EPTand new revolutionary stuff came around 7-8 years later, like the forge FE by Savior for example.
i'm a little confused
Bad Games Need Patches? - Page 2
| Blogs > FiWiFaKi |
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
i'm a little confused | ||
|
BongChambers
Canada591 Posts
On May 09 2015 10:12 FiWiFaKi wrote: My argument is kind of opposite of what you're saying. I know that people like the "fresh" feeling, always having something new, etc, etc. But my argument is that this is bad for longevity of the game, and is there no other way to go about patching the game, without making it feel like you're playing a completely new game. I dunno why I use the chess and SC:BW example so much, but even though very little changes with time, there is almost an endless combination of openings and variations. Both you and the dude you quoted have very valid points. I honestly believe SC:BW was the most balanced popular game in the world which games like SC2 and even Dota2 can't even hold a candle to it. In terms of longevity yes I agree that some people may be turned off from the fact that every year or so there is a "new game" patch like 6.84, which honestly changed the game that is dota. But I think that's what draws millions of people to play the game. They enjoy that sort of thing, they want a "new game" every couple of months because they're getting bored of the current meta and want to try out new hero's aghs and spells and reworked items or brand new items. It's crazy, annoying and exciting all rolled into one and honestly I think the day Icefrog announces he's never going to patch Dota2 again is the day the game will start to loose lots of it's player base. I don't think Dota2 will ever be "complete" or similar to chess/BW and I kind of like that. lmfao ya i dont think savior came up with a protoss build | ||
|
TRAP[yoo]
Hungary6026 Posts
comparing it to sc:bw is not really possible imo. just compare it to csgo or sc2...both games get patched on a regular basis because people complain about stuff all the time isnt chess kinda imbalanced? i mean sure the pieces are the same but only one player can move first | ||
|
syw651
Australia349 Posts
On May 09 2015 13:24 Crimson wrote: Sauron style applied to zergs. Nice try though. no no no, I'm pretty sure Sauron is a Terran strat (seeing as Bisu is a well known Terran player) where he gained air superiority with his valkyries and then dominated using cloaked ghosts. Hence his nickname "ninja Terran". I think he was most famous for beating Savior's Forge FE in the 2006 MSL final. | ||
|
trifecta
United States6795 Posts
On May 09 2015 21:21 syw651 wrote: no no no, I'm pretty sure Sauron is a Terran strat (seeing as Bisu is a well known Terran player) where he gained air superiority with his valkyries and then dominated using cloaked ghosts. Hence his nickname "ninja Terran". I think he was most famous for beating Savior's Forge FE in the 2006 MSL final. Hyuk's 14CC was unstoppable | ||
|
goody153
44236 Posts
Also while i do complain about dota becoming "easier" it does improve the quality of the game per patch. Dota patches like makes the game better and better pretty much. I believe there's no perfect game at the beginning everygame needs to go through patches and testing. For sure if dota was never patched ever if players manage to survive a few years i'm sure there will counters that will be founded to the most efficient and effective strategies/draft in the game just like bw who needed a few years till counters were seen. | ||
|
TMG26
Portugal2017 Posts
On May 09 2015 11:22 greebosnabble wrote: So anyway, I think you could still talk to people who had only seen dota 1, but you'd have to explain how the game had developed. And I think the farm priority/tri-lanes changes were bigger changes than the patches. Yup, the biggest changes to the game were actually something the players optimized, not the actually patches. I play dota since 2008, and I admire Icefrog patches. Dota only broke on 6.82 with the ridiculous comeback. 6.83 was fine, sniper spam was just too annoying, but you played the game the same way you did every patch. Every common strat was viable, some better than others. While heroes items and numbers change, the game actually stays the same. It only trully changes when players learn more things to be more efficient, and normally those things could also be done before, they were just never exploited. The flash farm patterns, Trilanes, dynamic farm allocation, this new stuff changes the pubs and competitive approach more than Icefrog patches. Another thing nice about Icefrog, is the "no patch talk", no explanation, no justification nothing. It's like "here is your present, discover, enjoy it" | ||
|
Wintex
Norway16838 Posts
this sent me over the edge | ||
|
Spicy_Curry
United States10573 Posts
| ||
|
sCuMBaG
United Kingdom1144 Posts
On May 09 2015 09:44 FiWiFaKi wrote: I originally come from a SC:BW background, where there wasn't a balance patch since 2001, and new revolutionary stuff came around 7-8 years later, like the forge FE by Savior for example. Savior was a Zerg player mate  HE surely didn't come up with forge expand builts. If I remember correctly it was Bisu who came up with it. At least he came up with Corsair harrass (it was versus Savior we saw that built first though. So you were right with that part.) into DTs. The forge FE might have been around before though, not sure anymore. *edit just saw all the sarcastic posts on page 2. forget what i said | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On May 10 2015 01:35 sCuMBaG wrote: Savior was a Zerg player mate HE surely didn't come up with forge expand builts. If I remember correctly it was Bisu who came up with it. At least he came up with Corsair harrass (it was versus Savior we saw that built first though. So you were right with that part.) into DTs. The forge FE might have been around before though, not sure anymore. *edit just saw all the sarcastic posts on page 2. forget what i said Yep, thanks to the about 15 people for pointing it out. I don't know how I didn't realize when writing it, I guess I was just thinking about who fell to it (the 3-0 in the finals, Savior with no response) instead of who created it, yeah it was Bisu. I'm not such a layman to not know that Savior didn't create protoss builds  | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9859 Posts
On May 10 2015 01:33 Spicy_Curry wrote: I am sure if we went into TI5 with the last patch we would not see sniper and troll every game. As teams get better at dealing with strategies they will evolve. Naturally. See, I wish this was the case, but it's difficult to say, it did feel like the meta was starting to stagnate, or just have little progression. I wholeheartedly would wish that what you say is true though. On May 09 2015 23:33 TMG26 wrote: Yup, the biggest changes to the game were actually something the players optimized, not the actually patches. I play dota since 2008, and I admire Icefrog patches. Dota only broke on 6.82 with the ridiculous comeback. 6.83 was fine, sniper spam was just too annoying, but you played the game the same way you did every patch. Every common strat was viable, some better than others. While heroes items and numbers change, the game actually stays the same. It only trully changes when players learn more things to be more efficient, and normally those things could also be done before, they were just never exploited. The flash farm patterns, Trilanes, dynamic farm allocation, this new stuff changes the pubs and competitive approach more than Icefrog patches. Another thing nice about Icefrog, is the "no patch talk", no explanation, no justification nothing. It's like "here is your present, discover, enjoy it" I don't think so. I haven't Dota for long along, so pardon me (only started with TI3), but the key to have continuity with time is the game has to have the same physics, if that's the right word for it. Meaning the environment is the same, a change in strategies, like having different laning and etc, is something that can be picked up quickly. It's like if you were watching badminton, and before they used to play doubles side and side (hypothetical), and now they play front and back. It's a natural change in progression. Meanwhile, I don't see sports "patched" like how people mention. In Hockey, the goalie pads might change in size every several years... Maybe a new penalty or something very very little. I mean at the end of the day, it's quite easy to track. In ping pong you might have the ball size change, or the net be a couple mm higher. But just by watching one game, you can quickly get accustomed to it, especially because these changes are so periodic. In Dota, every hero gets 3 changes every 3 months, some minor, some major. Not to mention how the flow of the game is completely changed every single patch due to other reasons. In Hockey you could make a timeline of what changes were introduced since the 1950s, and summarize it in 2 or 3 minutes. If you tried doing that with Dota, you'd be leaving out vital information. Anyway, at the end of the day, yes, it still is Dota, but I feel the changes are so significant, they are a detriment long term. | ||
|
r_con
United States824 Posts
A dota versions top tier CM pool would probably be overall figured out in 2 years, doesn't mean the game still wouldn't be a good game, it just might get stale. | ||
|
Reson
530 Posts
On May 10 2015 02:39 FiWiFaKi wrote: See, I wish this was the case, but it's difficult to say, it did feel like the meta was starting to stagnate, or just have little progression. I wholeheartedly would wish that what you say is true though. I don't think so. I haven't Dota for long along, so pardon me (only started with TI3), but the key to have continuity with time is the game has to have the same physics, if that's the right word for it. Meaning the environment is the same, a change in strategies, like having different laning and etc, is something that can be picked up quickly. It's like if you were watching badminton, and before they used to play doubles side and side (hypothetical), and now they play front and back. It's a natural change in progression. Meanwhile, I don't see sports "patched" like how people mention. In Hockey, the goalie pads might change in size every several years... Maybe a new penalty or something very very little. I mean at the end of the day, it's quite easy to track. In ping pong you might have the ball size change, or the net be a couple mm higher. But just by watching one game, you can quickly get accustomed to it, especially because these changes are so periodic. In Dota, every hero gets 3 changes every 3 months, some minor, some major. Not to mention how the flow of the game is completely changed every single patch due to other reasons. In Hockey you could make a timeline of what changes were introduced since the 1950s, and summarize it in 2 or 3 minutes. If you tried doing that with Dota, you'd be leaving out vital information. Anyway, at the end of the day, yes, it still is Dota, but I feel the changes are so significant, they are a detriment long term. If you have only played since TI3 I can see why you feel this way. They ramped up the volatility and knee jerk reactions since TI3. 6.79 changed a lot then stabilized in 6.81 then 6.82 threw everything awry with the comeback mechanic that has been almost reduced to non existence now. I would say patches were much more conservative before 6.78 since 6.1x or whenever IceFrog took over. Also, if you played Dota 1, patch numbers would have a higher significance to you. A lot of people still remember exactly which patch big changes occurred and how the game evolved over time. Someone can probably list all the important changes over the last 10 years in a few minutes. Outside of the comeback mechanic, the core of Dota has remained pretty much the same over the years. The balance of Dota is shaped by the players not the developer unlike conventional game development where the dev team dictates how the game should play out. IceFrog sets the stage and players are free to use anything they can find: nuances, "bugs", weird interactions, and etc. There is so much pro players know that typical players don't and they will never share until it has been changed. If you have only been playing since TI3, that means almost half your playing experience has been with the comeback mechanic in place which is completely different from any patch of Dota in the last 10 years. They never gave out handouts. Depending in when you started playing you either started with 6.78 or 6.79. I believe all the x.x9 patches are usually major so you probably felt a big change there too if you started playing before that patch came out. It was unfortunate timing of your experiences that makes you believe that Dota is driven by patches and change drastically from patch to patch. edit: 6.79 was the first patch to not be a parity patch where changes were made directly to Dota 2. A lot of things changed and we are likely still riding out the ripple effects of those changes and adjustments are still being made. Again, timing is the root of why you feel this way about Dota. For reference: wiki.teamliquid.net/dota2/Version_6.79 http://wiki.teamliquid.net/dota2/Version_6.76 -a more typical patch with no mechanics changes. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/dota2/Version_6.74 -a normal patch with gameplay changes | ||
|
govie
9334 Posts
| ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2613 Posts
On May 10 2015 04:52 govie wrote: When a game is free, patches exist to maximize profits and consumption. People will buy new sets for hero's that they play alot, so a change in the overpowered hero-pool helps maximize profits. There exist alot of games that never got big patches every 3 months, but were popular for years anyway. But these were paid games. I think you can make this argument for MMOs where patches are literally expansions of content, but it doesn't feel like it fits that well with Dota 2's model. I honestly don't think that Valve does that much to "maximize profits" aside from being sure that there is always content available for potential buyers to purchase. Again, we as consumers very much create and control this market. | ||
|
govie
9334 Posts
On May 10 2015 08:31 Fleetfeet wrote: I think you can make this argument for MMOs where patches are literally expansions of content, but it doesn't feel like it fits that well with Dota 2's model. I honestly don't think that Valve does that much to "maximize profits" aside from being sure that there is always content available for potential buyers to purchase. Again, we as consumers very much create and control this market. They have economists tailoring/creating their own fictional monetary hatsystem, valve is the biggest hatseller in the world as far as i can recall. Its all varoufakis' fault! haha. Valve doesn’t do charity, valve makes money and makes alot of it. Besides that you control as much as you control in nonfictional life. When your government raises taxes on gasoline, more people will start using the public transportation system. Action / reaction or to put it simple: they nudge you to do what the government wants the populus to do. And valve wants their users to spend some bucks on hats in their fictional world and so they shall nudge you just a little bit! Edit: Dont get me wrong. I love valve, i love that they give away dota2 for free and that it is not pay to win. im not flaming, its just my view on the reasoning behind patches in a free game like dota2. | ||
|
Caladbolg
2855 Posts
Dota patches keep the game fresh and alive. It ensures that some heroes rise out of obscurity and become relevant without some kind of revolutionary change in the metagame, which is incredibly hard to achieve given the diversity of skills and heroes. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2613 Posts
On May 10 2015 08:48 govie wrote: They have economists tailoring/creating their own fictional monetary hatsystem, valve is the biggest hatseller in the world as far as i can recall. Its all varoufakis' fault! haha. Valve doesn’t do charity, valve makes money and makes alot of it. Besides that you control as much as you control in nonfictional life. When your government raises taxes on gasoline, more people will start using the public transportation system. Action / reaction or to put it simple: they nudge you to do what the government wants the populus to do. And valve wants their users to spend some bucks on hats in their fictional world and so they shall nudge you just a little bit! Edit: Dont get me wrong. I love valve, i love that they give away dota2 for free and that it is not pay to win. im not flaming, its just my view on the reasoning behind patches in a free game like dota2. Yeah but the patches aren't related to the hatsystem like at all. Unless you want to go into conspiracy theory Terrorblade was overpowered because Arcana release, I don't see where the connection between constant patches and hat updates is. Sure Valve does stuff to make money, but they make money directly proportional to the value we place on cosmetics and tournament content. They might set that value superficially, but they don't actually set the demand. I'm not saying we should wake up and realize we're spending money on digital cosmetic items (because hey man they look cool sometimes) I'm saying Valve doesn't control this market, the consumers do. It isn't like real life where the government can raise taxes to push for change. Our demand is as much as our demand. | ||
|
DucK-
Singapore11447 Posts
Look at Vici against IG in star ladder. They got stomped 1 game, then they switched up their entire draft style. Suddenly they picked Invoker cm tide. The game needs more good drafters, rather than those willing to experiment, or those fixated on a certain combos that they ignore the balance of the draft (eg. Techies draft with tiny venge Pudge). . | ||
| ||
