|
On August 18 2014 20:46 Spaylz wrote:
We get it. Your argument is: removing or adding mechanics does not alter the skill level, because one is almost always able to improve oneself with the remaining mechanics. OK, that is overly simple, but obviously true.
The problem is you can't apply that to anything that provides different options of play to all the players.
Yes, you can. A game is a game, regardless of whether there is a choice at the start of the game. For the purpose's of this argument, which even you now admit that I'm right on, how's that choice different from any other choice within the game, like buying items? It's not. The choice of heroes is a strategic choice, part of the optimal strategy, if there is one. If there's not, then you've finally admitted, there's more skills you (or any human) can learn to improve your play, like picking the correct hero, so the skill required to play the game hasn't reduced.
|
On August 18 2014 20:36 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 19:27 Grumbels wrote:
His argument is not real support for anything, it's only broadly applicable to negate obviously stupid ideas on game design. Yes, you're correct that it should be obvious. But it's not obvious to Dota 2 fanboys. Show nested quote +What's his endgame? There has to be more to it than this purely abstract argument. Is it entirely about his dislike of last hitting or something?
Also, p.u. fails to recognize that automaton bots aren't that great as an argument because it doesn't take into account the stereotype of sc2 as having only one fight per game that lasts only five seconds. Frequently the outcome is predetermined according to composition, and not every race has marines that allow them to micro like this to begin with. In this scenario there is still an infinite skill ceiling, but it's a rather pointless observation as anyone can tell there is something really wrong with the ability of players to express their skill in this game. (Not saying sc2 is like this) The outcome of a fight in SC2 can partly be determined by composition, but having the right composition is itself a skill. Something may be wrong with SC2 that it's mostly decided by 1 big deathball fight, but that doesn't make it require less skill, just not the type of skill you think it should be based off. But you seem to have realized this.
This is a video game discussion forum, not philosophy debate class. The people in this thread have vested interests in the outcome as they are in some ways part of the decision making process that eventually leads to the adoption or removal of various mechanics into the game.
And honestly, the people disagreeing with you very quickly managed to focus on your real agenda (various HotS design questions) and not the ostensible topic of this thread, and if you had wanted to avoid this you chose the wrong tone because every you write gives the appearance of it being part of a larger polemic argument.
Implicit in many discussions is that while all skills are equal, some are more equal than others; and at any rate are more desirable to have in the game. I don't think it's the case that any game with an infinite skill ceiling will support competitive gaming, much less the even stricter demands of "e-sports", so there is a lot more to be said on the topic than blithely stating the discussion has been resolved thanks to your initial argument.
I mean, what do you want? Do you want everyone to admit that removing mechanics does not by definition remove competitive potential? Even if the context of the discussion is the removal of certain specific mechanics?
|
On August 18 2014 20:45 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 20:31 Sbrubbles wrote:
The idea that removing mechanics doesn't change overall "skill" in competitive games so long as attention can be shifted to other areas of the game and so long as that extra attetion can still differentiate "more skilled" from "less skilled" players is not an unreasonable one, but the problem is that it is conceivable that "decreasing marginal returns" may set in on the leftover areas of the game, so the potential to differentiate players ends up lower even if the theoretical skill ceiling is impossible to reach. Assuming there is a random element to the game (and there always is in games with imperfect information).
Overall, though, the OP is getting way more flak than deserved, then again indirectly arguing against time-honored mechanics is bound to leave some people butthurt. Yes. This person gets it. On randomness, I've written something on it here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/games/465001-near-impossible-reduce-skill-in-competitive-games#15
so basically you do agree that removing mechanics makes it so that the game rewards less skill? because after all, being humans, we constantly make mistakes in our play. If basketball was only about throwing penalty shots, then yes there would be someone that we could call the best in the world. He might be able to throw in 98,88% of the shots whereas the second best would score 98,86% of the time. And the 10000th best player would score 98% of the time. It's a game where no one would ever reach the skill ceiling i.e. 100% success. So what? There would be simply nothing impressive about the best player in the world, he's just another guy who can throw in about 98% of his shots. There would never be someone to look up to, there would never be a consistent champion, skill would not be rewarded. A guy that has only 96% success rate could easily beat the best player in the world if the best player failed even one throw. Say his concentration slips for a fraction of a second and he misses, and that's that, he just lost to some no name garbage player. A game as volatile as that is what I would call a low skill game, but obviously you argue it takes just as skill based as regular basketball. It's more or less about semantics, what do people actually mean when they say "high skill game".
|
On August 18 2014 20:51 Spaylz wrote:
You keep ignoring personal skill level. How is that not a factor? Is it unfathomable that one player might be better than another?
If personal skill matters, then how has the game being dumbed down or requires less skill?
If a game is dumbed down, then everyone who plays optimally should be on equal skill level, because the game is so dumbed down and requires so little skill that people play perfectly with the optimal strategy.and so always draws.
You've debunked your own argument.
|
Man, you guys fell for it. This dude has been trolling TL for a while now.
|
But he is so hilarious and terrible at making graphs.
|
On August 18 2014 20:54 Spaylz wrote:
Exactly. It's not possible to achieve 100% winrate, because there is always someone better than you. Add to that any slump or extremely good shape a player might be in, luck, flukes, and so on...
There are far too many variables, and finding an "optimal strategy" is merely theory that almost always never holds in practice. You can theorize all you want about the perfect Dota 2 or HotS setup, in the end, if the other players are better than you, they will still win.
If a 100% win/draw rate is impossible because people can always demonstrate more skill and differentiate their skill, even when a mechanic like items is removed, then how has the skill required to play the game reduced? It hasn't. You've debunked yourself again.
|
On August 18 2014 20:52 Plansix wrote:
The argument that the only way to prove a skill ceiling can be reached is to have 100% win rate is just play stupid, and beyond flawed. 100% win rates are nearly impossible to reach in the most simple of competitive games.
It's not flawed. If people can't reach a 100% win OR draw rate in a non-random game, then there are more skillful things that people can do to improve their play and differentiate their skill, so the skill level required to play the game hasn't reduced.
It's possible to have a 100% win or draw rate: E.g. checkers, tic-tac-toe, SCV Wars with 1 SCV each.
|
So you say that if you change all the skillshots into player targeted skills in LoL player skill level to play the game on decent level will remain the same?
|
On August 18 2014 21:00 Spaylz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 20:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 20:22 Spaylz wrote:
I don't see you addressing anything. I see you repeating the same stuff over and over while other people come up with many different answers to your, again, very biased views.
The only real point you've made is that the skill ceiling cannot be reached by any human, and that there is always room for improvement. That pretty much applies to everything, hence the constant, never-ending progress of the human race both in terms of technology and quality of life. But all games have the same skill? That is in no way true. Does that mean a CS:GO pro player should be able to go pro on SC2 as well? Does that mean Bobby Fischer would rock everyone in Dota 2, or to speak your language: in HotS?
Again, tic-tac-toe and checkers give both players access to the same possibilities, the same units, and so on. There are no differences in terms of options available, only decision-making matters. This does not, cannot, and will never apply to games like Dota 2 or HotS, because there are too many variables. Some heroes lose against others, and vice versa. And, again, even in those bad situation of a poor hero match-up, some people do manage to win. Because they are better. I don't know how many times I can repeat myself.
You're not proving anything. Everybody tells you so. Do you pay attention to what is happenig at all?
Lastly, you've stopped answering in the HotS thread, after the many posts addressing your... point of view. You haven't read the OP properly. If all games require the same amount of skill, it does not mean that SC2 players can go pro at SC2, because they require different skills, SC2 requires skills in macro, CS:GO requires skill in preisions. If changes were made to SC2 to that it becomes CS:GO or changes to remove multiple unit selection, then the skills required will shift, but all overall skill required will stay the same. This is stated in the OP: Humans can only do a finite number of things at one time. So, for example, removing pointless gimmicks and restrictions in MOBAs frees players to focus on other real skills, like strategizing around merc camps and map objectives, landing skillshots, and winning team fights. Therefore, instead of doing less and lowering the achievable skill ceiling, the achievable skill ceiling doesn't change, it's still bounded by the finite amount of things humans can do just as before, but it shifts where skill is needed.
[...]
Example 1: Adding auto-aim to CS:GO (removing complexity)
Aiming is a huge part of CS:GO, it's one of the most important skills in the game. Does adding auto-aim dumb down the game, reduce skill or kill depth? No. The game will still require just as much skill as it does now. Instead of being about aiming, auto-aim would shift the game to be about positioning, strategy, flashing and firing with maximum lethality (minimizing recoil). The team with more skill in avoiding situations where they will be killed by the opponent's auto-aim by being at the right place at the right time would win. The skill of correct positioning would be absolutely critical. So playing CS:GO with auto-aim would require the same amount of skill it requires now, it just emphasizes different types of skills, like positioning. You say there's too many variables in Dota 2 and HotS for there to be an optimal strategy. Then how can removing, for example, items from HotS reduce skill when there's still "too many variables" that people cannot master? It doesn't, and so you've debunked yourself. Also, picking the right heroes would be part of the optimal strategy, if there is one. You irritate me. When did I say removing mechanics lowered skill level? Seriously..
So you admit, as my argument in the OP shows, that removing mechanics like last hitting and items from MOBAs doesn't lower skill level?
|
On August 18 2014 21:32 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 21:00 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 20:56 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 20:22 Spaylz wrote:
I don't see you addressing anything. I see you repeating the same stuff over and over while other people come up with many different answers to your, again, very biased views.
The only real point you've made is that the skill ceiling cannot be reached by any human, and that there is always room for improvement. That pretty much applies to everything, hence the constant, never-ending progress of the human race both in terms of technology and quality of life. But all games have the same skill? That is in no way true. Does that mean a CS:GO pro player should be able to go pro on SC2 as well? Does that mean Bobby Fischer would rock everyone in Dota 2, or to speak your language: in HotS?
Again, tic-tac-toe and checkers give both players access to the same possibilities, the same units, and so on. There are no differences in terms of options available, only decision-making matters. This does not, cannot, and will never apply to games like Dota 2 or HotS, because there are too many variables. Some heroes lose against others, and vice versa. And, again, even in those bad situation of a poor hero match-up, some people do manage to win. Because they are better. I don't know how many times I can repeat myself.
You're not proving anything. Everybody tells you so. Do you pay attention to what is happenig at all?
Lastly, you've stopped answering in the HotS thread, after the many posts addressing your... point of view. You haven't read the OP properly. If all games require the same amount of skill, it does not mean that SC2 players can go pro at SC2, because they require different skills, SC2 requires skills in macro, CS:GO requires skill in preisions. If changes were made to SC2 to that it becomes CS:GO or changes to remove multiple unit selection, then the skills required will shift, but all overall skill required will stay the same. This is stated in the OP: Humans can only do a finite number of things at one time. So, for example, removing pointless gimmicks and restrictions in MOBAs frees players to focus on other real skills, like strategizing around merc camps and map objectives, landing skillshots, and winning team fights. Therefore, instead of doing less and lowering the achievable skill ceiling, the achievable skill ceiling doesn't change, it's still bounded by the finite amount of things humans can do just as before, but it shifts where skill is needed.
[...]
Example 1: Adding auto-aim to CS:GO (removing complexity)
Aiming is a huge part of CS:GO, it's one of the most important skills in the game. Does adding auto-aim dumb down the game, reduce skill or kill depth? No. The game will still require just as much skill as it does now. Instead of being about aiming, auto-aim would shift the game to be about positioning, strategy, flashing and firing with maximum lethality (minimizing recoil). The team with more skill in avoiding situations where they will be killed by the opponent's auto-aim by being at the right place at the right time would win. The skill of correct positioning would be absolutely critical. So playing CS:GO with auto-aim would require the same amount of skill it requires now, it just emphasizes different types of skills, like positioning. You say there's too many variables in Dota 2 and HotS for there to be an optimal strategy. Then how can removing, for example, items from HotS reduce skill when there's still "too many variables" that people cannot master? It doesn't, and so you've debunked yourself. Also, picking the right heroes would be part of the optimal strategy, if there is one. You irritate me. When did I say removing mechanics lowered skill level? Seriously.. So you admit, as my argument in the OP shows, that removing mechanics like last hitting and items from MOBAs doesn't lower skill level?
it lowers the skill CEILING, OBVIOUSLY. even you should understand this.
|
Lol, so you made a thread, now 7 pages full of nonsense, just to prove your point that HotS is not inferior game to the others in the genre ? That is so funny...
|
On August 18 2014 21:04 Spaylz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 21:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 20:39 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 20:38 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 19:53 Plansix wrote:
He stopped making this argument in the Heroes thread because people had to much evidence to cite of all of his flawed arguments. Name one piece of evidence. Umm... Looking at the thread in question is enough? You've disappeared for the last 3 pages or so, after people, including myself, answered your posts with arguments. I believe that constitutes written evidence, if not proof. Also, what exactly is your point? Last hitting sucks? Because if so, then damn, that's a whole lot of wasted e-ink for nothing. I was busy writing this thread. There was no argument debunking anything I wrote, because you can't cite a single one of these arguments. Check this out. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/games/432609-heroes-of-the-storm-blizzard-all-stars-announced?page=112#2232
This is just nonsense.
1. Comebacks almost never happened based on 3 things: personal experience, TI4 where many teams quit before the end of the game, because a comeback wasn't possible, and game mechanics encourage snowballing which by design reduces the chance of comebacks. Also, I argued that games are decided at around ~20 minutes but drag out to 50 minutes, you counter by saying games are decided at the 0 minutes mark. OK, I accept that because it supports my argument even further.
2. You've got the causation ass-backwards. Browder is the game director of HotS. Therefore, if he believes in having items, denying, games decided after ~20 minutes but drag out to 50 minutes, he would have made the game like that and said things to defend that, but he doesn't. Because, he, like me, understands that you're wrong.
3. Debunked by this thread. You write "In HotS, you'll lose because you ignored map objectives. You'll lose because you ignored creep camps. You'll lose because you botched a fight, or got caught." Translation: you'll lose because you're less skilled than the opponent and haven't hit the highest possible skill. You'll lose because there's more skillful things you could do to win, but you're not skill enough to do it, i.e. the highest achievable skill my humans is still below the theoretical skill ceiling so that the game is no easier, you lose just as often as Dota 2 so the skill required is the same.
4. What changes? Are you saying that HotS will have an optimal strategy (that includes picking the right heroes), once we learn more about it when it's out of Alpha? If so then you've contradicted your "too many variables" argument here, which proved my point that the skill hasn't reduced because there's more things people can do to improve their skill and wins.
|
On August 18 2014 21:13 deth2munkies wrote:
Just because a theoretical skill cap is immutable because only a computer could theoretically reach it does not mean that every complex game mechanic doesn't require some sort of skill a human is capable of achieving. DotA 2, LoL, and HotS all have theoretically infinite skill caps for both decision making and mechanical gameplay, but DotA 2 is still a harder game to play at a competent level than the other 2, simply because of its ridiculous amount of extra complexity, odd game speed, and fucking Invoker.
I agree that DotA 2 is poorly designed and over-complex, and that Valve missed a golden opportunity to fix design flaws and game speed (for all it's faults, see HoN for what DotA would be like with a good game speed/turn speed) when they ported it. Alas, it's in the past now.
One of the best examples I can elucidate is a WoW DPS rotation. It takes more "skill" to manage a rotation that has 2 DoTs, 3 CDs, and 4 cast time abilities that must be cast in a certain order than it does to manage a rotation of Colossus Smash and spam Slam, otherwise, Spam Mortal Strike and Overpower (simplified Warrior rotation), especially on a raid fight that requires movement ont he caster's part. Simply having more things to do requires more attention to execute. Same goes for MOBAs. The mere fact that you have to worry about pulling/stacking while keeping your lane safe, keeping vision up, worrying about wards, etc. on top of being more mechanically demanding to land skillshots and avoid the enemy's simply due to the poor turn speed makes it more complex than LoL, where a support has to think about vision for ganks, harassing the other lane, and possibly roaming for another gank.
Then again, I'd argue that LoL is more fun simply because it focuses less on map control and housekeeping the jungle and more on directly fighting your opponent, which IMO is the fun part. HotS refines that point even better. You seem to be arguing against the strawman that "complexity = fun" when I don't think anybody made that actual argument.
Your WoW example falls outside of the scope of this discussion, because doing a rotation isn't a competitive game. But if we consider competitive raiding, e.g. world/server first race, it applies and dumbing down rotation doesn't reduce skill as explained in the OP.
If everyone's rotation is reduced to mashing 1 button, then raids are easier for you, but it's also easier for your opponents, these 2 forces cancel out, and thus the competition of racing for world first doesn't require any less skill. It's just as hard as before, but it's merely shifted from mechanical skills to the skill of minimizing clear time and increasing efficiency.
The same is true of Dota 2 vs HotS, the skilled required is the same because you don't win more in HotS than in Dota 2 so HotS is no easier. There's always more you can do, in both games to improve your play and wins. You conflated the fact that HotS requires less mechanical and memory skills in using Invoker or denying, with requiring less skill overall. If you take that away, it becomes easier for your opponent to play, and players will shift to other skills to differentiate themselves, like winning team fights. No one can reach the theoretical skill ceiling in HotS so the overall skill required hasn't reduced.
Another example, if adding auto-aim to CS:GO which also doesn't reduce overall skill, as explained in the OP.
|
The argument is simple, if removing Mechanics do not simpifly a game. Therefore I will use PU logic and determine that teamfighting and following browder-approved objectives around are NOT skills, neither is the ability to press QWER, nor is map awareness.
By his definition none of this should change the "skill level of the game"
To paralleluniverse, the only thing that truly determines skill in a game like HotS is the ability to buy heroes others dont have.
THAT IS TRUE SKILL
![[image loading]](http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110612040724/dragonball/images/0/0e/PTW.jpg)
|
On August 18 2014 21:44 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 21:04 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 21:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 20:39 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 20:38 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 19:53 Plansix wrote:
He stopped making this argument in the Heroes thread because people had to much evidence to cite of all of his flawed arguments. Name one piece of evidence. Umm... Looking at the thread in question is enough? You've disappeared for the last 3 pages or so, after people, including myself, answered your posts with arguments. I believe that constitutes written evidence, if not proof. Also, what exactly is your point? Last hitting sucks? Because if so, then damn, that's a whole lot of wasted e-ink for nothing. I was busy writing this thread. There was no argument debunking anything I wrote, because you can't cite a single one of these arguments. Check this out. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/games/432609-heroes-of-the-storm-blizzard-all-stars-announced?page=112#2232 This is just nonsense. 1. Comebacks almost never happened based on 3 things: personal experience, TI4 where many teams quit before the end of the game, because a comeback wasn't possible, and game mechanics encourage snowballing which by design reduces the chance of comebacks. Also, I argued that games are decided at around ~20 minutes but drag out to 50 minutes, you counter by saying games are decided at the 0 minutes mark. OK, I accept that because it supports my argument even further.
Your limited understanding of Dota is showing. May of the games that ended early were due to the draft and teams drafting specific line ups to end the game quickly or drafting to “greedy” and losing the game outright. And both of those are dependent on execution and do not reflect every single dota match played at TI. There were plenty of back and forth games, but one sides stomps happen in any high level play, regardless of medium.
But this sort of response is expected from a HotS fanboy and apologist.
|
Northern Ireland22203 Posts
Removing one mechanic so you can do more of the other mechanics does not automatically maintain the same skill ceiling, which is the basis of your entire argument.
|
On August 18 2014 22:02 Kupon3ss wrote:The argument is simple, if removing Mechanics do not simpifly a game. Therefore I will use PU logic and determine that teamfighting and following browder-approved objectives around are NOT skills, neither is the ability to press QWER, nor is map awareness. By his definition none of this should change the "skill level of the game" To paralleluniverse, the only thing that truly determines skill in a game like HotS is the ability to buy heroes others dont have. THAT IS TRUE SKILL
Fucking ground breaking. The highest level of game play - Skill level: Wallet.
|
On August 18 2014 21:17 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 20:36 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 19:27 Grumbels wrote:
His argument is not real support for anything, it's only broadly applicable to negate obviously stupid ideas on game design. Yes, you're correct that it should be obvious. But it's not obvious to Dota 2 fanboys. What's his endgame? There has to be more to it than this purely abstract argument. Is it entirely about his dislike of last hitting or something?
Also, p.u. fails to recognize that automaton bots aren't that great as an argument because it doesn't take into account the stereotype of sc2 as having only one fight per game that lasts only five seconds. Frequently the outcome is predetermined according to composition, and not every race has marines that allow them to micro like this to begin with. In this scenario there is still an infinite skill ceiling, but it's a rather pointless observation as anyone can tell there is something really wrong with the ability of players to express their skill in this game. (Not saying sc2 is like this) The outcome of a fight in SC2 can partly be determined by composition, but having the right composition is itself a skill. Something may be wrong with SC2 that it's mostly decided by 1 big deathball fight, but that doesn't make it require less skill, just not the type of skill you think it should be based off. But you seem to have realized this. This is a video game discussion forum, not philosophy debate class. The people in this thread have vested interests in the outcome as they are in some ways part of the decision making process that eventually leads to the adoption or removal of various mechanics into the game. And honestly, the people disagreeing with you very quickly managed to focus on your real agenda (various HotS design questions) and not the ostensible topic of this thread, and if you had wanted to avoid this you chose the wrong tone because every you write gives the appearance of it being part of a larger polemic argument. Implicit in many discussions is that while all skills are equal, some are more equal than others; and at any rate are more desirable to have in the game. I don't think it's the case that any game with an infinite skill ceiling will support competitive gaming, much less the even stricter demands of "e-sports", so there is a lot more to be said on the topic than blithely stating the discussion has been resolved thanks to your initial argument. I mean, what do you want? Do you want everyone to admit that removing mechanics does not by definition remove competitive potential? Even if the context of the discussion is the removal of certain specific mechanics?
You write "any rate are more desirable to have in the game". Yes. Exactly. I made the same point: "mechanics should not be chosen to increase or reduce skill required, because virtually every mechanic will have no effect on skill required. Instead mechanics should be chosen based on whether they are fun, interesting to watch, and fits with the design goals of the game."
If only the Dota 2 fanboys can get over the false claim that removing mechanics reduces skill (which this thread is specifically written to debunk), we could move on to this more interesting argument like what mechanics are desirable to have, and the world would be a better place.
But they can't accept this fact.
|
Northern Ireland22203 Posts
On August 18 2014 22:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2014 21:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 21:04 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 21:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 20:39 Spaylz wrote:On August 18 2014 20:38 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 18 2014 19:53 Plansix wrote:
He stopped making this argument in the Heroes thread because people had to much evidence to cite of all of his flawed arguments. Name one piece of evidence. Umm... Looking at the thread in question is enough? You've disappeared for the last 3 pages or so, after people, including myself, answered your posts with arguments. I believe that constitutes written evidence, if not proof. Also, what exactly is your point? Last hitting sucks? Because if so, then damn, that's a whole lot of wasted e-ink for nothing. I was busy writing this thread. There was no argument debunking anything I wrote, because you can't cite a single one of these arguments. Check this out. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/games/432609-heroes-of-the-storm-blizzard-all-stars-announced?page=112#2232 This is just nonsense. 1. Comebacks almost never happened based on 3 things: personal experience, TI4 where many teams quit before the end of the game, because a comeback wasn't possible, and game mechanics encourage snowballing which by design reduces the chance of comebacks. Also, I argued that games are decided at around ~20 minutes but drag out to 50 minutes, you counter by saying games are decided at the 0 minutes mark. OK, I accept that because it supports my argument even further. Your limited understanding of Dota is showing. May of the games that ended early were due to the draft and teams drafting specific line ups to end the game quickly or drafting to “greedy” and losing the game outright. And both of those are dependent on execution and do not reflect every single dota match played at TI. There were plenty of back and forth games, but one sides stomps happen in any high level play, regardless of medium. But this sort of response is expected from a HotS fanboy and apologist.
He's cherrypicking certain games where teams got outdrafted and outexecuted.
I can cherrypick pretty much any mouz game, where they crush the early game, and then lose because they fall apart at mid-late game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
