User blog comment:Lesdin/(Rework) Sona, the Marvel/@comment-27802145-20190915102958/@comment-7709681-20190916022251

@Lesdin: I tend to be uncaring with my critiques because want to be as objective as possible, but don't you consider you're being too severe and rigid in regards to the kit's fairness? I noticed a trend on each point of your response about considering as necessary the paramount inflexibility of punishment in regards to player failure and/or mechanical compensation.

I get that failure shouldn't be rewarded or that there shouldn't be too much leeway for players to compose themselves out of bad situations, but makes it look like punishment has to be felt without second thoughts and remind the players of it. I'm pointing out each bulletpoint of my comment not because your balancing decisions are bad in regards to the fairness or the wellbeing of the kit but the grim outlook on player experience.

This ain't a soulborne game or a rogue-like where is demanded of the player to accept failure as a (successful) form of artificial skill curving, because there the player experience is optimized around that fact. Even when the kit has room for success doubt someone would like a champion that makes them feel like shit not only for screwing up but also by not playing exactly as intended.

In regards to specific points:

> "That's a good point you're raising, but I also feel like it's one that's more of a semantic one rather than a pragmatic one."

That's why I clarified that did understand the intended idea, because is a semantic issue overall. But yes, right now cannot think off a better way to phrase it.

> This in ways is how I'm approaching Sona in the sense that there needs to be a rhythmic flow to the key presses.

You don't orient spells, you just reposition the best you can with what little is given, then press the intended button and hope for the best. Perhaps using "button mashing" wasn't the best choice since is associated with mindless gameplay by facerolling the keyboard, but I meant it in regards to how automated the kit is, to the point most of the user's actions resume to press a button and let the kit do the rest.

>  Although, I'm not sure where you got the CD from. Perhaps the deprecated effect that abilities can only be cast once per revolution?

I could be wrong here so correct me in case I am: If a complete revolution takes four beats and each song has a range of minimum and maximum beats per minute (or rather, 60 seconds), I can measure how many seconds pass within a lapse of 4 beats on each limit of each song to know how long it takes for a revolution to happen, which translates to a cooldown since each basic ability can be cast only once per revolution. Adagio's minimum, the overall minimum, then roughly translates to 3.5s CD, and Allegro's maximum, the overall maximum, then roughly translates to 1.5s CD.

> The player agency lies in not messing up, as I've pointed out earlier.

That doesn't sound as player agency, but rather lack thereof. I meant it in regards to how much control has the player over the kit's imput and output, and considering most of the kit is automated for better and for worst cases, believe there's little of it. Again, what does the player do with the kit other than moving to reposition and pressing buttons? Would argue that choosing a song or aiming R, but that's it, everything else is at the kit's mercy.

> I agree. This is intended.

> I agree to this also. The punishment is supposed to be severe.

> I don't believe people should be given a chance to "redo" mistakes entirely.

> If your idea of player agency is to be applied here, this person who has been caught out would still be able to "redo" their mistake in getting caught, and LoL eventually devolves into a dodgeball game with people competing in pure mechanics. You mess up, you need to get screwed.

The way you phrase it, you make it sound like player agency means removing the most human variables out of the kit as possible by reducing it to minimum incomes and outcomes that automate the most you can of them, so if the kit's performance fails is not because is suboptimal or not working as intended but the player is really screwing up, so much that has to be reminded of it.

In its essence, yes, LoL and dare I say most MOBA enviroments resume to "dodgeball" patterns: Eventually someone will screw up, eventually someone will succeed, sometimes mechanics won't always speak of design quality or player performance, sometimes gameplay resumes to a silly balance between skill, experience, communication and luck. Othewise, there's little gameplay to be felt by the player when most of what the kit can do is done by itself and if that doesn't work is because the player really isn't working. One as a designer can at most create an enviroment where failure feels comprehensive and not punishing, and success feels earned and not granted.

> This is an indirect relation, but it adheres to Jinxylord's philosophy that Rengars one-shotting isolated, ill-positioned enemies is healthy for the game, in that there needs to be set a minimum threshold for what is gained and lost through player mistakes that shouldn't've happened in the first place.

Hear me out here: If Rengar is fully capable of one-shotting a player because this is fed up and the target is mispositioned, then yes, is healthy, what's not healthy of that is the lack of response from the target on said scenario, and how much does the kit is gated towards that single blow so regardless of how Rengar builds he'll certainly one-shot. Is there where Rengar isn't healthy. It ain't wrong for him to one-shot but rather how guaranteed he is to do so. In regards to redoing that, for silly as it sounds here, no better answer than Ekko for that.