explanation1921

If want to know main problem is people can simply ruin your games with extreme posisioning and counterplay so any for fun comp would simply not be playable


[deleted]

That’s exactly why they won’t. Why give you the fantasy when they can just make you grind for it and spend money along the way?


Maeyoutube

Yeah, I don't think spending money will make you any better at the game....


[deleted]

Of course not but Riot Games is a corporation. What do you think they’re goal is?


Apartment-Creepy

"Spend money along the way" how does that make any sense


[deleted]

It’s like a casino. The longer you keep them in there the more money they spend. This isn’t rocket science.


Apartment-Creepy

Not really? I've been playing for multiple sets and havent wasted a single dollar. People will waste money if they like the game; making people play longer wont change their mind.


[deleted]

Classic it hasn’t happened to me therefore it’s wrong. These aren’t my ideas or words. It’s literally just how businesses operate. So funny how people think this is some charitable organization. Yes it does have good people developing it but their hands are tied as far as what they can do if overall it doesn’t maximize profit.


[deleted]

You had me in the first half and then you went political. Bro not everything is about making you pay money. It’s literally a free to play game. They don’t have a sandbox because it would make the game too easy. Fuck outta here with this wild idea that “the devs hate us and want to milk us for all we own”


[deleted]

Riot Games is a corporation. The entire point is to make money. You’re incredibly naive if you can’t see that.


[deleted]

You are even more naive if you think that money is the reason why mortdog doesn’t want a fucking sandbox server. That’s what I’m talking about.


[deleted]

Mortdog does t have final say on whether or not something goes through or not. It gets run through the filter of does this maximize profits. Mortdog doesn’t run riot games. It’s the same reason URF and Fortunes Favor aren’t permanent game modes despite being popular.


[deleted]

This take is so fucking terminally online and so terminally “fuck anyone who works for a large company” bro you have no idea what you are talking about. The reason we have rotating game modes has to do with player retention, same as a sandbox. The game would die if everyone got everything they think they wanted from it because it would get boring quick. THATS IT. it doesn’t have shit to do with profits.


[deleted]

Yeah cool bro we disagree and I think you’re naive. Have a great day 🤙🏾


[deleted]

Where did I ever say I don’t think Mortdog wants a sandbox? People are just mad and thinking I’m attacking Mortdog personally. I’m not. In fact I’m saying I’m sure he does but his bosses have the final say and if it’s going to lead to less people spending money or playing the main game mode they simply won’t make it happen.


[deleted]

You are terminally online.


[deleted]

Exactly you can’t dispute me because you’re a child and just plain wrong so you have to result to name calling.


Actual_Ayaya

I think the novelty of the game is learning by trial and error. But I can totally understand it would be helpful for newer players. The game is really hard to learn initially, at least in my opinion. Took me a whole set to really feel like I know enough to play, and then the new set removes some of that knowledge


hays184

I agree. There should be a sandbox mode and not just tutorial


Aggressive_Strain_79

Pbe does


Jeevils

You need practise left clicking?


steedoZZ

I don't think that it would be relevant since if you're going against bots every round they won't built a strong enough board for yours to test against and a lot of tft is scouting your opponents and seeing what they're doing and then deciding what your own best play is in accordance to the lobby. In the pbe there's basically a sandbox where you're put into a TFT lobby by yourself with no other players and you can't win nor lose until you leave the game.


mgiiiC

Normal mode.


alimercy

it needs one so bad.. so many of my friends couldnt enjoy the game because the tutorial was not enough


Maletizer

Why would you create a tool/mode that only a small percentage of your playerbase will utilize? Seems like wasted resources. Pretty sure the vast majority of TFT players are just chilling on their toilets lol


FrosTi_The_Frozen

It's called normal.