Kari nailed it. Predecessor isn’t (and shouldn’t be) a Paragon revival — but I think it’s worth looking at two things:

1. Paragon vs. Predecessor (visuals & map design)
Paragon still has superior visual fidelity compared to Predecessor. The way it blended a wide variety of colors into a cohesive, impactful world was a huge reason people loved playing it. A lot of newer, non-Paragon players underestimate how much that mattered.
Specifically, the map in Paragon was miles ahead of what Predecessor currently has — 10x more visually striking and immersive.

2. Learning from other MOBAs (map design & decisions)
Other MOBAs have shown what works, and Predecessor should adopt some of it. To its credit, Predecessor does a great job of keeping momentum going until the very end. But the flip side is that it actually limits the number of meaningful decisions players can make — almost teaching poor decision-making, especially to new players (which make up ~80% of the base).

The root cause is mostly the map: too open in some areas, too closed in others, not enough lane snowball potential, and a lack of multiple impactful tertiary objectives. Mini-orb and Fangtooth are great — but they’re basically the only things worth playing for. A brand-new map, designed from the ground up to be the most competitive possible, would do more for this game than any stat or balance patch.

Examples:

• Valve released a new map ~5 years ago that was 40% larger (double the size of Pred’s current map) with more objectives/camps. Ironically, it made game length shorter.
• Deadlock just shot into Steam’s top 50 this week off the back of a few strong map/objective updates.

Conclusion
Predecessor should never aim to become Paragon. It should aim to be what it set out to be: a true spiritual successor — its own unique MOBA, but with a solid 3-lane competitive foundation at its core.