|
|
On May 12 2012 20:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 18:28 zeehar wrote:On May 12 2012 18:02 Kaniol wrote: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.
incorrect. i myself, and i'm 100% sure some other people on teamliquid, have played in some of the top spectated games. if its a stomp its simply because the matchmaking system right now isn't very good and one of the teams had no business being the game. every time i've played in those games they were ended in a timely fashion. and also many of the same people here that have played in those top rated games would state that neither hero you suggested are overpowered. riki is a strong hero, but hardly overpowered. ursa is mediocre but situational
and fyi, the skill levels in dota2 can be incredibly varying. what i call a midskill level player can get in a top ranked game with a little luck
|
On May 12 2012 20:18 Musou wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 19:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 12 2012 16:19 Musou wrote:On May 12 2012 16:01 paralleluniverse wrote:I made a post on the DotA feedback forums about flaws in the game design: http://dev.dota2.com/showthread.php?t=35413It 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.
1. They don't occur rarely. Nearly all games are like that. Open the game and watch a spectate a first page match for yourself.
2. No, counterable does not imply balance. If it did, Blizzard should not have made any changes to WoL since it's release. If it did, then Blizzard should be able to buff marines and tanks and cause no balances as a result. Why nerf Terran when they had a 60% win rate. They were counterable, they were countered 40% of the time.
|
On May 12 2012 21:22 Pandepic wrote:
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.
Again, this is not a skill level problem, watch some live spectated games.
|
On May 12 2012 21:27 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 20:18 Musou wrote:On May 12 2012 19:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 12 2012 16:19 Musou wrote:On May 12 2012 16:01 paralleluniverse wrote:I made a post on the DotA feedback forums about flaws in the game design: http://dev.dota2.com/showthread.php?t=35413It 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. 1. They don't occur rarely. Nearly all games are like that. Open the game and watch a spectate a first page match for yourself. 2. No, counterable does not imply balance. If it did, Blizzard should not have made any changes to WoL since it's release. If it did, then Blizzard should be able to buff marines and tanks and cause no balances as a result. Why nerf Terran when they had a 60% win rate. They were counterable, they were countered 40% of the time.
And ursa is counterable 100% of the time, if you know how to.
There are literally items and heroes that make ursa shit and anybody can buy ghost-scepter/force-staff/euls, all teams can get it.
All teams can ward roshan and fuck him up when he tries to solo.
All teams can smoke and gank him in his woods while he's farming if he's not laning.
Anybody can do these things. The fact that they don't does not make something unbalanced, it makes them dumb, the people that is.
Ursa is a horrible hero and if he's so overpowered then why does is he easily countered by coordination in a team game?
DotA is a team game, it is balanced around 5 people working together.
|
Are seriously comparing SC2 balancing with dota balancing? Unbelievable. In dota if it's counterable by an item (which is the case for both ursa and riki) then everybody can counter it and it's balanced.
|
On May 12 2012 21:22 rabidch wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 20:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 12 2012 18:28 zeehar wrote:On May 12 2012 18:02 Kaniol wrote: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. incorrect. i myself, and i'm 100% sure some other people on teamliquid, have played in some of the top spectated games. if its a stomp its simply because the matchmaking system right now isn't very good and one of the teams had no business being the game. every time i've played in those games they were ended in a timely fashion. and also many of the same people here that have played in those top rated games would state that neither hero you suggested are overpowered. riki is a strong hero, but hardly overpowered. ursa is mediocre but situational and fyi, the skill levels in dota2 can be incredibly varying. what i call a midskill level player can get in a top ranked game with a little luck
I've already said that their matchmaking sucks, as I pointed out in the original post. This contributes to nearly all games being lopsided, but so does the death penalty. If the death penalty was reduced, then there will be more tight games.
|
On May 12 2012 21:30 Unleashing wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 21:27 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 12 2012 20:18 Musou wrote:On May 12 2012 19:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 12 2012 16:19 Musou wrote:On May 12 2012 16:01 paralleluniverse wrote:I made a post on the DotA feedback forums about flaws in the game design: http://dev.dota2.com/showthread.php?t=35413It 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. 1. They don't occur rarely. Nearly all games are like that. Open the game and watch a spectate a first page match for yourself. 2. No, counterable does not imply balance. If it did, Blizzard should not have made any changes to WoL since it's release. If it did, then Blizzard should be able to buff marines and tanks and cause no balances as a result. Why nerf Terran when they had a 60% win rate. They were counterable, they were countered 40% of the time. And ursa is counterable 100% of the time, if you know how to. There are literally items and heroes that make ursa shit and anybody can buy ghost-scepter/force-staff/euls, all teams can get it. All teams can ward roshan and fuck him up when he tries to solo. All teams can smoke and gank him in his woods while he's farming if he's not laning. Anybody can do these things. The fact that they don't does not make something unbalanced, it makes them dumb, the people that is. Ursa is a horrible hero and if he's so overpowered then why does is he easily countered by coordination in a team game? DotA is a team game, it is balanced around 5 people working together.
All races can beat Terran. Terran never had a 100% win rate.
Balance isn't about being counterable or beatable. Balance isn't even about strategy. Balance is about statistics. Balance is about having a 50% prior probability of winning.
|
On May 12 2012 21:32 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 21:22 rabidch wrote:On May 12 2012 20:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 12 2012 18:28 zeehar wrote:On May 12 2012 18:02 Kaniol wrote: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. incorrect. i myself, and i'm 100% sure some other people on teamliquid, have played in some of the top spectated games. if its a stomp its simply because the matchmaking system right now isn't very good and one of the teams had no business being the game. every time i've played in those games they were ended in a timely fashion. and also many of the same people here that have played in those top rated games would state that neither hero you suggested are overpowered. riki is a strong hero, but hardly overpowered. ursa is mediocre but situational and fyi, the skill levels in dota2 can be incredibly varying. what i call a midskill level player can get in a top ranked game with a little luck I've already said that their matchmaking sucks, as I pointed out in the original post. This contributes to nearly all games being lopsided, but so does the death penalty. If the death penalty was reduced, then there will be more tight games.
No, the death penalty hurts you more when you're fed, allowing for easier comebacks.
|
On May 12 2012 21:32 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 21:22 rabidch wrote:On May 12 2012 20:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 12 2012 18:28 zeehar wrote:On May 12 2012 18:02 Kaniol wrote: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. incorrect. i myself, and i'm 100% sure some other people on teamliquid, have played in some of the top spectated games. if its a stomp its simply because the matchmaking system right now isn't very good and one of the teams had no business being the game. every time i've played in those games they were ended in a timely fashion. and also many of the same people here that have played in those top rated games would state that neither hero you suggested are overpowered. riki is a strong hero, but hardly overpowered. ursa is mediocre but situational and fyi, the skill levels in dota2 can be incredibly varying. what i call a midskill level player can get in a top ranked game with a little luck I've already said that their matchmaking sucks, as I pointed out in the original post. This contributes to nearly all games being lopsided, but so does the death penalty. If the death penalty was reduced, then there will be more tight games.
Wrong. Only around 20-30% of my games are lopsided because the people i play with know what they're doing and work together as a team on both sides.
Yesterday i queued with a friend and the enemy ursa went 15-1-3 within 25 minutes.
Can you guess what we did? We warded the map, went as a team and bought forcestaves and ghost scepters.
Suddenly ursa had no impact and we turned it around and won.
I think you heard: http://www.dota2wiki.com/images/9/94/Riki_kill_15.mp3 too much and can't contain the butthurt anymore.
I'm done here, as i said, if you do not comprehend that DotA is a game built around 5 people playing coordinated together, then discussing with you is a lost cause.
|
On May 12 2012 21:31 Qbek wrote:
Are seriously comparing SC2 balancing with dota balancing? Unbelievable. In dota if it's counterable by an item (which is the case for both ursa and riki) then everybody can counter it and it's balanced.
yes, i dont know why people are using the same analogies here. i think they are similar games because dota stems from rts, but with team games like dota countering things is less tangible. you may be able to counter certain abilities on the other person's team, but they likely have their own weapons against you
On May 12 2012 21:32 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 21:22 rabidch wrote:On May 12 2012 20:02 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 12 2012 18:28 zeehar wrote:On May 12 2012 18:02 Kaniol wrote: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. incorrect. i myself, and i'm 100% sure some other people on teamliquid, have played in some of the top spectated games. if its a stomp its simply because the matchmaking system right now isn't very good and one of the teams had no business being the game. every time i've played in those games they were ended in a timely fashion. and also many of the same people here that have played in those top rated games would state that neither hero you suggested are overpowered. riki is a strong hero, but hardly overpowered. ursa is mediocre but situational and fyi, the skill levels in dota2 can be incredibly varying. what i call a midskill level player can get in a top ranked game with a little luck I've already said that their matchmaking sucks, as I pointed out in the original post. This contributes to nearly all games being lopsided, but so does the death penalty. If the death penalty was reduced, then there will be more tight games.
ok, matchmaking sucks, but it's not easy to fix matchmaking for a game like this, especially when people MM together when theres a HUGE spectrum of skill level, and valve has been focused on developing many parts of dota2 while developing other games such as CSGO and unannounced titles. i dont expect them to fix matchmaking in a few patches.
i dont see a problem with death penalties. i do have problems with certain mechanics and rewards in the game and its engine (for one courier deaths) but this is not at all one of them and it makes the gameplay more interesting in my opinion
|
On May 12 2012 21:32 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 21:30 Unleashing wrote:On May 12 2012 21:27 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 12 2012 20:18 Musou wrote:On May 12 2012 19:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 12 2012 16:19 Musou wrote:On May 12 2012 16:01 paralleluniverse wrote:I made a post on the DotA feedback forums about flaws in the game design: http://dev.dota2.com/showthread.php?t=35413It 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. 1. They don't occur rarely. Nearly all games are like that. Open the game and watch a spectate a first page match for yourself. 2. No, counterable does not imply balance. If it did, Blizzard should not have made any changes to WoL since it's release. If it did, then Blizzard should be able to buff marines and tanks and cause no balances as a result. Why nerf Terran when they had a 60% win rate. They were counterable, they were countered 40% of the time. And ursa is counterable 100% of the time, if you know how to. There are literally items and heroes that make ursa shit and anybody can buy ghost-scepter/force-staff/euls, all teams can get it. All teams can ward roshan and fuck him up when he tries to solo. All teams can smoke and gank him in his woods while he's farming if he's not laning. Anybody can do these things. The fact that they don't does not make something unbalanced, it makes them dumb, the people that is. Ursa is a horrible hero and if he's so overpowered then why does is he easily countered by coordination in a team game? DotA is a team game, it is balanced around 5 people working together. All races can beat Terran. Terran never had a 100% win rate. Balance isn't about being counterable or beatable. Balance isn't even about strategy. Balance is about statistics. Balance is about having a 50% prior probability of winning.
nah, balance is about the fact that whatever beats you, is imbalanced
same in sc2
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=313577
|
Paralleluniverse: Firstly stop using this ridiculous argument where you say "if Ursa is balanced then terran would never have been nerfed in Starcraft 2". Secondly, Dota 2 is a team based strategy game and thus it is balanced around team strategy, it is not balanced around individual carry heroes and how quickly they can kill someone that doesn't react to them being in the game and doesn't understand how the game works. Yes there are annoying heroes that can snowball quickly, but those same heroes can also be completely crushed and never go anywhere in the game, it depends -entirely on the players in the game- and NOT on the "hero balance".
Really could you just stop cluttering up the thread with your useless posts? You present no solid arguments or evidence, you just constantly reply to everything with "you're wrong because this happened in Starcraft 2" or "this is my opinion on balance so go watch some live pub games", that is not a real argument and it is not presenting evidence to back up your claims. If you come into a thread full of people that have played hundreds of games in Dota 2, and you yourself having little experience with the game, and then you make these wild claims about "large flaws in the design", you should either have some extremely good evidence to back up what you say, or you should just not post about it at all, because really it seems like you're just trying to argue for the sake of it and derail the thread.
|
On May 12 2012 21:11 Unleashing wrote:
(lots of text)
I don't have these thoughts on the game, neither did i complain about balance in DOTA, i just wanted to point out that there are 2 different views on balancing, never said anything about Chen not being ban worthy either. Read my post again please 
|
On May 12 2012 21:32 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2012 21:30 Unleashing wrote:On May 12 2012 21:27 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 12 2012 20:18 Musou wrote:On May 12 2012 19:58 paralleluniverse wrote:On May 12 2012 16:19 Musou wrote:On May 12 2012 16:01 paralleluniverse wrote:I made a post on the DotA feedback forums about flaws in the game design: http://dev.dota2.com/showthread.php?t=35413It 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. 1. They don't occur rarely. Nearly all games are like that. Open the game and watch a spectate a first page match for yourself. 2. No, counterable does not imply balance. If it did, Blizzard should not have made any changes to WoL since it's release. If it did, then Blizzard should be able to buff marines and tanks and cause no balances as a result. Why nerf Terran when they had a 60% win rate. They were counterable, they were countered 40% of the time. And ursa is counterable 100% of the time, if you know how to. There are literally items and heroes that make ursa shit and anybody can buy ghost-scepter/force-staff/euls, all teams can get it. All teams can ward roshan and fuck him up when he tries to solo. All teams can smoke and gank him in his woods while he's farming if he's not laning. Anybody can do these things. The fact that they don't does not make something unbalanced, it makes them dumb, the people that is. Ursa is a horrible hero and if he's so overpowered then why does is he easily countered by coordination in a team game? DotA is a team game, it is balanced around 5 people working together. All races can beat Terran. Terran never had a 100% win rate. Balance isn't about being counterable or beatable. Balance isn't even about strategy. Balance is about statistics. Balance is about having a 50% prior probability of winning.
Oh man, the whining from SC2 has reached this forum too?
If you seriously get owned by an hero that is countered by 200g and 1700g items you're just bad. Oh wait, but being counterable doesn't mean it's balanced? Gotta love some arbitrary definition to make your point. So DT are imbalanced because if you don't have detection you lose? Please.
|
Ursa needs a buff , its too easy to shut him down in a team fight. He needs naix rage and maybe a movespeed bonus to his ult.
|
On May 12 2012 21:43 Kaniol wrote:I don't have these thoughts on the game, neither did i complain about balance in DOTA, i just wanted to point out that there are 2 different views on balancing, never said anything about Chen not being ban worthy either. Read my post again please
I did read your post but it's quite obvious that you didn't comprehend what i was saying either.
I didn't say you said anything about chen not being ban worthy, i actually only stated that i found your post hilarious.
|
|
|
*Sees Ursa in competitive play*
*Picks Beastmaster + Extra Disable like Lion*
Bai Ursa.
Ursa is a garbage pick in competitive play, and is only used in the very rare instance that the other team is picking predominantly non-reliable stuns/soft CC teams. Not just that, he needs to farm alot, and needs a team that can keep the other team in place (i.e. Tide). With the amount of farm and the type of situation you need, you're better off picking a more universal and more flexible carry like Morph, Anti-Mage, Riki, Panda, Lycan etc. who are able to team fight earlier with less items and can massively dominate in their respective roles. Even hard carries like Spectre/Void are still better than Ursa overall, not to mention semis like SF, Mirana, Furion, Invoker, Tinker, and Storm all who are tremendously better than Ursa in alot of ways.
Riki on the other hand, is not a garbage pick for a variety of reasons. One being that he's a carry that doesn't necessarily have to farm, he is useful in the midgame, is hard to kite due to smoke+diffusal+leap, and does a fuck ton of damage with backstab with minimal items. He becomes useful once he gets Ptreads/Double Wraith Bands and can murder supports extremely fast, unlike Ursa who needs either Vlads/Vanguard + Blink + Pboots to do anything at all versus a non-dumb team. Riki is picked often, and is a reliable counter to blink heroes like QoP, Anti-Mage, Storm, etc. because his cloud is massively annoying to play against as those types of heroes.
|
I don't know if this was posted earlier, but here and here is a vod of dendi analyzing their two games vs clg at starladder from yesterday.
Pretty interesting to see what their goals are in games, and how they delay/take fights.
|
If you want to see the effects of no death penalty, watch some LoL. Guess which game has more snowballing? If you guessed DotA, you would be wrong. Lop-sided games occur because of poor MM and the pub mentality. Hopefully by the time dota2 is released it will have better MMing, with premades up against other premades and all players at similar skill levels, making games much less lop sided.
Also, I don't think you understand the concept of a carry. A carry being OP is nothing like a marine or a siege tank being OP. A good carry is a bit like a good standard zerg - if you don't go screw up his game, late game he WILL destroy you.
With your logic I could argue that 6 pool is OP:
If you don't wall in, you will probably lose to 6 pool
If you don't buy dust/sentries/gem, you will probably lose to riki
Also, watch some competitive games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
