Thread:Willbachbakal/@comment-26815373-20160908163145/@comment-1330314-20160910062252

With pleasure!

1) The more elaborate version of my response is basically still my Another Look at Vision blog post, and the ward type I talk about there is essentially just a without the stealth, with a reduced, terrain-agnostic sight radius and the health of a . On paper, the idea of just having one ward to cover for basically the entire item-based vision game doesn't sound very interesting, but I think making all wards visible would actually improve the gameplay of vision significantly, and do away with a lot of unnecessary complexity.

With that said, and as said before, this is likely just one of many possible avenues. A revamp to ward types and trinkets, for example, could add a ton more depth to the vision game. However, that would obviously present more complexity than just having one ward as a trinket, so it becomes a question of how much complexity you can afford to have and the benefits it brings. If you construct your system well, which I think you did, you can avoid a ton of the burden of knowledge that currently plagues the vision game, and I think one of the great aspects to your own vision rework is that many of the options it presents actually simplify entry into the vision game somewhat (the Snitch's ping would give much clearer feedback to newer players, for example), while still presenting a ton of depth.

2) I think your modelization of the vision interplay loop is perfectly accurate and beautifully represented. The loop itself, however, should likely be simplified, imo, if only just by removing true sight. I agree, we deserve to have both sub-vision detection effects and ways of playing against vision, and it truly is a good thing that both exist, as they add a lot of gameplay, but I think "detection" as it is represented deserves to have be more widely applicable to stealth, and nearsight feels like it should be pretty much the only form of vision denial.

Detection, to me, is any way of getting information on the enemy that isn't flat-out normal sight, so it could be Tremor Sense's movement radar, the audio feedback of a projectile colliding with a target, etc. With respect to stealth, though, I think the counters to stealth should be baked into the stealth mechanic itself, rather than into separate items or effects, hence my opposition to true sight: enemies should be able to detect stealth champions in some form or another through innate outplay, e.g. bumping into them or hitting them with an ability to cause a red trinket-like shimmer (not that that needs to be the solution, though), and as long as the counters to stealth depend completely on items or niche abilities, the mechanic will never be truly healthy.

As for denial, I like nearsight specifically because it's an effect that gives powerful immediate feedback: you basically can't see beyond a very small radius, and that's the perfect case of vision denial. However, denial in the form of item-based counters to another item, i.e. red trinket, does not appeal to me, because it's this artificial system of its own rather than an organic component of the game at large, and disabling wards specifically just makes them even more difficult to properly assess. Perhaps there's room for denial in the form of truly deceptive effects, so false information in the vein of, -like clones, etc. (and even then, there would have to be strict rules to its implementation), because those effects carry some interesting gameplay, but otherwise I'd move against effects, especially item-based effects, designed specifically to counter the sight provided by other item-based effects.

3) I'll give my updated feedback on Imoen on her blog post. Without having yet read her current kit in full, I can tell you that the absolute last thing you should worry about with a paper concept is "straying too far". Perhaps I'm not one to fully trust on this, as several of my concepts are infamously min-maxed or bizarrely structured to the point of alienness, at least to a portion of users here, but I think any paper kit's purpose is, above all, to offer something radically new and worthy of consideration, something Imoen already achieves as a vision-centric, combat-averse champion. No matter how well-designed your champion is, it's unlikely her kit is ever going to be ported wholesale by Riot into League, because they have testing, tech and design resources that get to reveal a ton of things we would be unlikely to even consider. However, if your champion stands out enough, and has a strong enough niche and appeal to be worth adding, then Riot is far more likely to incorporate the concept into the game, more so than if you had chosen instead to focus on a "safer", albeit possibly better-balanced kit. Personally, I have a lot more respect for a kit that really tries to do something different, even if it fails, than for one that shows me nothing I haven't seen before, no matter how balanced it is or how nicely it's presented (presentation might be more important if you're trying to appeal to a wider audience and/or Riot, though, especially on the Boards).