On May 12 2012 17:25 zeehar wrote: this is equivalent to a bronze player on sc2 telling blizz how to balance the game
ursa OP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i've played 535 hours of dota2 (according to steam) and i still think i'm a noob and not knowledgable to speak about balance... and here you are having played for a month (if that), with no significant experience in dota1, and you already think your opinions on the game should be reflected...
the good thing is, valve isn't going to take you seriously. yay.
also, quick tip for playing against ursa: stun him. gg.
Actually in every game there's one problem with balancing - do you want the game to be balanced for everyone or just for pros. Elitists follow the second idea, most people believe that the games should be balanced around every skill level, because why should inexperienced players suffer just because something is balanced only when you have nearly flawless mechanics/huuuge experience with the game? If something is OP at any skill level then it's OP. Making a game that is fun only to 1% of your community isn't exactly a deverloper's dream
Who says 1%? I have no problems with both riki and ursa and I'm mediocre player at best. The game has to be balanced for the top levels simply because there is money involved there. The can be a little bit unstable balance wise in the lower levels but there are no gamebreaking issues in the game now. The biggest problem is that people don't pick enough disables in low level pubs and can't farm enough for items like hex and can't use force staffs and ghost scepters.
On May 12 2012 17:25 zeehar wrote: this is equivalent to a bronze player on sc2 telling blizz how to balance the game
ursa OP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i've played 535 hours of dota2 (according to steam) and i still think i'm a noob and not knowledgable to speak about balance... and here you are having played for a month (if that), with no significant experience in dota1, and you already think your opinions on the game should be reflected...
the good thing is, valve isn't going to take you seriously. yay.
also, quick tip for playing against ursa: stun him. gg.
Actually in every game there's one problem with balancing - do you want the game to be balanced for everyone or just for pros. Elitists follow the second idea, most people believe that the games should be balanced around every skill level, because why should inexperienced players suffer just because something is balanced only when you have nearly flawless mechanics/huuuge experience with the game? If something is OP at any skill level then it's OP. Making a game that is fun only to 1% of your community isn't exactly a deverloper's dream
you're making a distinction between "everyone" and "pros" that is irrelevant at the point in hand - it is only at the LOWEST of skill levels that ursa is CONSISTENTLY a threat. obviously there will be some games when someone like ursa does do well (see that long nextkz vs fnatic game for example) but you definitely shouldn't be balancing for the lowest common denominator (like our OP) either.
there is no binary distinction between pros and "everyone" because there are many skill levels in the pub scene and most of them do know how to deal with guys like riki and ursa.
Oh I love countering invis heroes with Axe :D Had one of the most insane blind blink into call in a game lately, like 10 seconds after he disappeared due to cd on blink and than barely managed for the ult (best fucking effect in the game with that giant axe swing). Also maxing hunger is really good if you fight a lot early, so they can't really find time to lasthit :D
On May 12 2012 16:21 RockIronrod wrote: Well the people there were right you know. Given that you've only played for a month, you really shouldn't be talking about "overpowered heroes" and whatnot. Like, Riki and Ursa are two of the most easily countered carries. And really, your first three points are pretty much the exact same thing. You want a concede option because games last too long due to a winning team not ending. This has been discussed to death and there's a huge topic on it on this very forum.
Imagine if someone played Starcraft 2 for a month and started giving Blizzard design tips from their Silver league experiences, that's pretty much exactly what you're doing.
Counterable doesn't imply balance. Siege tanks could be countered. Yet it didn't stop them from being nerfed.
On May 12 2012 16:22 cilinder007 wrote: from point 4 you can see that you are new to the game and are basing your views from a pub standpoint, its like basing sc2 balancing from ladder
you say 3 seconds is no time for reaction, ye maybe at low level pub games, again thats not how you balance a game
LoL has no gold loss on death and as Im aware games there are 10 times more lobsided than in dota, so I doubt that is a solution, also leads to more boring gameplay with only farming
I'm not new to the game. It's not even a matter of reaction. It's also how are you going to react? Most heroes don't have stuns or anything that will stop you from getting killed in 3 seconds. So sometimes, no reaction can help, other than having all 4 of your team with you, and even that doesn't guarantee anything.
On May 12 2012 16:24 DoNotDisturb wrote: I'm curious - how many games did you play in the month of the beta?
From points 1 and 2, I'd be willing to bet not enough and frankly speaking, if 'most games are decided by the 15-20' minute mark, just what was either team doing in your games?
You can spectate games on the front page, these are high rated games, and even they are very lopsided, with the game won or loss by the 20 minute mark, and needlessly dragged on to about 45 minutes.
It hasn't been received well, too many closed minded and inarticulate people, saying this is the way DotA is, don't ever change it regardless of the problems, giving no logical reason for their argument. Just no. Here's the post:
Having been in the beta for about a month now, I'll give my thoughts on DotA 2's gameplay. It's an exact port of DotA 1, and so everything that is wrong with DotA 1 is wrong with DotA 2. While I would have preferred some new features and other stuff, here are my main gameplay issues with DotA 1. By extension the exact same issues apply to DotA 2.
1. Games last too long The average game lasts about 45 minutes. This is way too long, given that most games are decided by the 15-20 minute mark because games are too lopsided (see 2). Consider reducing the average game length to about 30 minutes, by implementing a concede option and making heroes level faster, so that the game progresses faster overall.
2. Games are nearly always too lopsided This is partly the fault of the bad matchmaker and partly the fault of the penalty for death being too high. If you look at the gold chart or the xp chart or the kill count of some random game, one team nearly always has a large commanding lead by the 15-20 minute mark. This is made worse by the fact that games go on so long that the last 20 minutes is often a needless one-sided slaughter.
Again, reducing the game length and having a concede will solve part of the problem. The other part is that death is too punishing, if you reduced the time and gold penalty for dying, then games will be less one-sided and more fun.
3. No concede option. In WC3 and SC2 players can gg anytime when the game is clearly lost. The chances of a comeback are often insurmountably improbable in DotA 2 because of how lopsided many matches are. Blizzard does not insist on players continuing until the final building is destroy, so why does Valve insist on ending the game only when an Ancient is destroyed? It is pointless and unnecessary for a game to last 45 minutes when the last 20 minutes is mostly a pointless one-sided slaughter. If one team has a large kill deficit, let them concede by a simple majority vote.
4. Overpowered heroes Just because you give some of your heroes the role of "carry" doesn't make it legitimate that they remain overpowered. Many of the carry heroes are overpowered, and as a result, they are able to kill most heroes in less than 3 seconds in the late game, leaving no time for reaction. Nerf these heroes. This includes Riki and Ursa, and some of the other carries.
5. Lack of ladder support This might just be a case of missing features in the beta. This is a competitive game, yet the system to support that competition aren't there. In particular, there is no ladder and the profile leveling system isn't working. When it does work, please ensure that you don't have like 40% of players on level 1, but rather distribute them amongst a bell curve, so that we can tell who is at the top, middle and bottom. E.g. if the levels will range from 1-50, most players should be at around level 25, because most players are average-skilled.
Seems like LoL would be a better fit for you than Dota. Dota players like it how it is now. It's really only in low level games where it becomes extremely one-sided and dragged out because the team that's winning simply doesn't know how to end the game. Most advantages aren't insurmountable in Dota. Just look at the recent competitive games like the recent LGD vs MUFC where LGD had a 4 rax advantage, played too safe, and ended up losing the game. It's actually very rare for games to be too lopsided once you reach a decent MMR. Again, all the "problems" you're describing only apply to the lowest tier. What you are trying to do is change the game for the Bronze players when at Master's, it's just fine. There are no "overpowered" heroes, even carries. Every hero has a way they can be countered. Sometimes heroes are easier to use than to counter, but that's just the nature of the game.
1. Lopsided games is not a skill problem. It happens at every skill level. You cannot outskill the problem. For proof just spectate any high rated live games.
2. Counterable doesn't imply balance. Carries are like Blizzard buffing marines and siege tanks, and saying that's OK, it's not overpowered because marines and siege tanks are carries. Not only are there overpowered heroes, there are significantly underpowered heroes that never get used.
On May 12 2012 19:55 Firebolt145 wrote: You can, but you can also easily find games that have one team dominating the first 20-30 minutes only for the other team to pull back and win.
That almost never happens.
You can find comebacks in SC2 too. Does that mean losers shouldn't be allowed to gg, and that both players should play to the final building because there's an extremely low, but non-zero chance of a comeback?
okay so I've been playing and watching some pro dota streams recently (TL featured mostly). what is up with these people? the amount of arrogance is disturbing jeyo: "fuck this", "bitch that", his whole vocab is a compilation of swears and disses. honestly i don't mind expletives that much but when you're using it every other sentence it gets annoying. dendi/fear: complains about teammates/pub 5v5, rage when they lose. consider this sequence I witnessed yesterday: dendi afk camps spawn at the slightest disadvantage (7-4) and returns at the end to report someone for intentional feeding. seriously? purge commentary: I was told he is like the Husky of SC2. Sure the commentary is not bad for beginners, except he is super condescending and treats his teammates (most of them "friends") like garbage. he thinks every game should be about him and that it's his natural obligation to remind people who are bad on his team know that they're shit.
Not sure if this is just the generally accepted attitude of dota but it would be nice to have some alternatives. Otherwise I think I'll just stick to Tobi.
On May 12 2012 17:25 zeehar wrote: this is equivalent to a bronze player on sc2 telling blizz how to balance the game
ursa OP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i've played 535 hours of dota2 (according to steam) and i still think i'm a noob and not knowledgable to speak about balance... and here you are having played for a month (if that), with no significant experience in dota1, and you already think your opinions on the game should be reflected...
the good thing is, valve isn't going to take you seriously. yay.
also, quick tip for playing against ursa: stun him. gg.
Actually in every game there's one problem with balancing - do you want the game to be balanced for everyone or just for pros. Elitists follow the second idea, most people believe that the games should be balanced around every skill level, because why should inexperienced players suffer just because something is balanced only when you have nearly flawless mechanics/huuuge experience with the game? If something is OP at any skill level then it's OP. Making a game that is fun only to 1% of your community isn't exactly a deverloper's dream
you're making a distinction between "everyone" and "pros" that is irrelevant at the point in hand - it is only at the LOWEST of skill levels that ursa is CONSISTENTLY a threat. obviously there will be some games when someone like ursa does do well (see that long nextkz vs fnatic game for example) but you definitely shouldn't be balancing for the lowest common denominator (like our OP) either.
there is no binary distinction between pros and "everyone" because there are many skill levels in the pub scene and most of them do know how to deal with guys like riki and ursa.
Riki and Ursa also owns everyone on the live spectated matches, these are high rated games, meaning that they are a problem at the probably the Master's league level and up.
It hasn't been received well, too many closed minded and inarticulate people, saying this is the way DotA is, don't ever change it regardless of the problems, giving no logical reason for their argument. Just no. Here's the post:
Having been in the beta for about a month now, I'll give my thoughts on DotA 2's gameplay. It's an exact port of DotA 1, and so everything that is wrong with DotA 1 is wrong with DotA 2. While I would have preferred some new features and other stuff, here are my main gameplay issues with DotA 1. By extension the exact same issues apply to DotA 2.
1. Games last too long The average game lasts about 45 minutes. This is way too long, given that most games are decided by the 15-20 minute mark because games are too lopsided (see 2). Consider reducing the average game length to about 30 minutes, by implementing a concede option and making heroes level faster, so that the game progresses faster overall.
2. Games are nearly always too lopsided This is partly the fault of the bad matchmaker and partly the fault of the penalty for death being too high. If you look at the gold chart or the xp chart or the kill count of some random game, one team nearly always has a large commanding lead by the 15-20 minute mark. This is made worse by the fact that games go on so long that the last 20 minutes is often a needless one-sided slaughter.
Again, reducing the game length and having a concede will solve part of the problem. The other part is that death is too punishing, if you reduced the time and gold penalty for dying, then games will be less one-sided and more fun.
3. No concede option. In WC3 and SC2 players can gg anytime when the game is clearly lost. The chances of a comeback are often insurmountably improbable in DotA 2 because of how lopsided many matches are. Blizzard does not insist on players continuing until the final building is destroy, so why does Valve insist on ending the game only when an Ancient is destroyed? It is pointless and unnecessary for a game to last 45 minutes when the last 20 minutes is mostly a pointless one-sided slaughter. If one team has a large kill deficit, let them concede by a simple majority vote.
4. Overpowered heroes Just because you give some of your heroes the role of "carry" doesn't make it legitimate that they remain overpowered. Many of the carry heroes are overpowered, and as a result, they are able to kill most heroes in less than 3 seconds in the late game, leaving no time for reaction. Nerf these heroes. This includes Riki and Ursa, and some of the other carries.
5. Lack of ladder support This might just be a case of missing features in the beta. This is a competitive game, yet the system to support that competition aren't there. In particular, there is no ladder and the profile leveling system isn't working. When it does work, please ensure that you don't have like 40% of players on level 1, but rather distribute them amongst a bell curve, so that we can tell who is at the top, middle and bottom. E.g. if the levels will range from 1-50, most players should be at around level 25, because most players are average-skilled.
Seems like LoL would be a better fit for you than Dota. Dota players like it how it is now. It's really only in low level games where it becomes extremely one-sided and dragged out because the team that's winning simply doesn't know how to end the game. Most advantages aren't insurmountable in Dota. Just look at the recent competitive games like the recent LGD vs MUFC where LGD had a 4 rax advantage, played too safe, and ended up losing the game. It's actually very rare for games to be too lopsided once you reach a decent MMR. Again, all the "problems" you're describing only apply to the lowest tier. What you are trying to do is change the game for the Bronze players when at Master's, it's just fine. There are no "overpowered" heroes, even carries. Every hero has a way they can be countered. Sometimes heroes are easier to use than to counter, but that's just the nature of the game.
1. Lopsided games is not a skill problem. It happens at every skill level. You cannot outskill the problem. For proof just spectate any high rated live games.
2. Counterable doesn't imply balance. Carries are like Blizzard buffing marines and siege tanks, and saying that's OK, it's not overpowered because marines and siege tanks are carries. Not only are there overpowered heroes, there are significantly underpowered heroes that never get used.
Wrong. I watch high level matches quite often. Of course there will be some lopsided games in which a full stack is playing against all pubs, but those games typically end quickly and are not dragged out. The problem you originally described about games being "over" at 15-20 and dragging out until 45+ occur extremely rarely in medium-high level games. You can outskill the problem. It just requires that you have some teamwork.
Counterable does imply balance. Part of the game is the drafting and item choices. If someone picks Ursa and your entire team decides to play with no disable/slow, or someone picks Riki and nobody buys dust/sentry/gem or MKB, it's your own fault for losing. It's perfectly fine as is. There are 108 heroes in the game (currently/planned to be implemented based on DotA1) and if you expect every single hero to be perfectly balanced so either player can always win in any 1v1 situation, you're playing the wrong genre. Dota is a team game, and is balanced around the team having the right roles. Look how difficult it is to balance SC2 with just 3 races. Now try to apply that to over 100 heroes with 4+ unique abilities per hero. You will never get a perfect balance where you can or cannot beat someone 1v1, though it's already quite close. Here's a hint: get some escape/survivability/disable. Carries may be able to kill you in 3 seconds, but you have the tools at your disposal to stop them as well. If you're playing a hero who doesn't have any, you're probably playing a carry as well, in which case, farm better.
On May 12 2012 19:55 Firebolt145 wrote: You can, but you can also easily find games that have one team dominating the first 20-30 minutes only for the other team to pull back and win.
That almost never happens.
You can find comebacks in SC2 too. Does that mean losers shouldn't be allowed to gg, and that both players should play to the final building because there's an extremely low, but non-zero chance of a comeback?
Almost never happens? Simply untrue. Less than often, but FAR from from 'almost never'. Calling GG is allowed in custom games, just not in matchmaking games. And thank goodness. My experience in HoN was marred with calling CC's at 15 minutes because of the slightest disadvantages. People give up too easily if they are able to.
If you're watching Riki and Ursa own it up, it's because their team supported them to reach the point where they can own it up. They will fall hard and fast against good teams if they do not have a team backing them up. Every team needs a well balanced composition of heroes, a team with rikis and ursas will fail. If you are playing against Riki and do not get gem/wards/dust, it is YOUR fault for not adapting, not the hero's design. Likewise if you are playing against Ursa and do not get ghost sceptor/disables.
If your points have received negative feedback everywhere, perhaps you should consider that it isn't the community being narrow minded, but simply you refusing to accept that not everyone shares your opinions. This can be to several reasons, either because you want DotA to be a different game than it is, or perhaps even that your understanding of DotA isn't as high as you'd like to think. At the very least, it shows that the majority of casual and pro players are happy with the current state of DotA without your changes, and Valve should certainly cater towards those.
Watch it and explain the game to me before complaining about imbalance. There are people like me who played DotA for almost 6 years, beta tester and one of the highest ranker in LoL after the game was released 2 months, beta tester for HoN, top 200 master on NA sc2 sever and master on KR sc2 sever. We never EVER complain about the game balance and it is the SHITTIEST way to apply into game design philosophy. Tell me what do you REALLY think is a perfect example of the best esports title out there and i will give you reasons why that game sucks and imbalance.
There are so many thing about competitive gaming that only time can solve. BW is balanced? why is it the best RTS has ever been created? CS 1.6 maps is hugely imbalance, thats why there are formats designed to make the game fair and square for everyone.
High rated game in dota2 doesnt mean shit. If Low level is for kids who never play computer game before, mid level is for those reporters who luckily got the game to write some article, high level is simply for anyone who familar/experienced with RTS games. Its like saying master league in SC2 is actually good, most of those people cant even get beyond D+ in iccup.
I know there are several opening in chess that you can straight up crush inexperience players. Are they imbalanced too? should we start making knight move shorter like a pawn? Or black should got to move twice since white get to move first? Same thing applied to any RTS games. Is 6 pools imbalance? how about 4 gates? everyone in bronze league lost to that shit so MVP MKP must be right about Protoss being OP? Do you know what is a win percentage of a protoss using strictly 4 gates in PvP at master league? Its more than 70%. With the current winrate of Ursa (58.55%) and Riki (52.64%) that doesnt mean SHIT. Did people complain about 6 pools when ActionJesus mass 6 pools into a semi final of an EU sc2 tournament last year? There must be some problem in Master league and up about 6 pools amirite? how about 4 pools? Oh wait Jeadong lost to that shit, something wrong with Zerg then.
TLDR: if you dont play competitive game well, you suck at it, not the game.
The high rating doesn't really correlate to Master's level. It's so loose of a rating that it doesn't tell much at all.
Instead of the game being balanced for pros, I'd like to think that it's balanced to be played in cm, by two pre-arranged teams of 5. All pick and pubs just bring out a whole new set of problems you can't really balance out. Some heroes thrive in an environment that lacks coordination between teammates and has a rather awkward pick phase for 5 players unfamiliar with eachother. It goes the other way too, but I think any hero is good enough overall to be picked in a pub. The likelihood of being able to take advantage of bad positioning, bad map awareness, bad lane compositions, bad lane control, bad supporting etc. most likely overweigh your pick if you're good enough.
DotA and the heroes in it is balanced around CM with 5v5 teams. And that's how it's meant to be. It's a competitive game and decent players will win in match-making.
Calling ursa overpowered is hilariously stupid as there are so many ways to shit all over him. He is a relatively slow melee hero with zero gap-closer and a really small AOE slow.
Riki is a really decent mid-game carry, but he also has his own flaws and problems and is far from overpowered and lategame he will not outcarry any lategame carry and a lot of mid-game carries easily rival him in strength.
DotA isn't a game of rock papers scissors, but it IS a game of picking accordingly to your enemies and build accordingly.
Also i found this:
On May 12 2012 18:02 Kaniol wrote:
Actually in every game there's one problem with balancing - do you want the game to be balanced for everyone or just for pros. Elitists follow the second idea, most people believe that the games should be balanced around every skill level, because why should inexperienced players suffer just because something is balanced only when you have nearly flawless mechanics/huuuge experience with the game? If something is OP at any skill level then it's OP. Making a game that is fun only to 1% of your community isn't exactly a deverloper's dream
Hilarious. There is nothing in DotA that is OP at any skill level, but the fact that low level public players are too stupid to coordinate themselve does NOT mean it's OP. People being bad does not make a hero better. People being good does not make a hero better either.
I mean i find it hilarious that people call riki and ursa OP and yet chen is considered 100 times more ban-worthy by competitive players, and i have a 9 out of 10 win-rate on chen in public games? Yet nobody will call chen OP because he's not the one killing them. Bad players blame the wrong things. DotA is balanced for a team that works together because it's a team-game, that shouldn't be hard to understand.
All in all this is the only response i have to all the thoughts you have on the game:
There's a simple reason that you can't balance heroes in this game around below pro level play, and that is because games at a below pro level are not decided by hero balance, they are decided by the many many many mistakes these players make which they would make regardless of the heroes in the game. So you played some low level games and got stomped by some people playing ursa, you played incorrectly/badly and you would have gotten stomped by basically any decent hero when played correctly regardless of how balanced they are.
People seem far too quick to point at hero imbalance when really they just get out played or make horrible mistakes. Also 2 out of the top 3 highest win rate heroes are support heroes and not "imbalanced carries", just saying.
EPT
