|
|
On April 13 2013 22:48 Slomo wrote:BTW: Was there a 2nd episide of that dating show? I know they said something about "next week" on stream, but I was so busy, I must have missed it. 
Would also be interested in the second part if anyone has any information on it.
And that kinect video looks really nice and fluid.
|
On April 14 2013 03:12 cecek wrote:+ Show Spoiler +This is the coolest thing I have seen in quite a while! Using Kinect motion capture to animate a Dota 2 character. :D
This is really fucking sick :D
|
On April 14 2013 03:34 SpiZe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 03:12 cecek wrote:+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHImF-IOH1Q This is the coolest thing I have seen in quite a while! Using Kinect motion capture to animate a Dota 2 character. :D This is really fucking sick :D
I need this in my life!
|
Need to have some of them teabag taunt. I bet people willing to pay 100$ for a 5 charges use.
|
On April 13 2013 20:00 hydrogg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 18:30 NB wrote:On April 13 2013 18:25 evilfatsh1t wrote: i wonder how long icefrog is going to keep patching the game does he plan on dictating how the game is going to be played, through continuous patches? or is he looking for the perfect balance (starcraft), so that the game will eventually evolve on its own. imo icefrog patching the game over and over just to change the meta is not the best solution. The purpose of patches isnt always for balancing but also to producing new contents. By introducing new hero, you providing new contents to the game which will disturb the meta. There were many patches in the past that were considered overall 'balanced' but you have to move on eventually. Without new contents, players wont get attached and will grow tired of the game. Dota doesnt sound like a very good game if people will get bored of it and the meta cant change without patches. Other games I play (Counter Strike 1.6 and Brood War) don't get balance patches and the meta still changes and people still play it.
wat
when was the last time CS 1.6 had a change in gameplay?
|
On April 14 2013 05:57 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 20:00 hydrogg wrote:On April 13 2013 18:30 NB wrote:On April 13 2013 18:25 evilfatsh1t wrote: i wonder how long icefrog is going to keep patching the game does he plan on dictating how the game is going to be played, through continuous patches? or is he looking for the perfect balance (starcraft), so that the game will eventually evolve on its own. imo icefrog patching the game over and over just to change the meta is not the best solution. The purpose of patches isnt always for balancing but also to producing new contents. By introducing new hero, you providing new contents to the game which will disturb the meta. There were many patches in the past that were considered overall 'balanced' but you have to move on eventually. Without new contents, players wont get attached and will grow tired of the game. Dota doesnt sound like a very good game if people will get bored of it and the meta cant change without patches. Other games I play (Counter Strike 1.6 and Brood War) don't get balance patches and the meta still changes and people still play it. wat when was the last time CS 1.6 had a change in gameplay?
It's a FPS.
it's way harder to balance a game with 100heroes
|
On April 14 2013 06:36 Teton wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 05:57 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 13 2013 20:00 hydrogg wrote:On April 13 2013 18:30 NB wrote:On April 13 2013 18:25 evilfatsh1t wrote: i wonder how long icefrog is going to keep patching the game does he plan on dictating how the game is going to be played, through continuous patches? or is he looking for the perfect balance (starcraft), so that the game will eventually evolve on its own. imo icefrog patching the game over and over just to change the meta is not the best solution. The purpose of patches isnt always for balancing but also to producing new contents. By introducing new hero, you providing new contents to the game which will disturb the meta. There were many patches in the past that were considered overall 'balanced' but you have to move on eventually. Without new contents, players wont get attached and will grow tired of the game. Dota doesnt sound like a very good game if people will get bored of it and the meta cant change without patches. Other games I play (Counter Strike 1.6 and Brood War) don't get balance patches and the meta still changes and people still play it. wat when was the last time CS 1.6 had a change in gameplay? It's a FPS. it's way harder to balance a game with 100heroes
I was just confused as to how the CS 1.6 meta "still" changes.
BW meta hasn't changed in ages either. Been at least 6 years since the last major change, which was Bisu build PvZ. Only the maps change. (I guess there was that corsair build Jangbi used in OSL vT but...kinda one-off thing really)
dota meta obviously fluctuates a lot because of both balance and content patches, but I know I (and lots of other people) would still play the game forever even if I knew the game would have no new heroes starting tomorrow.
|
|
|
nah. Happened like what, twice?
|
On April 14 2013 07:09 Erasme wrote: hive zvz ? unfortunately never really took off. one of the later meta changes of bw was mass wraith TvT but it eventually went back to "normalcy"
|
On April 14 2013 07:07 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 06:36 Teton wrote:On April 14 2013 05:57 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 13 2013 20:00 hydrogg wrote:On April 13 2013 18:30 NB wrote:On April 13 2013 18:25 evilfatsh1t wrote: i wonder how long icefrog is going to keep patching the game does he plan on dictating how the game is going to be played, through continuous patches? or is he looking for the perfect balance (starcraft), so that the game will eventually evolve on its own. imo icefrog patching the game over and over just to change the meta is not the best solution. The purpose of patches isnt always for balancing but also to producing new contents. By introducing new hero, you providing new contents to the game which will disturb the meta. There were many patches in the past that were considered overall 'balanced' but you have to move on eventually. Without new contents, players wont get attached and will grow tired of the game. Dota doesnt sound like a very good game if people will get bored of it and the meta cant change without patches. Other games I play (Counter Strike 1.6 and Brood War) don't get balance patches and the meta still changes and people still play it. wat when was the last time CS 1.6 had a change in gameplay? It's a FPS. it's way harder to balance a game with 100heroes I was just confused as to how the CS 1.6 meta "still" changes. BW meta hasn't changed in ages either. Been at least 6 years since the last major change, which was Bisu build PvZ. Only the maps change. (I guess there was that corsair build Jangbi used in OSL vT but...kinda one-off thing really) dota meta obviously fluctuates a lot because of both balance and content patches, but I know I (and lots of other people) would still play the game forever even if I knew the game would have no new heroes starting tomorrow.
If you think that, you're not looking deep enough. I quit playing/watching much BW when zergs were doing 3 hatch spire into 5 hatch hydra zvp and facing SK terran with mass vessels in the late game zvt. I watch a few games a couple years later and they're doing something like 4 base 7 hatch openings and facing mech transition terrans in the late game. Even before that you could notice tons of nuances in matchups like PvZ where they developed a lot of variations like delayed muta openings or different zealot timings.
I've always thought that Icefrog wants to ultimately: 1) Balance every hero so that they're all viable 2) Have an end result where multiple playstyles are viable 3) => Game is fun, doesn't get stale
Even without the patches though, the metagame does change, just not as quickly (I'm pretty sure Sven, for example, didn't need a patch to come or go).
|
On April 14 2013 07:37 ketomai wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 07:07 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 14 2013 06:36 Teton wrote:On April 14 2013 05:57 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 13 2013 20:00 hydrogg wrote:On April 13 2013 18:30 NB wrote:On April 13 2013 18:25 evilfatsh1t wrote: i wonder how long icefrog is going to keep patching the game does he plan on dictating how the game is going to be played, through continuous patches? or is he looking for the perfect balance (starcraft), so that the game will eventually evolve on its own. imo icefrog patching the game over and over just to change the meta is not the best solution. The purpose of patches isnt always for balancing but also to producing new contents. By introducing new hero, you providing new contents to the game which will disturb the meta. There were many patches in the past that were considered overall 'balanced' but you have to move on eventually. Without new contents, players wont get attached and will grow tired of the game. Dota doesnt sound like a very good game if people will get bored of it and the meta cant change without patches. Other games I play (Counter Strike 1.6 and Brood War) don't get balance patches and the meta still changes and people still play it. wat when was the last time CS 1.6 had a change in gameplay? It's a FPS. it's way harder to balance a game with 100heroes I was just confused as to how the CS 1.6 meta "still" changes. BW meta hasn't changed in ages either. Been at least 6 years since the last major change, which was Bisu build PvZ. Only the maps change. (I guess there was that corsair build Jangbi used in OSL vT but...kinda one-off thing really) dota meta obviously fluctuates a lot because of both balance and content patches, but I know I (and lots of other people) would still play the game forever even if I knew the game would have no new heroes starting tomorrow. If you think that, you're not looking deep enough. I quit playing/watching much BW when zergs were doing 3 hatch spire into 5 hatch hydra zvp and facing SK terran with mass vessels in the late game zvt. I watch a few games a couple years later and they're doing something like 4 base 7 hatch openings and facing mech transition terrans in the late game. Even before that you could notice tons of nuances in matchups like PvZ where they developed a lot of variations like delayed muta openings or different zealot timings.
timing changes were because of the maps. Those aren't meta changes.
You could make the same argument for the builds. Hydra builds became less popular in ZvT because of the maps; they were still used. Changing a build with timing is akin to building a different item on a hero. It's not really a meta change.
I've always thought that Icefrog wants to ultimately: 1) Balance every hero so that they're all viable 2) Have an end result where multiple playstyles are viable 3) => Game is fun, doesn't get stale
Even without the patches though, the metagame does change, just not as quickly (I'm pretty sure Sven, for example, didn't need a patch to come or go).
yes, it does, I agree. Over time.
|
>implying there's a way to balance every hero so they're all viable
Yeah ok
|
On April 14 2013 07:33 rabidch wrote:unfortunately never really took off. one of the later meta changes of bw was mass wraith TvT but it eventually went back to "normalcy"
Wraiths mid-lategame is still be the norm, just that if the game isn't even by the time one players shows the wraiths then its hard for the other player to catch up.
Hive zvz is same except it's just so hard for games to be even until people progress into hive.
Edit: rabid eg fan?!
|
On April 14 2013 08:11 Shaella wrote: >implying there's a way to balance every hero so they're all viable
Yeah ok
certainly it's possible. We're not really far from that situation.
There's maybe ~10 heroes, probably less, that I can think of that I have never seen in a pro match in this patch alone. Viable doesn't necessarily mean oft picked.
Look at all the int heroes, for example. There's what, 36?
http://www.dota2wiki.com/wiki/Dota_2_Wiki
Of those 36 heroes, I have seen all of them in competitive play in the last 6 months except for WD and Pugna, and I'm sure that's only because I haven't watched enough games.
Then the agi heroes: NTH has picked Razor. I haven't seen sniper, and I haven't seen dusa. I've seen every one of the other heroes in a competitive match.
And finally, str heroes. I've seen literally all of them except Huskar and bara.
That's 6 heroes out of ~100.
e: forgot, I haven't seen anyone play zeus. 7 heroes.
|
You haven't been watching very many games then as I've seen Bara (EG&Zenith), Medusa (Some SE Asiea team vs PL in the G(1?)-league), Pugna(Lots of teams), Sniper (NTH), PA (Navi '12)
WD has been picked quite a lot. Zeus has only been picked a few times. Famously randomed by Na'VI.
Bloodseeker got picked once recently and so did Timbersaw. Neither hero is very effective though.
|
On April 14 2013 08:39 givemefive wrote: You haven't been watching very many games then as I've seen Bara (EG&Zenith), Medusa (Some SE Asiea team vs PL in the G(1?)-league), Pugna(Lots of teams), Sniper (NTH), PA (Navi '12)
I think I've even seen WD in a pushing strat but maybe that was an amateur game. But still, that doesn't mean the heroes are balanced. Just that someone thought they had a utility for 1 strategy.
The question wasn't whether they are balanced, it was whether they are viable.
If they are good enough to be picked for a particular strategy then they are viable in my opinion. As I said, heroes don't need to be picked often to qualify as viable.
|
On April 14 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 08:11 Shaella wrote: >implying there's a way to balance every hero so they're all viable
Yeah ok certainly it's possible. We're not really far from that situation. There's maybe ~10 heroes, probably less, that I can think of that I have never seen in a pro match in this patch alone. Viable doesn't necessarily mean oft picked. Look at all the int heroes, for example. There's what, 36? http://www.dota2wiki.com/wiki/Dota_2_WikiOf those 36 heroes, I have seen all of them in competitive play in the last 6 months except for WD and Pugna, and I'm sure that's only because I haven't watched enough games. Then the agi heroes: NTH has picked Razor. I haven't seen sniper, and I haven't seen dusa. I've seen every one of the other heroes in a competitive match. And finally, str heroes. I've seen literally all of them except Huskar and bara. That's 6 heroes out of ~100. e: forgot, I haven't seen anyone play zeus. 7 heroes.
Funny enough there was a Pugna pick up pretty recently. He's mainly used in all-in push strats from what I have seen. WD though I haven't seen though if you go through G-1 league you'll probably find him.
Dusa I know has been picked up once or twice, but by lower level asian teams if I am not mistaken, and there have been a few (less than 5) times where we have seen sniper. I know for a fact EG ran him once or twice and it worked out pretty well for them.
Mostly everyone is viable, but Dota is a game of copycats, and when something works people tend to stick with it. Also consider that in drafting things a lot of the heroes picked up right now don't give away a whole lot when picked (Nyx, Kotl, Gyro, Naix, Puck) and they all have pretty good synergy with a lot of heroes. As such they fit into overall strategies a lot easier than the less often picked ones. It's just the nature of the game.
|
On April 14 2013 08:46 LeLoup wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 08:27 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 14 2013 08:11 Shaella wrote: >implying there's a way to balance every hero so they're all viable
Yeah ok certainly it's possible. We're not really far from that situation. There's maybe ~10 heroes, probably less, that I can think of that I have never seen in a pro match in this patch alone. Viable doesn't necessarily mean oft picked. Look at all the int heroes, for example. There's what, 36? http://www.dota2wiki.com/wiki/Dota_2_WikiOf those 36 heroes, I have seen all of them in competitive play in the last 6 months except for WD and Pugna, and I'm sure that's only because I haven't watched enough games. Then the agi heroes: NTH has picked Razor. I haven't seen sniper, and I haven't seen dusa. I've seen every one of the other heroes in a competitive match. And finally, str heroes. I've seen literally all of them except Huskar and bara. That's 6 heroes out of ~100. e: forgot, I haven't seen anyone play zeus. 7 heroes. Funny enough there was a Pugna pick up pretty recently. He's mainly used in all-in push strats from what I have seen. WD though I haven't seen though if you go through G-1 league you'll probably find him. Dusa I know has been picked up once or twice, but by lower level asian teams if I am not mistaken, and there have been a few (less than 5) times where we have seen sniper. I know for a fact EG ran him once or twice and it worked out pretty well for them. Everyone is really viable, but Dota is a game of copycats, and when something works people tend to stick with it. Also consider that in drafting things a lot of the heroes picked up right now don't give away a whole lot when picked (Nyx, Kotl, Gyro, Naix, Puck). They all have pretty good synergy with a lot of heroes and as such they fit into overall strategies a lot easier than the less often picked ones. It's just the nature of the game.
I agree. I think it's really just some of the top tier heroes need a little bit of tweaking so that they aren't so all-encompassing. Primarily some of the supports/gankers, really. I think gyro is fine, and nyx is probably fine now after the impale change and the spiked carapace nerf. KoTL, Naix, puck, Magnus, and maybe furion/luna/bat/sylla could all use some very slight nerfs/changes but I think they're all very nearly at a good place atm.
On paper some heroes are really good (e.g. bara) but aren't picked up because I think their styles differ too much from the norm. As a carry I think he might be good but it's all speculation until someone actually shows it in practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|