User blog comment:Lesdin/(Rework) Sona, the Marvel/@comment-27802145-20190915102958/@comment-27802145-20190917022646

Is my outlook on player experience really so grim? I'd honestly wager that being mere rhetoric. I may have phrased myself quite bluntly but I don't see anything wrong with reasoning that players should be punished for making mistakes. As for your analogy comparing my design philosophies to that of a soulsborne game's, I raise you the practice tool! Lotsa content here, and I'm typing this when really tired, but still great fun!
 * 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.
 * Could you provide me an example of a kit that doesn't function this way? When would it be correct to reward players for not playing a champion as they're intended to be, within the confines of its own design?
 * 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.
 * I don't see anything wrong with this kind of design approach as long as it caters to specific people adequately whilst not committing any design sins. I think a good comparison would be Urgot's new kit proceeding his mini-rework. The kit in itself is quite 'automated', in that it can operate with minimal user input to a certain degree, but this isn't to say that kit itself isn't appreciable nor feature skill expression. A good Urgot player will always outperform their average counterpart.
 * ... which translates to a cooldown since each basic ability can be cast only once per revolution.
 * This is no longer a feature. Abilities don't have cooldowns as long as they're not queued. If they are queued, their cooldowns would be 1 or 2 beats, depending on how you look at it.
 * 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, those are basic actions and everything else is at the kit's mercy.
 * I don't quite understand what you're trying to criticize here. All kits are static in what they can output and there is only so much a human player can input on their front. It is what players do with said static output that dictates their success, is it not? If you're arguing that the lack of variation required in executing the abilities (skill shots, targeted abilities, channelled abilities) is a bad thing, I don't really see why that's an issue.
 * 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.
 * Gameplay need not pertain to purely micromanaging intricacies to be interesting. Kits which harbour nigh infinite potential like Akali and Yasuo via only being capped on input and not output are ultimately frustrating to deal with for other players, and the enjoyment of the player of that champion comes at the expense of others. This paradigm is not good for any multiplayer game. We're talking extremes here but if I had to choose between all champions being like Urgot and Swain (great consistency, proper execution boosts performance) or Akali and Yasuo (poor consistency, proper execution makes them unbeatable), I would choose Urgot and Swain in less than a heartbeat. Augmented consistency is not mutually exclusive with appreciable failures, and outplaying enemies should never be the only source of player success. The amount of influence a player has on their own success should be hard capped, and the amount of punishment a player suffers due to their own failures should have a definite floor.
 * 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.
 * Why is it wrong for Rengar to be guaranteed a kill provided certain prerequisites are met by both Rengar and his target? Player agency still exists for both parties, in the sense of being able to prevent the whole situation from arising. Why is it necessary, should the situation arise, for it to be undoable? Counterplay defines a kit but counterplay beyond counterplay defeats it. If a Rengar who is looking to one-shot builds accordingly, and should there be an isolated target who is overextended and/or caught out, in what world is it correct to say that Rengar still shouldn't be guaranteed the kill there? In the same vein, Hourglass is a cancer upon League and it's stuff like this which appeals to not reason but to the cries of the many. Provided that Hourglass is a definite variable in games now, Rengar players need to account for it, and if they don't it's on them, that much is true. But the argument lies in the principle of it all rather than the practical side of things. Ekko players can prevent themself from dying by utilizing their kit properly (timing R to avoid the jump, preventing ferocity gain and ignoring initial burst), but if not cast in time, competent Rengar players are still guaranteed the kill through double empowered E which prevents Ekko R from being cast. And this is as it should be.