Reiterate... Reiterate... Reiterate...

 Reiteration was a concept taught to me through what people may call "Tough Love". During my university capstone project, my team had a mentor who was nicknamed, "Laz". He was extremely critical of designs and often told us (and other groups he mentored) that our ideas were "not good enough" and to redo it.

 My team and I were naturally often upset at his comments and were impatient, wanting to proceed to code and create the game. But we ended up doing as Laz instructed and redid everything from our level design to our character concepts.

 Eventually, it was revealed that it wasn't because he hated the idea - but he wanted us to be creative and experiment with different ideas to improve the concept. In other words, he wanted us to reiterate our idea constantly.  He then showed us the difference between the idea's first conception to the final concept we showed him. It was a moment that had quite a profound impact on the way I look at Game Design.

The Second Level Design Reiteration - Adding Ways for players to travel between Zones quickly (Zip Lines)

 The biggest impact it had was on the level design of Voyagers. The Lead Designer of the group wanted to differentiate it from other Tower Defense games by extending the level, ensuring the player isn't simply defending the same area wave after wave. 

 The original answer was to open up a zone further up after a certain wave number (when the player gets familiar with the game). This "forced" the player to move up the map to defend the second zone - while ensuring the original zone was sufficiently defended.

 As a result, we attempted to ensure that players were consistently engaged. While this would not create an "unsolved" game, we designed it with the hope that the game would be harder to solve with the additional ground and enemies.

 However, this came at the cost of the map feeling huge and ever expanding. Players complained about the distance from Zone 2 to the Nexus even with the zip lines. There was also an issue of the player merely solidifying Zone 1 since ever enemy from Zone 2 has to walk into Zone 1. This made Zone 2 enemies (despite their higher difficulty) feel weaker. In hindsight, this was not a good idea...

Final Concept: Moving the Player Spawn and Nexus to the middle of the map

 The final version of the level came through random sketches on a notepad one fateful day. Instead of extending the level further, we would move the second zone directly behind the player spawn. This change meant that the player wouldn't have to travel as far out and can reach the nexus to defend it without traveling across two zones. In addition, it would mean that the enemies from Zone 2 wouldn't have to walk through Zone 1 and less game-balancing would be required.

 The final level design made the whole level feel smaller (even though it wasn't necessarily smaller) which helped a lot of playtesters who had concerns about the seemingly massive level from the original design. It also allowed us to reconsider the idea of multiplayer, which was a huge part of why I was brought into the team (despite the idea being dropped due to the large scope).

 The lesson here is to reiterate, reiterate and... reiterate. Don't be afraid to redo an idea, even if you think it is brilliant. I often sat in my chair listening to similar talks and lectures thinking I (as a Designer) would never cling onto an idea to dear life. But... we nearly did stick with the initial level design. We were going to do things like "apply a band-aid fix" where we would heal all the enemies from Zone 2 that reached the Zone 1 spawn location and etc. The original design was like a "baby" of sorts.

 But by reiterating, we improved the level and opened further possibilities with the game (in this case multiplayer) which was fun exploring on itself. This was a lesson that extending to other big games as well such as...

• League of Legends - reiterates the Jungle and the Dragon objectives almost every season
• Maplestory (and a lot of MMORPGs) - reworks entire classes' skills and their skill trees
• Pokemon: Trading Card Game - reiterated various game mechanics including the Burn condition and "First Turn" attack rule.
• Zelda: Breath of the Wild - Hidemaro Fujibayashi did a talk at GDC explaining how the game utilized an active, multiplicative gameplay which broke conventions. 

 The list goes on (and even more behind the scenes), but games are constantly changing and reiterating the gameplay. All these experiences together taught me the value in reiteration and experimenting. This is something that has become a core part of the way I design anything whether it's a website or a video game.

The Question Posed by Riot - A Lesson in Self-Improvement!

Riot Games is the company that created the MOBA game, "League of Legends" and it is almost every League player's dream to one day work for the company. For those who dare to apply for the largely-contested Game Designer role (myself included), there is a question posed for all incoming applicants.

"Name a poorly designed champion ability (NOT a passive) and explain why."

Many ideas quickly flood to the head - but when it comes to putting pen to paper, you realize that it isn't so much poorly designed as being overpowered or unbalanced. It doesn't necessarily mean that the ability is poorly designed per say. It's a question that is simple but tests how well you can analyze a design.

Immediately after graduating from University, I quickly pounced on the opportunity to apply as a Game Designer. When approached with the question, my approach was to quickly delve into abilities I thought were irritating in League of Legends - Morgana's E (Black Shield) which blocked all types of Crowd Control to Urgot's R (Hyper Kinetic-Position Reverser). 

I ended up writing over 1,000 words on why Urgot's Hyper Kinetic-Position Reverser was a poorly designed Champion ability. In the writing, I focused primarily on the lack of synergy with his Lore and Kit.

Looking back on it now, I don't think Urgot's ultimate is that badly designed. It's a somewhat weird ability that has an interesting effect. While I would still argue it doesn't fit with his kit/lore, it is an ability with counterplay that can promote teamwork. 

Since then, I've spent some time to learn/re-learn about Game Design - listening to talks from Game Designers and attending GDC '17. I've spent some time playing around with ideas in my head and drafting (and scrapping) them. I also began to note common trends in Game Design (especially those that competitive multiplayer games) and began to take notes and learn from them. Topics like counterplay began to be a big part of my thought process.

All this led to me re-writing my answer to the question posed by Riot. I use the question as a "test" of my game design ability and analytical ability. My thoughts changed from considering Morgana's Black Shield to considering abilities like Wu Kong's Decoy (W). I began to not just focus on the ability's effects but the opposing enemy's viewpoint as well.

=====================================================================
Re-written version

Pantheon (E) Aegis of Zeonia

Aegis of Zeonia is a poorly designed Champion ability due to its limited counter-play. It is a "point-and-click" ability that allows the Champion to leap to a target, stun the target for 1 second and activate the passive, "Aegis Protection". The passive protects the Champion from the next incoming basic attack or turret attack.

Aegis of Zeonia can be a frustrating ability to play against due to its "point-and-click" nature indicating that players cannot avoid it. The stun for 1 second also prevents the struck enemy to react to the ability. This is further emphasized if the Champion is in a 1 versus 1 scenario (like Top Lane) where the Champion can utilize his passive and it's reactivation from this ability to dive the enemy under Turret with more safety. This can lead to extremely frustrating gameplay for the opposing player who is already behind. 

Following the stun, the passive, "Aegis Protection" further protects Champion from the next basic attack or turret attack. It's reactivation from Aegis of Zeonia can be used as counterplay to attacks and be use it as a damage mitigation tool alongside the passives usual activation process.  This can cause further frustration especially from Top Lane or Marksman Champions that rely on usually rely on Auto-Attacks as their primary damage source. As such, the player can easily utilize his Passive and Aegis to block a lot of damage from the enemy without much skill or effort.

It's also important to note the similarities of the ability to Leona's Q (Shield of Daybreak) that also stuns a target for 1 second. While Leona involves her getting into melee range to utilize Shield of Daybreak usually by hitting the skill-shot E (Zenith Blade), Pantheon has a point-and-click guaranteed leap attached to the 1 second stun. 

In summary, Aegis of Zeonia is a poorly designed Champion ability due to its lack of clear counterplay (especially in a 1v1 scenario). As a point-and-click ability, it cannot be dodged by the player. It has a stun which prevents the enemy from flashing/escaping without taking damage from the Champion's other abilities and it has a passive refresher that can punish certain roles.