I think you meant HERP DERP I'M BAD AT DOTA EVERYONE WHO LIKES IT IS DUMB
The thing about DoTA is that, unless you have a set team and everyone knows what they are doing, it sucks. I liken it to Baseball; the success of the team is dependent on the actions of everyone involved. If you just walk onto a field with a bunch of random people with no investment in the team and little knowledge of the game then you're probably not going to have much fun. The other problem is that, again like baseball, which actions that actually impact victory are not obvious and the stats that people glom onto are often wrong; too often people only look at their K/D and play in like death match and only try to maximize it (which is like batting with the sole intent of increasing your batting average).
I just find these games fiddly and boring. The decisions I'm making aren't interesting, and their impacts on the game state are not consistent with their prominence in play or enjoyment of executing.
I think you meant HERP DERP I'M BAD AT DOTA EVERYONE WHO LIKES IT IS DUMB
The thing about DoTA is that, unless you have a set team and everyone knows what they are doing, it sucks. I liken it to Baseball; the success of the team is dependent on the actions of everyone involved. If you just walk onto a field with a bunch of random people with no investment in the team and little knowledge of the game then you're probably not going to have much fun. The other problem is that, again like baseball, which actions that actually impact victory are not obvious and the stats that people glom onto are often wrong; too often people only look at their K/D and play in like death match and only try to maximize it (which is like batting with the sole intent of increasing your batting average).
This is true, but thats the point of the game. Its a team game and if you act as a team you are more likely to win. The problem with people not knowing what they are doing is mitigated by a matchmaking system so if you know what you are doing you'll also play with people of the same.
I'll be sitting out on this one. DOTA 2 will be the first Valve game I haven't bought in years. I played a bit of League of Legends earlier and it was very off-putting. An incomprehensible mess of items in the shop, boring gameplay, not to mention how much I despise the free-to-play model - If DOTA 2 is anything like LoL, I'll stay away, thanks.
The only comment I have on DotA 2 at this point is that, having looked through DotA itself's hero roster, Valve is going to have to make at least a couple drastic changes. One of the Sentinel heroes is straight-up NAMED Lina Inverse, while another cribs its portrait graphic and hero design from Final Fantasy X's Kimahri. Not DIFFICULT changes, I'm sure, but I'm interested to see where they take it.
League of Legends
I'm going to risk sounding like the condescending asshole and ask if you did any prior reading before playing and/or played through the tutorials first or if you just jumped right in. Contrary to how most games do it nowadays, there are still a few types of game left - MOBAs like LoL among them - where you have to read the instruction manual first.
Had to look up what denying was. So basically you can kill and feed off your own creeps thereby 'denying' the opposing team any kills right? League of Legends doesn't have that option as far as I can tell.
Had to look up what denying was. So basically you can kill and feed off your own creeps thereby 'denying' the opposing team any kills right? League of Legends doesn't have that option as far as I can tell.
I think the mail problem I have with DotA is that the creeps really only serve as a means to level up the heroes. I wish the creeps were viable military units. One option is to make them player controlled. Another option is to make them so powerful that they are actually something to fear. You won't be able to just stand there attacking them, you'll have to go at them with a measured and planned maneuver like you use when you go against enemy heroes.
Another thing I dislike about many games, not just DotA clones, is that the reward goes only to whoever dealt the killing blow. I can do 99 damage to someone who then escapes only to get killed by someone else. I don't get any credit or reward whatsoever for the 99 damage I dealt, but some other guy gets a reward for doing 1 damage. I never accuse anyone of kill stealing. I think there's no such thing. The enemies don't belong to you. In CS or NS, you play for the team to win, a kill is good no matter who gets it. In Quake you play to win, get as many frags as you can by any means necessary.
It would be very interesting to see a game that gave out the reward based on total damage points inflicted rather than final blows dealt. There would be no reason to use a denial tactic even if you allowed friendly fire. The guy who got the list hit on your tower would only get one hits worth of XP, not an entire tower's worth. Also, certain play styles that are now very stupid would become much more encouraged. For example, in games now it is often best to play very defensively and opportunistically. You want to avoid dying at all costs regardless of how much damage you take because that would give the other team a reward. You also don't want to run out and be rambo because while you might do much damage, you won't get any kills and will probably die.
That's why in Counter-Strike the audio clip you hear is "YOU take the point" much more often than "I'LL take the point." I can't tell you how many times I've played Counter-Strike and run at a group of enemies with the para. I dealt probably 200+ points of damage since they were all lumped together. I got no kills for it. Maybe I'll get one kill from a stray head-shot if I'm lucky. Of course, the other team only did 100 damage to me, so it's a net profit for the team, that's why I do it. However, I don't get an individual money reward the next round, nor do I get any points on the scoreboard next to my name.
Now if rewards were based on damage dealt, it might suddenly be a good idea to run out into the open like a crazy mofo if you have the right equipment. Sure, you will die and the other team will get rewards equal to your total HP. But if you can deal out more damage per second than they can, it can actually be a net profit. The more HP you have, the more rewards you give the other team, but also the more time you will have to do more damage before dying. The current response to anyone who takes the point is to gang up on them and hose them down very quickly. If the rules were changed such, someone who runs in guns blazing might actually cause the other team to retreat. At the very least you will force them to expend valuable resources. I a game where only the killing blow matters, there is nothing at all to gain by rushing out in the open.
Correct League of Legends does not allow denying in any form, creeps or towers. They went so far as to redesign several characters abilities to remove any chance of denying (see Gangplank).
What makes LoL fun for me at least is the semi RPG aspect to the game. I am a summoner who levels from 1-30 and I have different talent trees. At the beginning of any match I have to choose my masteries and runes and what I pick has a large impact on the beginning of the game. Also there is the fact that I can't play heroes unless they are one of the free 10 or I have purchased them with IP. There is a sense of meaning to each game I play because it gets me more EXP or IP instead of just rank. I'll be interested to see what Valve does here in that regards.
What makes LoL fun for me at least is the semi RPG aspect to the game. I am a summoner who levels from 1-30 and I have different talent trees. At the beginning of any match I have to choose my masteries and runes and what I pick has a large impact on the beginning of the game. Also there is the fact that I can't play heroes unless they are one of the free 10 or I have purchased them with IP.
In League of Legends there are "Super Creeps" which are pretty tough that you can trigger by destroying "Inhibitors" in the enemy's base (one for each of the three lanes, so if you destroy the bottom inhibitor, Super Creeps will spawn in the bottom lane and start wrecking the enemy's shit).
I can do 99 damage to someone who then escapes only to get killed by someone else. I don't get any credit or reward whatsoever for the 99 damage I dealt, but some other guy gets a reward for doing 1 damage.
That "some guy" is on your team and, if you're doing it right, is the guy who will benefit more from that money than you will (see "Carry"). A dead enemy player also means that you can get easier money off of creeps (which gets you money) and push towers (which gets everyone money). Killing players in a team fight later game is about kiling players, not getting the money off of them however if you're in a game and its a KSing free for all with no plan in the early then you've got bigger problems (yet another reason not to play with pubs).
Also, IMHO and in the HO of Riot, "denying" is a lame skill to require for success in a MOBA, and there's a reason it isn't in LoL (HoN just wants to be DoTA, warts and all, and DOTA2 IS DoTA warts and all so they kept it in).
I can't tell if I don't like denying because the mechanic is annoying to deal with and manage, or because I personally suck at it.
Last hitting is another skill I'm not the best at but makes a tremendous difference in game. I am not talking about monetary gain but more about the way the lane is pushed. People who are gods at last hitting dance back and forth next to creeps making sure not to attack them until they are certain that their attack (auto or ability) will kill the creep. This keep the creep waves fairly even in health and locked into the middle of the lane. If someone just blasts away doing max damage to the creeps all the time they end up pushing the lane into a tower and putting themselves in a less than favorable position. I am more of the ladder but I am trying to learn, it just involves tons of right click spam.
Denying creeps adds a sort of additional layer to laning, so if an enemy is keeping you from being able to get close enough to nab creep kills, at least you can sort of fight back from behind your lines. But it is awkward. Tower denying is a bit more interesting mechanically in that it means that enemy teams want to push a tower in such a way that they can take the tower without you protecting it, which makes it just slightly more difficult and risky to make the decision to attack it, or to stay and defend it. They are both really awkward, however.
Similarly, last-hitting is awkward. It's less annoying, but it encourages you to do things that somewhat take away the verisimilitude of the game. Now you're not just helping your army win, you're running around being ineffective and trying to avoid the other guy being inneffective until one of the minions is weak enough to finish off.
I actually think Monday Night Combat is a sort of MOBA as well that might deserve some notice.
I am more of the ladder but I am trying to learn, it just involves tons of right click spam.
Play ranged heroes. It is a MILLION times easier than than melee heroes to last hit. Alternatively, play support and let the carry worry about last hitting.
Denying creeps adds a sort of additional layer to laning, so if an enemy is keeping you from being able to get close enough to nab creep kills, at least you can sort of fight back from behind your lines. But it is awkward. Tower denying is a bit more interesting mechanically in that it means that enemy teams want to push a tower in such a way that they can take the tower without you protecting it, which makes it just slightly more difficult and risky to make the decision to attack it, or to stay and defend it. They are both really awkward, however.
PLAYER denying, however, is comedy gold (and a great way to make people UMADBRO)
I play Dota every week with my friends in our weekly lan party/lan house. I got off the online game because of people being so bad mannered, but I keep playing with my friends off course. I'm looking very much forward Dota 2, I'll easily pre-order it.
I have fundamental problems with a game that rewards you for destroying your own mobs/towers. They should replace denying with a reward function for saving a low health mob from being killed (i.e. casting some sort of ward or healing spell when the unit is below X% health gives you XP or gold).
I have fundamental problems with a game that rewards you for destroying your own mobs/towers. They should replace denying with a reward function for saving a low health mob from being killed (i.e. casting some sort of ward or healing spell when the unit is below X% health gives you XP or gold).
Fine, consider denied mobs spirited away to a hospital in your base rather than killed.
I have fundamental problems with a game that rewards you for destroying your own mobs/towers. They should replace denying with a reward function for saving a low health mob from being killed (i.e. casting some sort of ward or healing spell when the unit is below X% health gives you XP or gold).
Fine, consider denied mobs spirited away to a hospital in your base rather than killed.
But the end result is different. This is a non-analogous statement.
I have fundamental problems with a game that rewards you for destroying your own mobs/towers. They should replace denying with a reward function for saving a low health mob from being killed (i.e. casting some sort of ward or healing spell when the unit is below X% health gives you XP or gold).
Fine, consider denied mobs spirited away to a hospital in your base rather than killed.
But the end result is different. This is a non-analogous statement.
If it takes them so long to recover that the game is over before then, it's the same.
If it takes them so long to recover that the game is over before then, it's the same.
No, they are fundamentally different mechanics. Saving mobs increases their damage over time, instead of eliminating them early. It promotes larger mob groups as well as increased tower defense play by the heroes. It's not the "flavor" text of the concept, it's a core gameplay concept that needs to be changed.
I have fundamental problems with a game that rewards you for destroying your own mobs/towers.
LoL has no denying
Problem solved.
In ACTUAL response to your proposed solution, not all champs can heal, and nobody is going to spend their hard-earned gold on items used soleley to heal minions when the gold could be spent improving their own capabilities.
Comments
The thing about DoTA is that, unless you have a set team and everyone knows what they are doing, it sucks. I liken it to Baseball; the success of the team is dependent on the actions of everyone involved. If you just walk onto a field with a bunch of random people with no investment in the team and little knowledge of the game then you're probably not going to have much fun. The other problem is that, again like baseball, which actions that actually impact victory are not obvious and the stats that people glom onto are often wrong; too often people only look at their K/D and play in like death match and only try to maximize it (which is like batting with the sole intent of increasing your batting average).
Another thing I dislike about many games, not just DotA clones, is that the reward goes only to whoever dealt the killing blow. I can do 99 damage to someone who then escapes only to get killed by someone else. I don't get any credit or reward whatsoever for the 99 damage I dealt, but some other guy gets a reward for doing 1 damage. I never accuse anyone of kill stealing. I think there's no such thing. The enemies don't belong to you. In CS or NS, you play for the team to win, a kill is good no matter who gets it. In Quake you play to win, get as many frags as you can by any means necessary.
It would be very interesting to see a game that gave out the reward based on total damage points inflicted rather than final blows dealt. There would be no reason to use a denial tactic even if you allowed friendly fire. The guy who got the list hit on your tower would only get one hits worth of XP, not an entire tower's worth. Also, certain play styles that are now very stupid would become much more encouraged. For example, in games now it is often best to play very defensively and opportunistically. You want to avoid dying at all costs regardless of how much damage you take because that would give the other team a reward. You also don't want to run out and be rambo because while you might do much damage, you won't get any kills and will probably die.
That's why in Counter-Strike the audio clip you hear is "YOU take the point" much more often than "I'LL take the point." I can't tell you how many times I've played Counter-Strike and run at a group of enemies with the para. I dealt probably 200+ points of damage since they were all lumped together. I got no kills for it. Maybe I'll get one kill from a stray head-shot if I'm lucky. Of course, the other team only did 100 damage to me, so it's a net profit for the team, that's why I do it. However, I don't get an individual money reward the next round, nor do I get any points on the scoreboard next to my name.
Now if rewards were based on damage dealt, it might suddenly be a good idea to run out into the open like a crazy mofo if you have the right equipment. Sure, you will die and the other team will get rewards equal to your total HP. But if you can deal out more damage per second than they can, it can actually be a net profit. The more HP you have, the more rewards you give the other team, but also the more time you will have to do more damage before dying. The current response to anyone who takes the point is to gang up on them and hose them down very quickly. If the rules were changed such, someone who runs in guns blazing might actually cause the other team to retreat. At the very least you will force them to expend valuable resources. I a game where only the killing blow matters, there is nothing at all to gain by rushing out in the open.
What makes LoL fun for me at least is the semi RPG aspect to the game. I am a summoner who levels from 1-30 and I have different talent trees. At the beginning of any match I have to choose my masteries and runes and what I pick has a large impact on the beginning of the game. Also there is the fact that I can't play heroes unless they are one of the free 10 or I have purchased them with IP. There is a sense of meaning to each game I play because it gets me more EXP or IP instead of just rank. I'll be interested to see what Valve does here in that regards.
Also, IMHO and in the HO of Riot, "denying" is a lame skill to require for success in a MOBA, and there's a reason it isn't in LoL (HoN just wants to be DoTA, warts and all, and DOTA2 IS DoTA warts and all so they kept it in).
Last hitting is another skill I'm not the best at but makes a tremendous difference in game. I am not talking about monetary gain but more about the way the lane is pushed. People who are gods at last hitting dance back and forth next to creeps making sure not to attack them until they are certain that their attack (auto or ability) will kill the creep. This keep the creep waves fairly even in health and locked into the middle of the lane. If someone just blasts away doing max damage to the creeps all the time they end up pushing the lane into a tower and putting themselves in a less than favorable position. I am more of the ladder but I am trying to learn, it just involves tons of right click spam.
Similarly, last-hitting is awkward. It's less annoying, but it encourages you to do things that somewhat take away the verisimilitude of the game. Now you're not just helping your army win, you're running around being ineffective and trying to avoid the other guy being inneffective until one of the minions is weak enough to finish off.
I actually think Monday Night Combat is a sort of MOBA as well that might deserve some notice.
I'm looking very much forward Dota 2, I'll easily pre-order it.
In ACTUAL response to your proposed solution, not all champs can heal, and nobody is going to spend their hard-earned gold on items used soleley to heal minions when the gold could be spent improving their own capabilities.