Riot Games updated League of Legends today with controversial changes to the "jungle". For the uninformed, the jungle in LoL is a series of neutral monsters that players can kill to gain experience, gold, and buffs during a match. It is an optional path, but in competitive play there is almost always guaranteed to be a "jungler" on the team clearing the jungle.
Some really good information has been coming out now that the patch is a few hours old. First up is a numbers post on Reddit covering the new respawn times and camp values based on time of clearing during the match. They are not set in stone yet, so check back for updates (the Reddit LoL community is great for fast digestion of patch changes FYI).
Prior to this patch, jungling required choosing one of the few jungling champions and a specific set of masteries, runes, and summoner spells. In this patch the jungle was made "easier" in the aspect that the monsters are now a bit easier to kill and are less likely to be able to kill the player. However, killing brain dead monsters wasn't exactly a challenge to begin with so saying it got easier is more in regards to the fact that far more champions with more diverse builds can now jungle successfully (instead of just as a joke).
Maokai has been a recent jungle star even prior to the patch due to some play by some top LoL players, so he is a good champ to show off some footage of the new jungle. If you are not a hardcore LoL player, you may not notice any difference in this footage from the old jungler. However, the differences are there as Maokai comes away with a very fast and efficient jungle run before emerging with level 4 after clearing the camps.
The new jungle is just the tip of the iceberg for this patch. Many other balance changes came down the pipeline aimed at making the early part of classic LoL games more aggressive in nature which should speed up games and make it a better spectator sport.
Personally I have been playing a lot of Dominion (a different game mode without a jungle). Dominion has faster games and focuses more on champion vs champion combat on a capture the point map. I like the faster game times and the more aggressive play. If this patch cuts down the average game length and increases the action in classic LoL, then I will probably return for some normal solo queue action.
Anyone else have thoughts on the new jungle? On the patch? Share in the comments.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Are CCP and EVE Online back on track?
There is no doubt that EVE Online’s biggest crutch has been its own developers; CCP. First it was CCP employees giving unfair advantages and preferential treatment to certain in game corporations (aka guilds/clans). Next it was the micro-transaction debacle and the community unanimously agreeing that CCP was being greedy. The core community around EVE was starting to crumble and CCPs only answers seemed to be projects completely unrelated to the core of what made EVE tick (Dust 514, virtual monocles, other games like World of Darkness).
This culminated in CCP finally realizing they were overextended as a company. So they shut down a studio and fired a bunch of people. They also figured out that it was about time they started to focus on the core of EVE Online before continuing with any of the peripheral nonsense that had gotten them in so much trouble as a company. The direct result of that refocus is the Crucible expansion.
With the Crucible expansion CCP is returning to the basics of EVE, such as introducing new ships, squashing bugs, and improving the “it’s more like a spreadsheet than a game” user interface. And that is just a brief overview of what is getting worked on with Crucible. CCP appears to be digging down deep to work on many of the long-standing, yet minor issues that have plagued the game while at the same time taking a hard look at polishing things such as starbase management and fleet vs fleet engagements. Graphical flair through engine trails and updated space backgrounds are also featured.
Most important to note is that nothing is mentioned about virtual monocles, console FPS spin offs, or Iceland’s volcanic history. Crucible is aimed 100% at the core of EVE Online and CCP is selling this as redemption for their past missteps.
Reading over the notes and feature set for Crucible I can only draw the conclusion that CCP is committed to getting EVE Online back on track. There are several excellent improvements going into the game with Crucible, some that should have been fixed long ago (like the damn UI font). I’m sincerely hoping CCP has learned their lessons and they will take better care of EVE Online going forward.
EVE is still the MMO that I’ve always wanted to play and these are the type of changes that will continue to interest players like me. Unfortunately, I can’t justify a monthly subscription for an MMO with my very limited play time. Also, I’ve already experienced the gambit EVE has to offer: massive warfare, getting ganked, “rat”ting, and watching your corp implode as the corp leader robs the coffers bare. Someday I hope I can return and just be a lonely jackass pirate ganking newbs two jumps outside of Jita.
Monday, November 28, 2011
Battlefield 3 is a step back
Battlefield 3 is probably the last new game I will ever buy. The game was not ready to be launched and it is clear that EA and DICE only launched to beat Modern Warfare 3 to the market. If anything, I should have waited for the Black Friday $30 sale. Battlefield 3 is NOT worth $60. While Battlefield 3 is a definite step back for the Battlefield series, it will still be a solid installment once they patch in the rest of the game and fix the glaring WTF balance issues (IRNV anyone?).
Battlefield 3 is a perfectly serviceable game at this point. It runs well for everyone I play with and aside from the initial rubber-banding issue on 64-player servers, I have no technical complaints about the game. The graphics are beautiful, even on low settings, and it plays smoothly. Graphic card manufacturers have been very responsive with BF3 specific drivers.
So if there aren’t any technical disasters, then why would I say the game was not ready to be launched? BF3 is one of the rare games that launches on a solid platform (Frostbite 2) from an experienced team (DICE), but is missing that extra layer of polish and features that could separate it from other titles on the market. On top of this, there are previous Battlefield games that, in my opinion, have far better feature sets. In fact, I’ll reiterate; Battlefield 3 at launch is a step back for the Battlefield series as a whole.
The biggest glaring problem for Battlefield 3 is one of UI design. This is ironic considering that the one thing Battlefield 3 did fix for the series is that of a functional server browser. Some may not like Battle Log, but the truth is that Battle Log is the best server browser to be featured in any Battlefield game. However, the actual in-game UI is terrible and only now with the first patch is it even approaching being useable.
At launch, squad management within the UI was impossible and even after the first patch fixed some of the problems, there is still massive room for improvement. It is entirely possible for a player to be locked out of joining a squad if all the squads get locked to private with less than four players (the max squad size). There is exactly enough squads and spots to accommodate 64 players. On a full server if a squad locks itself private with only two players, two players will not be able to join a squad on that server. I don’t have to state how dumb that UI limitation is. The ability to create an unlimited number of custom squads needs to be added.
The lack of in-game voice further destroys the squad aspect of the game, especially when the in-game chat UI is unusable. The chat window is too big, with no control of text size or font, and features the new and annoying “glowing” text that DICE seems to love. Both of these combine to limit on-the-fly squad creation.
Missing from the game as well is the role of a commander, a prominent feature from Battlefield 2 that set the Battlefield series apart in the FPS genre. In BF2, a single player could take on the role of commander and survey the entire battlefield setting up UAV drones to spot enemies, issue artillery strikes, give squads attack/defend orders, and in general provide that strategic organization so badly needed in a Battlefield game.
BF3 isn’t remiss on the “key components” of the commander role as they have shifted the features into various aspects. Squad leaders can issue attack and defend orders. Any player can spot enemy players (press Q more pls). Artillery strikes are replaced by the mortar of the Supply class. The Supply class can drop ammo boxes to resupply players.
Even though almost all of the functions of the commander role are present, the biggest and most important aspect is missing: organization. There is nothing that ties all the squads and battlefield assets together. Without a commander, the battlefield doesn’t live up to much more than a sparsely connected series of firefights.
To harp on the UI’s last fatal flaw I want to point out how damn impossible the mini-map is to read. Again, DICE chooses to use the glowing neon lines and glowing text that they are so fond of. It’s distracting and annoying; especially considering the map is a blue/black/white satellite image of the map. Other than checking for spotted enemies, the map is worthless leading to the final nail in the organized battlefield coffin.
The UI was the first and biggest step back, but there are a couple other things that equally upset me about the game. The destruction is dialed back significantly from that of Bad Company 2. Mostly, it is a problem of map design. The maps are meant to be larger, but also more “iconic”. And by iconic I mean they feature set pieces which clearly aren’t meant to be destroyed such as large communication antennas, shipping crates, gas stations, refinery pipes, etc. This results in a very confusing play experience where in some instances a tank shell will crumble a wall and in the next instance the tank shell can’t even penetrate a flimsy tin shed. Or the hilarity that ensues when a tank is stopped by a dreaded indestructible light post. The “most destruction ever” bullet point on the box for BF3 is a complete and utter lie.
The destruction is only part of the issue with the maps. BF3 features some truly atrocious maps. Operation Metro is hands down the worst Battlefield map ever designed. It takes out everything that makes a Battlefield game Battlefield and replaces it with a corridor shooter. Caspian Border is a lesson in running and running and running as too few land vehicles spawn and only seem to spawn back at the bases which are located much too far away from the fight. Nashar Canals features a stationary anti-air turret that dominates a third of the map and resides on an almost unreachable ship anchored off the shore. I could go on and on about the maps, but I won’t. Hopefully the Back to Karkand mini-expansion and it’s updated Battlefield 2 maps will bring back some sanity to BF3 maps.
There are also other things missing or altered for BF3. There is no battle recorder which was one of Battlefield 2’s best features. Fun tools like the grappling hook and zip lines of BF2:Special Forces are gone. Night vision is plugged into a scope with infrared (aka IRNV) which is pretty much equivalent to a wall hack. Night vision, as implemented in Special Forces was a much better way to go. There are no custom squad settings. In-game voice is missing.
BF3 should have been a combination of Bad Company 2 and Battlefield 2. Instead BF3 is a crappier version of BC2 that happens to have planes on some of the maps. With all of this said, I still will play the game for a good bit. It is, at its core, a Battlefield game and while some aspects are lacking, it still delivers that Battlefield experience. At the end of the day I rank BF3 in last place on my list of played BF titles, which isn’t too bad considering every BF game has been good to me.
My list:
1. Battlefield 2
2. Battlefield 1942
3. Battlefield: Bad Company 2
4. Battlefield Heroes
5. Battlefield 3
Cyber Monday Gaming Deals
Amazon.com
Steam
Last day to cash in on the Steam sale!
Rotating hourly lightning deals in gaming (varies based on time, check in often)
Last day to cash in on the Steam sale!
Friday, November 25, 2011
TIP: How to move Steam games to another drive in Windows 7/Vista/XP
One of the quirks with Steam is that it only allows users to install games to the same drive that Steam resides on. For many, that is their main C: drive, which often fills up quickly. This tool, the SteamTool Library Management will automate the process.
Or for those wishing to do it the old manual way, I will detail the process used to move 3rd party games to another drive. This will be for Windows 7
and Vista
(Windows XP users click here).
Or for those wishing to do it the old manual way, I will detail the process used to move 3rd party games to another drive. This will be for Windows 7
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)