Message to Riot Devs about core game balance - The starting Attack token

Hi there, you can call me Glen (not my real name) but that doesn’t really matter at this point.

Anyways, I decided to make this post so hopefully Riot could see it (whether it gets to that point who knows), but I think my point is very sound and hopefully, people will agree with me and Riot will actually consider this change.

To make a header, this post is directed at one main balance problem I have about this game - the randomness of who starts with the attack token first, and how the player who does not start with it IS NOT COMPENSATED AT ALL. They are simply at a disadvantage.

First of all a bit about my background with TCGs - I’m in my 30s, and have played TCGs since I was 10. I’ve played many TCGs, and at a very skillful and high level - I have competed at National level tournaments for World of Warcraft TCG (this is before Hearthstone), Magic the Gathering, Legend at Hearthstone, Highest level online cups at Faeria, and I’ve literally dabbled in every TCG game ever made. I was even the state champion for a TCGplayer.com event for Magic the Gathering one year. Now I say all this not to yank my chain, but to make a point - I know TCGs very well, and I know how they work at the core, what is fair and what is not fair, and what eventually drove me away from playing TCGs. I am not some random uninformed person moaning about something.

Now I”ve played LOR quite a lot - I daresay go to say, it is my favorite TCG of all time. That is ssaying A LOT. That means Riot has done a lot right- it has incorporated a lot of my favorite elements from all the TCGs i’ve ever played. Hell, I didn’t think I would play TCGs anymore because I got fed up at some game-breaking RNG factors that entail a lot of them. The spell mana bank is great - it allows you to stay in the game even if you miss your 1 or 2 drop cards and you don’t have them to begin with. I like the increased CARD DRAW because it means RNG is LESS of a factor, because you simply have more options per turn (and so does your opponent). No more getting screwed bc you didn’t draw enough lands like Magic, obviously - something Hearthstone spearheaded a while ago. A LOT of things done right- and I’ve had a LOT of fun playing this game because it was so very highly dependent on player choices. Except for one big thing that is really starting to turn me away.

You see, I am the type of player that doesn’t like to lose because of RNG. I study matchups, I study cards, I know all the cards, I know all the scenarios, I typically make as many right decisions as I can. I don’t like to lose because i happened to not draw the right card or bc RNG threw me a curveball. In fact I quit a lot of the TCGs that I spent hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars on bc I got fed up at that. And I fear that, if this balance change is not addressed - it will drive some of LoR’s most passionate players away. Because this game is touted as a “played skill above all” game - it is not advertised like Hearthstone, which is known and does not even try to hide the high level of RNG present in their game. It considers RNG as part of the “fun”. Sure, it is fun if you like RNG. But I think I, and many other players who REALLY like LoR, are drawn to it because you win your games PRIMARILY on skill and when i say PRIMARILY I mean a much higher number than 75 or 80% skill and 20% luck. Yes RNG is always SOME of a factor in card games, this is unavoidable as the nature of the card game, but in this game, its supposed to be VERY minimal. Even the RNG card design is aimed at to be “not all RNG” but RNG based on player choices - take the Allegiance keyword or say “Make it Rain” etc etc as detailed in Riot’s blog post.

Now I am primarily an Aggro player or midrange player, I do not typically enjoy playing control, though I can very well play it and actually play it very well. But aggro is my goto style. And because of that I noticed a glaring unequality in the fact who starts with the attack token first.

This inequality is really easily visible for aggro decks and for players using cards(mainly champions) who have QUICK ATTACK. See, quick attack is garbage on defense but GODLIKE on offense. Sure, nothing wrong with that. It’s the design. But hear me out (and i might be a little unclear in how I describe it) - certain champions with quick attack get a HUGE advantage, especially if theyre an aggro deck, when you get to play them RIGHT ON CURVE. And since you can’t play Allies with banked spell mana - it comes down to a complete RNG factor - did i start with the attack token this game, did I drew my bombass champion (Zed, Miss Fortune main culprits I see here), Drawn or Katarina lesser culprits, even Elise who gets to attack on curve turn 2 and get that free spider. And THERE IS NO compensation for the player who doesn’t start with the attack token, and I think there should be.

I played many Zed aggro mirror matches, and basically, the guy who goes first with the attack token - all things being equal, meaning all players making optimal decision - he will almost always win if he gets the attack token first and plays the Zed on attack turn 3. You can’t actually counter Zed easily unless you have a Mystic Shot type card and THERE AREN’T REALLY MANY CARDS OUT THERE that can do that. And you can’t block him, not on turn 3 really - very few cards capable of blocking and coming out on top. He’ll get that free 3/2 shadow and hit you in the face for 3 even if you sac one of ur guys to chump block and basically… he’s coming out WAY on top just bc he happened to start with the attack token first. I’m literally playing mirror matches with BETTER CARDS drawn than him sitting in my hand, and a Zed sitting in my hand - but because I CAN’T ATTACK on turn 3, he wins the aggro race bc you almost CANT block Zed that early. So I play my Zed turn 4 and attack but by then it’s too late - i’ve already had to sacrifice a unit to keep him from leveling up or just taking the dmg to the face and I’m WAY in the deficit. And this is all not because I got outplayed, but because he happened to start with the attack token first which is a COMPLETE RNG factor.

But not just talking about Zed, there are many champions who really benefit from having their turn line up right when they need to attack - Take Draven, or Miss Fortune, Jinx, yasuo - if your turn lines up, say T3 for Zed, Drvaen or Miss Fortune and you HAPPENED to start with the attack token - you get a BIG bonus and basically a free attack which is HUGE for aggro players. This is most prominent with Zed bc not only do they have to chump block you but even if they do, they still take some damage from the shadow. Jinx Yasuo on turn 4- free attack basically. You get the idea. It’s easier to deal with the more turns there are in the game when said champion is played but the RNG factor if you get to play these champs RIGHT on curve is just so game winning. And it would be OK, but here’s the thing - why is there no compensation for who doesn’t get to attack first? For instance, Hearthstone does this right- they give the turn 2 player “The Coin”. But in LoR, theres no such thing- the second turn player just gets to be at a clear disadvantage. Yes its not AS OBVIOUS in some deck matchups, like in control, its not as obvious but when you’re playing aggro? Or playing AGINST aggro? It makes A WORLD of difference.

Basically, I feel that the second player should be compensated somehow for not getting to attack first. The player who gets the attack token first is LITERALLY a turn ahead sometimes, just because… they get to attack one turn earlier than their opponent! And combined with certain cards and champions and keywords THIS. IS. DEVASTATING. It is not fair.

Now I haven’t thought about the specifics of how to balance this but I do know this - something should be done about this if ya’ll pride this game on being “skill above all” because I”ve lost so many games as aggro and against aggro because I was not able to be on curve with my attack lineups. For instance hearthstone has the coin for the t2 player, I’m sure something could be thought out for LoR.

Thank you for listening to me, and I’d love to hear your opinions on what ya’ll think - if you support me, or disagree - and if you disagree, how do you think making it completely random who attacks first with no compensation for the T2 player balanced?

The OP here is super long, and a lot of the content feels like filler to me. Quick summary before I begin so I can confirm my reading:

• You've played a lot of CCGs in your time
• You strongly dislike RNG as a major factor in winning/losing
• You believe starting with the attack token is a major advantage because attacking with your champion on curve (especially when it has Quick Attack) is a huge advantage

You claim your problem is with the starting attack token, but it's pretty plainly the case that's not true. Even setting aside the question of how often you start with the attack token (probably about 50% of the time), attacking first only matters if you want to be attacking on turn 3. Despite your claim that you think there's "nothing wrong with [Quick Attack]," your issue is with the Quick Attack mechanic and your ability to answer it. Here's the set of champions you called out, organized by cost:

• 2 Mana: Elise
• 3 Mana: Zed, Miss Fortune, Draven, Katarina
• 4 Mana: Yasuo, Jinx

Toss Lucian in there and you've got a very even split of champions whose highly advantageous "on curve attack" will be an even or odd round. So, the problem has nothing to do with who gets the starting attack token - lots of champions are better when you attack second or fourth.

Quick Attack in the early game can be oppressive because there are so few good blocks for units with Quick Attack, and the magnitude of the tempo loss on those early game blocks is significant. But as you've pointed out, Quick Attack is offense only, so if you can kill or otherwise delay the attack, you can hit back and change the math considerably on what trades are good.

So really, this all comes down to have reasonable responses (i.e an answer that costs no more than 3 or 4) to play against these early champions. Here's what I think is a full accounting by region

• P&Z: Mystic Shot, Get Excited!, Gotcha, Chump Block + Suit Up!
• SI: The Box, Chump Block + Black Spear (and to a lesser extend, Chump Block + Glimpse Beyond)
• Noxus: Death's Hand, Noxian Fervor, Guile, Culling Strike, Whirling Death
• Ionia: Steel Tempest, Concussive Palm, Will of Ionia, Spirit's Refuge
• Freljord: Brittle Steel, Chump + Elixir of Iron, Flash Freeze, Fury of the North, Bloodsworn Pledge
• Demacia: Single Combat, Prismatic Barrier, Stand Alone
• Bilgewater: Riptide

When you look over the list, it's clear that several regions (Freljord, Demacia, Bilgewater, and to a lesser extend Noxus) are worse off - their answers are either temporary solutions or require having mid-sized units in play. Spending your mana on those early mid-sized units makes it hard to have enough mana left over to play your combat trick and beat these early game champions, so there's a lot that needs to go right to make that work.

But now we're really back to the fundamental problem with the balance in this game. It's not a specific mechanic like Quick Attack, and it's not who gets the starting attack token. It's whether a region can be used to meaningfully answer a given strategy, and that's where we see decks that feature P&Z, Shadow Isles, and Ionia* shining through time and time again. These regions are consistently the most popular in the meta because they have the most effective answers to the board. Add in the fact that they have many of these powerful, snowbally Quick Attack champions and you end up with several regions that are just plain better than the others.

* Thanks to some of the Rising Tides cards, Noxus is probably on this list now too, but historically it's not as consistently strong

Starting with the attack token is only a big advantage if you have a 1 cost minion you want to attack with. Sometimes I start with the attack token and don't like it because I wanted to attack with my [Hearthstone Card (Trifarian Gloryseeker) Not Found] on turn two, but now I can't.

Attacking is weird in LoR because of the way turns work. In Magic, Hearthstone, or any other card game like that, you have the opportunity to attack on each of your turns. But in LoR, you can only attack every other turn. Starting with the attack token is only valuable if you have a 1-drop, if you don't then I would argue that starting with the attack token is a dis-advantage unless you also don't have a 2-drop.

Glen is right about the attack token advantage.
In any symmetrical game, the player with initiative always holds the advantage. 

Power Spike in this game is heavily focused on attacking with odd (Zed) or even (Elise). 
So there is only 4 possible outcomes:
1- > 1st- odd vs odd - 2nd;
2 -> 1st- odd vs even- 2nd;
3 -> 1st- even vs odd- 2nd;
4 -> 1st- even vs even- 2nd.

Number 1: Aggro vs Aggro mirror. The attack token makes a HUGE difference here as the first player only will get all his power spikes on curve.
Number 2: Both players are happy. The token is still a small advantage since the first player gets to put damage in first.
Number 3: Both players are unhappy. Notice that despite the even player holding the token, the odd player will get to attack with his power spike first.
Number 4: This is the only case going first is no good. 

Number 1 is obviously the situation OP is complaining about. 

Now, lets try give the player going second compensation. Lets use the Hearthstone "The coin" for simplicity sake.
This may or may not make game Number 1 more interesting... but what about game Number 4?
The second player already has the advantage. Giving him an extra coin(or any kind of incentive) would be extemely imbalanced.

While i like the idea of giving the second player compensation, how to implement it without generating an even bigger discrepancy?

Quote From Hellcopter

Glen is right about the attack token advantage.
In any symmetrical game, the player with initiative always holds the advantage. 

The problem here is that the games you're comparing this to (MTG, Hearthstone) are fundamentally asymmetric. The player who goes first consistently gets to play with more mana than their opponent until the late game when the mana is capped (as in Hearthstone) or well pas the ceiling of the deck (as in MTG after you've drawn a bunch of lands). In LoR, the game is far more symmetric because you have the same amount of mana at the start of round as your opponent (+/- any mana you chose to bank), and unless they immediately attack, you have time to respond to their board before they attack. And even if they do attack, you can play fast spells to respond.

I know that sounds kind of silly - "you have a chance to respond except when you don't" - but it's highly relevant to the complaint at hand. The OP is mad about playing and attacking on curve, especially with powerful 3 mana champions like Zed and Miss Fortune. But the only way to get an attack in without giving your opponent time to respond is to play your big attacker after your opponent has spent their mana, and then attacking at the start of the next round before your opponent can respond with more units or a slow spell.

All that is to say, the symmetry of the game is precisely why it's much more fair not to give either player a bonus advantage simply because they attack second. Sometimes attacking second is better - you can set up your Zed on turn 3 after your opponent has spent their mana, and attack at the start of turn 4. If you're losing to Zeds and Miss Fortunes, run more cards you can use to kill them before they get a shot at attacking, and avoid spending your mana too early.

The only way I think the issue of RNG about the attack token could be solved would be to include something like “Round Start: Players who had the attack Token at the end of the last round gain the attack token”, so that attacks could be “banked” to use on any turn. This way, a zed player could avoid attacking on turn 2 to always be able to attack on turn 3, or an Elise player could avoid attacking on round 1 to attack on round 2

This would make the game slightly more balanced, but I think it would make a lot of champions too consistent

Quote From meisterz39

Quote From Hellcopter

Glen is right about the attack token advantage.
In any symmetrical game, the player with initiative always holds the advantage. 

The problem here is that the games you're comparing this to (MTG, Hearthstone) are fundamentally asymmetric.

No, i am comparing to trully symmetrical games, like Chess.
The simpler a game is to solve, the iniciative advantage becomes more evident.
Tic tac toe is a great example of a game that showcases the power of going first.
But even in complex games like chess, its a well know fact the white pieces have a higher winrate over black pieces.
Any Game Theory Optimal book can explain this concept better if you are interested.

Despite quoting this specific part, know that your posts are good and demonstrate some deep grasp about the game.
I enjoy reading them very much =P