PoE Sanity

The Phreak Interview | TAKING THE BAIT EP 2

By jungroanWatch videoDuration: PT1H29M11S

Summary

  • Balance Ownership and Responsibility: Direct accountability for League of Legends balance changes and the importance of allowing junior designers to learn through shipped updates.
  • The Evolution of Transparency: How detailed patch previews transitioned community discourse from “guessing why” to “debating direction.”
  • Riot Games’ Early History: Reflections on the transition from a 40-person “indie” studio to a global esports giant.
  • Path of Exile (PoE) Engagement: Detailed analysis of PoE mechanics, build-making, and the data-driven “Moneyball” approach to finding the best builds.
  • Esports Meritocracy and Management: A discussion on the reality of “nepotism” vs. “hedging” in professional team rosters and the difficulty of communicating complex coaching/GM decisions.
  • Data-Driven Design Philosophy: Using selective data samples (e.g., filtering for champion mains) to achieve more accurate balance results.

Responsibility and Learning in Live Design

The output of the balance team goes directly through me. While I don’t micromanage every single number, I approve every change and have the authority to veto. It is vital to let designers actually ship things to live servers; even if a change isn’t exactly what I would do, the gratification of seeing their work in the world allows them to learn from the results. Torpedoing every idea for six months kills morale.

The goal of the patch preview videos was transparency. By explaining the “why,” I believe the quality of discourse in the English-speaking community improved. Instead of players guessing our motivations, they could disagree with our specific directions—such as focusing a patch on pro play—which is a much higher quality of debate.

From Indie Company to Global Hegemony

The growth of League of Legends was incredibly gradual. In 2009, we were a small team in a “pit,” reading forum reviews aloud to stay motivated. We tracked our success through Xfire concurrent user charts, celebrating when we broke the top 10, then the top 5.

In the early days (2010), Champion Spotlights were recorded in conference rooms with zero sound dampening and terrible audio. I had to learn Adobe Premiere myself to put them together. The vibe was more community-focused back then, with YouTube parody artists and bands. Today, it is much more esports-heavy. While I miss some of the “childish” fun of the early days, the maturity the company has gained is a net positive.

The Difficulty of Communicating the “Why”

Being a public-facing developer who can explain the philosophy behind changes is a “unicorn” position. To do it successfully, you must:

  1. Have enough information to know the actual “why.”
  2. Be high enough in the hierarchy to put your foot down and be right.
  3. Have the desire to be public and the thick skin to handle the internet.

A level below me might misquote the reasoning; a level above me (my boss or their boss) doesn’t need to know why Nasus was buffed—they just need to trust that I made the right choice. This narrow slice of qualified people explains why so few developers engage with the community in this way.

Path of Exile and the “Moneyball” Approach

I play PoE during league starts, usually for about a week and a half. I prefer squishy ranged builds but played Slams when they were overtuned. I am a “trade andy” and generally only play long enough to get two voidstones before the gear progression slows down.

Regarding PoE 2, I haven’t played the early access because I didn’t want to “swipe” for entry when I could just wait. I am patient regarding game feel; subtle things like WASD movement vs. click-to-move are huge factors in long-term retention, and I’m waiting to see how it settles.

In terms of build-making, I used my background in economics and statistics (econometrics) to find “hidden” meta builds. By looking at solo self-found XP per hour for high-level characters, I identified Cold DOT Elementalist as the best version of the build even when it was unpopular. Data is a starting point, but you have to apply human instinct to understand why it’s working (e.g., is the build just fun to stick with?).

Career Paths and Esports Realities

Chasing a career in esports is chasing a rare path. My advice to those dreaming of it:

  • Understand it is rare and have a backup (stay in school).
  • Combine skill sets. I wasn’t just a high-ranked player; I had years of experience doing audio commentaries for Warcraft III.
  • Luck is real. I got my Riot internship because MonteCristo’s roommate worked there and vouched for me.

In esports management, what looks like “nepotism” is often “hedging.” Coaches and GMs are judged on winning. When stakes are high, they often choose a “known quantity” (familiar players) over a gamble because they are afraid of the variables. Truly great projects, like the current FlyQuest roster, are those willing to take massive risks on unproven talent.

Data Malpractice and Champion Viability

In League, we use win rates but filter the data to excise “bad” play. We specifically look at players who have played enough games to be proficient on a champion. This removes the bias against difficult champions like Katarina, who might have a low general win rate but a high “main” win rate.

Rule zero of design is that the player must have fun. While power (win rate) is a factor, “live design” is about ensuring that if you put in the work, your favorite champion is viable. Almost every champion in the game—excluding “pro-jailed” outliers like K’Sante or Azir—has a win rate above 50% for players who main them.

Solving “Ugly” Meta Problems

Design is about tradeoffs. The “rolequest” (lane assignments/objective changes) was added to solve two problems:

  1. Certain roles felt useless without hand-holding.
  2. Pro play was becoming “solved” and unwatchable due to lane swapping (4v0 turret trades).

Lane swapping resulted in zero interaction for the first seven minutes of a match. We implemented “ugly” solutions to kill that strategy because the tradeoff—making the esport watchable—was worth the loss of some “elegant” strategic expression. When a game is solved, it stops being fun.

Key References