|
|
Just buy a medallion if you want amp damage on your team. Slardar can't solo, requires tons of early farm, and does far less with it than any other hero. Its not that Amp damage is "bad" its that its a weak ultimate skill on a hero with already kinda lackluster other abilities.
The only reason you call sven and slardar different is because slardar can't do what sven does. Thing is, slardar can't survive on "support" farm allocation but at the same time he farms horrendously slowly and does less with "core" farm allocation than every remotely OK core hero. Sven can survive on support farm allocation, does way MORE with "core" farm allocation, and farms really fast. Both can be blink initiators with Blink + BKB, but sven does it better before the blink and just as well after the blink (yes the stun is technically smaller).
The idea of slardar as a "blink initiator who magnifies the physical damage output of allies" is just not good enough. I mean, just pick tidehunter, who is better with no farm, blink initiates better, and whose -armor spell DOES DAMAGE AND SLOWS. Yes slardar has abilities and if he casts them he can be relevant. No there is no situation ever where you would want slardar more than all these other heroes I'm pointing out.
Magnus too. A blink initiator who magnifies allies right click. Only magnus is a strong solo laner, goes through BKB, has a nice nuke. Plus skewer is a pretty ridiculous ability in general, especially when compared to sprint.
|
Comparing amplify damage to medallion or gush is really silly. It's like saying Laguna Blade is bad because there are heroes with spells that do damage AND stun. -20 armor is not the same as -5 armor, not even close. Not even mentioning the benefits of true sight and the fact it works on magic immune targets.
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 25 2013 19:39 Kipsate wrote:
Stronger and more versatile supports leave AA in the cold(hue hue hue), his strong point is his ultimate, the rest of his kit however makes him far less versatile. I wouldn't neccesarily say AA is bad, the alternatives are just better, I think he can still fit as a niche pick(perhaps as a ''counter'' to Alchemist his insane regen).
AA is the king of 2-1-2 laning. He was a very common first round ban/pick hero in late 6.72/early 6.73, which Chinese competitive games were laned primarily as 2-1-2 and not 3-1-1 as became the norm again in 6.74 When paired with certain heroes (ES, SK, CK, etc.), his ability to play 2v2 in both hard lane and safe lane, as a core or as a support, is very powerful. The problem, as has been repeatedly stated since 6.74 was released, is that the hero adapts poorly to trilanes. His strength as a mid laner is somewhat suspect (it's decent but not strong enough to force Bottle-Crow mids out of lane, and he doesn't have the AoE to clear mid and be able to prevent them from roaming around the map. His kit obviously sucks for hard laning, and as a trilane support, his strength is unreliable because how slow leveling is as a trilane support unless you're in an aggressive tri that's getting repeated kills.
His problems have nothing to do with what the hero brings to the game in mid/lategame, else he would never have been first round ban/pick status pre-6.74 either. With a good development, AA's teamfight power is extremely strong through the entire game. It's just that the hero is too hard to place into 3-1-1 lanes.
|
On April 26 2013 01:11 Sn0_Man wrote:
Just buy a medallion if you want amp damage on your team. Slardar can't solo, requires tons of early farm, and does far less with it than any other hero. Its not that Amp damage is "bad" its that its a weak ultimate skill on a hero with already kinda lackluster other abilities.
The only reason you call sven and slardar different is because slardar can't do what sven does. Thing is, slardar can't survive on "support" farm allocation but at the same time he farms horrendously slowly and does less with "core" farm allocation than every remotely OK core hero. Sven can survive on support farm allocation, does way MORE with "core" farm allocation, and farms really fast. Both can be blink initiators with Blink + BKB, but sven does it better before the blink and just as well after the blink (yes the stun is technically smaller).
The idea of slardar as a "blink initiator who magnifies the physical damage output of allies" is just not good enough. I mean, just pick tidehunter, who is better with no farm, blink initiates better, and whose -armor spell DOES DAMAGE AND SLOWS. Yes slardar has abilities and if he casts them he can be relevant. No there is no situation ever where you would want slardar more than all these other heroes I'm pointing out.
Magnus too. A blink initiator who magnifies allies right click. Only magnus is a strong solo laner, goes through BKB, has a nice nuke. Plus skewer is a pretty ridiculous ability in general, especially when compared to sprint.
First - you seem to be simplifying a handful of factors.
A: Comparing medallion to Slardar is a bit ridiculous - medallion is a 1075 gold item, has a much more limited duration, a limited range, doesn't give true sight. You can make similar arguments about a handful of abilities, but its more important to look at a hero's overall kit and see what it tries to accomplish. What it allows Slardar to do is it, in combination, allows slardar to pervade into teamfights beyond just his slithereen crush initation / gank, and truly allow solid damage output.
B: Building on this, this is what differentiates him beyond just Magnus and Tidehunter. Firstly, these heroes have completely different roles, particularly in terms of laning (Tidehunter is a hero that will receive very little farm, and be run as a support typically. Magnus is a 2 slot hero that will traditionally be used solely as a teamfight controller. Also he is a top tier ban and will fit in almost every line up.) Second, both of these heroes really don't offer much in right click DPS - this is something Slardar can do quite well, and bash procs become extremely relevant into the midgame.
C: I'm describing the difference between Sven and Slardar as being different because they are different heroes. I'm not arguing Slardar as being better than Sven - he isn't as good as a hero overall, but he is played as a different hero because he is a different hero. If you are playing a Sven as support, he will get blink + bkb, but he will get them at a much slower rate than a Slardar will (who won't be played as support). Slardar will always be the one who is trying to get farm in his lane, while 90% of the time, if Sven is getting farm in his lane, he won't be picking up a blink dagger and he won't be blink initiating. You choose Slardar over Sven when you want a Semi-Carry who will farm up a blink dagger and can initiate and exert control over the map at a relatively early point of the game. Support Sven can still roam and gank relatively effectively with less farm at the same point of the game as Slardar does with blink (say 15 minutes in), but he will exert a much less realm of influence than a Slardar with Blink. Slardar with blink in 15 mins will force opponents to play much more passively and defensively than a support Sven at 15 minutes, who almost definitely won't have a blink at that point.
You make it seem like I'm trying to say that Slardar is a superior hero or a hero that can fit in every game, and also that Slardar can never fit in any game. Slardar is a situational hero that can fit in some line ups. Not many, but in some.
(didn't VG run him a few times with some success in Gleague?)
+ Show Spoiler +On April 25 2013 19:39 Kipsate wrote:
Stronger and more versatile supports leave AA in the cold(hue hue hue), his strong point is his ultimate, the rest of his kit however makes him far less versatile. I wouldn't neccesarily say AA is bad, the alternatives are just better, I think he can still fit as a niche pick(perhaps as a ''counter'' to Alchemist his insane regen).
AA is the king of 2-1-2 laning. He was a very common first round ban/pick hero in late 6.72/early 6.73, which Chinese competitive games were laned primarily as 2-1-2 and not 3-1-1 as became the norm again in 6.74 When paired with certain heroes (ES, SK, CK, etc.), his ability to play 2v2 in both hard lane and safe lane, as a core or as a support, is very powerful. The problem, as has been repeatedly stated since 6.74 was released, is that the hero adapts poorly to trilanes. His strength as a mid laner is somewhat suspect (it's decent but not strong enough to force Bottle-Crow mids out of lane, and he doesn't have the AoE to clear mid and be able to prevent them from roaming around the map. His kit obviously sucks for hard laning, and as a trilane support, his strength is unreliable because how slow leveling is as a trilane support unless you're in an aggressive tri that's getting repeated kills.
His problems have nothing to do with what the hero brings to the game in mid/lategame, else he would never have been first round ban/pick status pre-6.74 either. With a good development, AA's teamfight power is extremely strong through the entire game. It's just that the hero is too hard to place into 3-1-1 lanes.
Chilling touch is ridiculously underrated with the second support + ranged carry at level 1 in tri vs tri lanes. Its absurdly strong if the other team underestimates its damage output.
|
On April 26 2013 01:11 Sn0_Man wrote:
Just buy a medallion if you want amp damage on your team. Slardar can't solo, requires tons of early farm, and does far less with it than any other hero. Its not that Amp damage is "bad" its that its a weak ultimate skill on a hero with already kinda lackluster other abilities.
Every statement here is wrong.
Also I have no idea why you would compare him to heroes like Magnus or Tide.
|
United States47024 Posts
Honestly, I feel like Slardar would be a lot better in DotA 2 if Valve just fixed the -armor formula.
Negative armor values use the reverse of the positive armor formula in DotA 2 (e.g. the percentage damage amplification is simply equal to the damage reduction percentage for the same amount of positive armor). In DotA 1, going into negative armor used its own formula to calculate the damage amplification percentage. This just results in -armor being a LOT worse at all negative armor values--and Slardar is the only hero in the game that interacts with negative armor values consistently enough for this to be a huge issue (most other -armor effects only push people far below 0 if you're stacking them).
Basically in DotA 2, negative armor is about 10% worse at all negative armor values than in DotA 1.
|
Surely if you pick a carry with a slow/stun and get another support with a stun you can lane AA. His cold feet will almost always proc and chilling touch is so damn strong in tri vs tri.
But then he has no reliable stun or spammable counter push is some what required at the moment....
Edit and you can't compare any hero to magnus atm, that hero just makes every other hero look crap in comparison.
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 26 2013 01:30 Benjef wrote:
Surely if you pick a carry with a slow/stun and get another support with a stun you can lane AA. His cold feet will almost always proc and chilling touch is so damn strong in tri vs tri.
Yes, but your tri HAS to get kills in this case, or your AA's development is screwed. You can "win" the trilane, but if AA doesn't get enough XP from kills to get to his necessary levels, he has a hard time getting the rest of those levels because he has no AoE to farm with.
|
On April 26 2013 01:30 TheYango wrote:
Honestly, I feel like Slardar would be a lot better in DotA 2 if Valve just fixed the -armor formula.
Negative armor values use the reverse of the positive armor formula in DotA 2 (e.g. the percentage damage amplification is simply equal to the damage reduction percentage for the same amount of positive armor). In DotA 1, going into negative armor used its own formula to calculate the damage amplification percentage. This just results in -armor being a LOT worse at all negative armor values--and Slardar is the only hero in the game that interacts with negative armor values consistently enough for this to be a huge issue (most other -armor effects only push people far below 0 if you're stacking them).
Basically in DotA 2, negative armor is about 10% worse at all negative armor values than in DotA 1.
Any chance this is on the verified bug list?
This one seems pretty bad.
|
What heroes with -armor are relevant in the metagame right now?
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 26 2013 01:38 Comeh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2013 01:30 TheYango wrote:
Honestly, I feel like Slardar would be a lot better in DotA 2 if Valve just fixed the -armor formula.
Negative armor values use the reverse of the positive armor formula in DotA 2 (e.g. the percentage damage amplification is simply equal to the damage reduction percentage for the same amount of positive armor). In DotA 1, going into negative armor used its own formula to calculate the damage amplification percentage. This just results in -armor being a LOT worse at all negative armor values--and Slardar is the only hero in the game that interacts with negative armor values consistently enough for this to be a huge issue (most other -armor effects only push people far below 0 if you're stacking them).
Basically in DotA 2, negative armor is about 10% worse at all negative armor values than in DotA 1. Any chance this is on the verified bug list? This one seems pretty bad.
http://dev.dota2.com/showthread.php?t=46896
There was some debate in the thread about whether it's intended (since it's more intuitive that the -armor formula matches the positive armor one and Icefrog had no control over the WC3 armor formula), but it's just TOO big a nerf to negative armor to be reasonable as an intended change.
|
Czech Republic18921 Posts
Venge, Tide, weaver, TA all see some play. Desolator and AC are also items seen quite often on a number of heroes.
|
On April 26 2013 01:39 Sn0_Man wrote:
What heroes with -armor are relevant in the metagame right now?
Weaver, Alchemist, (Tide...I guess), SF, TA, VS, and naga pokes her head in and out of the scene.
|
Since the numbers on slardars ult were chosen in the context of the dota1 negative armor values it would be crazy for them not to fix the values in dota2.
|
Forgot weaver and TA counted as -armor heroes.
Still though, not exactly a "who's who" of competitive dota right now. (TI2 certainly featured TA/Naga/Tide though  )
|
its more of a big deal for slardar because other heroes dont really reduce armor by enough to bring it into the double digit negatives where it really starts to matter. but yeah in terms of competitive relevance it isnt a HUGE deal but it still matters.
|
also slard's stun is one of the best in the game
2.5s stun 8s cd is that fair
|
and it goes through magic immunity. so boss. the damage i mean.
|
Well I meant for the bugfix priorty though. Its hard to say its impacting pro games much right now.
On April 26 2013 01:49 PassiveAce wrote:
and it goes through magic immunity. so boss.
The 200 damage does yes. The stun no. Not very boss IMO.
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 26 2013 01:44 PassiveAce wrote:
Since the numbers on slardars ult were chosen in the context of the dota1 negative armor values it would be crazy for them not to fix the values in dota2.
My guess is that's part of the Valve internal debate right now--whether the proper solution is to fix the bug, but leave in Warcraft 3's totally unintuitive negative armor mechanics (arbitrarily capped at -20, uses a completely different formula for calculating amplification %), or whether to use the new, intuitive mechanics (no cap, uses the reverse of the positive armor formula) and just buff -armor skills slightly to account for the fact that they'll be weaker at negative values.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
