|
|
I have played in a number of IHLs over the past ~6? years and they were responsible for most of my improvement as a player. While "just playing" will help you practice, IH games involve drafting, are more coordinated, and consist of players who are there because they want to play at a higher level.
Historically IHLs weren't just for the "5k+" crowd. Tiered leagues allowed for players to grow in the IH environment. RMM has sucked up all of those players, but I don't think it can replace IHLs.
While -AP is a fun mode, it conceals the drafting aspect of dota. A lot of pub -AP games are lost on outdraft, but most players are unable to understand why.
From my experiences, players in IHs communicate much more, and they attempt to play like a team. Teamwork is a crucial element of "real" dota. Pro matches feature more early rotations, map movement is planned and coordinated, and they adapt to the situation. In solo RMM everyone is playing their own game.
I agree with Ixmike that IHLs are the closest thing to having your own team.
It seems like the convenience factor of RMM has caused IHLs to dry up, and I think that is a big loss for dota
|
On June 22 2014 20:44 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2014 20:08 makmeatt wrote:On June 22 2014 18:05 Torte de Lini wrote:
Inhouse leagues are a form of older times when we didn't have organized play within the game. While I do find them great and of value, I think people over-emphasize their worth based on the past rather than how integral they would be now. Before that post about the survival of In-House leagues, there was another topic about "watching" amateur leagues and stuff. It all feels like a fade call for support from something that isn't as relevant as it was before.
I don't think in-house leagues are of value to finding ripe new players as I find constant qualifies for major tournaments to be a valid start towards incorporating a better transition from amateur to professional. Dude, I know beginning a post with 'no offense' is a prime reason for being laughed at, but you must be joking. You don't even play ranked for crying out loud! IHLs were the major crystallization point for many teams and players back then, because pub play gave you literally no guarantee whether you will ever see the same person again without putting some effort into creating a link and whether the game you were about to play would go through uninterrupted and with some basic cooperation towards a common goal from all other players. Does that ring a bell? Has anything changed at all? What 'organized play within the game' are you talking about, RMM? This is no different than unranked or simple Battle.net lobby system, just that it does everything for you with two clicks and registers a bloody arbitrary number that you can mistakenly take as a method to gauge your what exactly? skill? progress? relative to what? and so on. IHLs give you an actual competitive closed environment which allows you to compete, hope for stable improvement, have a relatively calm mind about other players. This is where you go when you have the desire to truly improve at DotA, it's always been that way and as long as the MM queue is massively open without any limitations or guidelines whatsoever, you are risking a lot of your limited free time on chasing ghosts. What's really funny to me is that ixmike posted this on Reddit of all places. While I can imagine he wishes it to be spotted by someone up high, but if the reason was to spark discussion, then I don't even know what is going on anymore. I thought we were talking the point of in-house leagues as a whole, not personal experience. Your argument kind of validates my point (I bolded it for you). I'm not against organized play but I don't think integrating them as separate, but attached points to the client would be a perfect fit. I like the idea in the Reddit thread where there were daily/weekly small tournaments like in WarCraft III. I did a few of those (undead ftw) and I think those can be a lot of fun. These sorts of things also apply some sort of "trophy case" for teams similar to those small cups in SC2 also had a long-term achievement feeling [anyone remember Hyun's streak with IPL Fight Club] I think TMM should be shaped better and Guilds could be better implemented to replicate what IHL provided. Maybe "tiers" within TMM to provide a more rotated form of ranking within a smaller group (similar to SC2's Platinum/Diamond/Masters concept). Not sure why you've taken such a tone, not like I work for Valve or anything. I've bolded the parts where your points sort of validate what I was saying. This was my thesis: Show nested quote +I don't think in-house leagues are of value to finding ripe new players as I find constant qualifies for major tournaments to be a valid start towards incorporating a better transition from amateur to professional.
I don't think the focus of IHs is to find players who go amateur -> professional. Rather, players can transition from pub/pubstar -> amateur
You can grind out your mechanics in RMM, but it is much harder to develop game knowledge and team play.
What I dislike about RMM is how similar most games are. You will never see a draft/team strategy that deviates far from "lets pick good/popular heroes for every role and try to have equal/better late game). Unconventional/unpopular synergies are never explored because that requires a coordinated draft, and coordinated in game execution.
|
On June 22 2014 21:05 Veles wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2014 20:44 Torte de Lini wrote:On June 22 2014 20:08 makmeatt wrote:On June 22 2014 18:05 Torte de Lini wrote:
Inhouse leagues are a form of older times when we didn't have organized play within the game. While I do find them great and of value, I think people over-emphasize their worth based on the past rather than how integral they would be now. Before that post about the survival of In-House leagues, there was another topic about "watching" amateur leagues and stuff. It all feels like a fade call for support from something that isn't as relevant as it was before.
I don't think in-house leagues are of value to finding ripe new players as I find constant qualifies for major tournaments to be a valid start towards incorporating a better transition from amateur to professional. Dude, I know beginning a post with 'no offense' is a prime reason for being laughed at, but you must be joking. You don't even play ranked for crying out loud! IHLs were the major crystallization point for many teams and players back then, because pub play gave you literally no guarantee whether you will ever see the same person again without putting some effort into creating a link and whether the game you were about to play would go through uninterrupted and with some basic cooperation towards a common goal from all other players. Does that ring a bell? Has anything changed at all? What 'organized play within the game' are you talking about, RMM? This is no different than unranked or simple Battle.net lobby system, just that it does everything for you with two clicks and registers a bloody arbitrary number that you can mistakenly take as a method to gauge your what exactly? skill? progress? relative to what? and so on. IHLs give you an actual competitive closed environment which allows you to compete, hope for stable improvement, have a relatively calm mind about other players. This is where you go when you have the desire to truly improve at DotA, it's always been that way and as long as the MM queue is massively open without any limitations or guidelines whatsoever, you are risking a lot of your limited free time on chasing ghosts. What's really funny to me is that ixmike posted this on Reddit of all places. While I can imagine he wishes it to be spotted by someone up high, but if the reason was to spark discussion, then I don't even know what is going on anymore. I thought we were talking the point of in-house leagues as a whole, not personal experience. Your argument kind of validates my point (I bolded it for you). I'm not against organized play but I don't think integrating them as separate, but attached points to the client would be a perfect fit. I like the idea in the Reddit thread where there were daily/weekly small tournaments like in WarCraft III. I did a few of those (undead ftw) and I think those can be a lot of fun. These sorts of things also apply some sort of "trophy case" for teams similar to those small cups in SC2 also had a long-term achievement feeling [anyone remember Hyun's streak with IPL Fight Club] I think TMM should be shaped better and Guilds could be better implemented to replicate what IHL provided. Maybe "tiers" within TMM to provide a more rotated form of ranking within a smaller group (similar to SC2's Platinum/Diamond/Masters concept). Not sure why you've taken such a tone, not like I work for Valve or anything. I've bolded the parts where your points sort of validate what I was saying. This was my thesis: I don't think in-house leagues are of value to finding ripe new players as I find constant qualifies for major tournaments to be a valid start towards incorporating a better transition from amateur to professional. I don't think the focus of IHs is to find players who go amateur -> professional. Rather, players can transition from pub/pubstar -> amateur You can grind out your mechanics in RMM, but it is much harder to develop game knowledge and team play. What I dislike about RMM is how similar most games are. You will never see a draft/team strategy that deviates far from "lets pick good/popular heroes for every role and try to have equal/better late game). Unconventional/unpopular synergies are never explored because that requires a coordinated draft, and coordinated in game execution.
I thought IHL were to highlight key teams or players that could make it as professionals? Showing consistency in achievement, strategy, etc.
I agree with the rest of your point though.
|
On June 22 2014 21:10 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2014 21:05 Veles wrote:On June 22 2014 20:44 Torte de Lini wrote:On June 22 2014 20:08 makmeatt wrote:On June 22 2014 18:05 Torte de Lini wrote:
Inhouse leagues are a form of older times when we didn't have organized play within the game. While I do find them great and of value, I think people over-emphasize their worth based on the past rather than how integral they would be now. Before that post about the survival of In-House leagues, there was another topic about "watching" amateur leagues and stuff. It all feels like a fade call for support from something that isn't as relevant as it was before.
I don't think in-house leagues are of value to finding ripe new players as I find constant qualifies for major tournaments to be a valid start towards incorporating a better transition from amateur to professional. Dude, I know beginning a post with 'no offense' is a prime reason for being laughed at, but you must be joking. You don't even play ranked for crying out loud! IHLs were the major crystallization point for many teams and players back then, because pub play gave you literally no guarantee whether you will ever see the same person again without putting some effort into creating a link and whether the game you were about to play would go through uninterrupted and with some basic cooperation towards a common goal from all other players. Does that ring a bell? Has anything changed at all? What 'organized play within the game' are you talking about, RMM? This is no different than unranked or simple Battle.net lobby system, just that it does everything for you with two clicks and registers a bloody arbitrary number that you can mistakenly take as a method to gauge your what exactly? skill? progress? relative to what? and so on. IHLs give you an actual competitive closed environment which allows you to compete, hope for stable improvement, have a relatively calm mind about other players. This is where you go when you have the desire to truly improve at DotA, it's always been that way and as long as the MM queue is massively open without any limitations or guidelines whatsoever, you are risking a lot of your limited free time on chasing ghosts. What's really funny to me is that ixmike posted this on Reddit of all places. While I can imagine he wishes it to be spotted by someone up high, but if the reason was to spark discussion, then I don't even know what is going on anymore. I thought we were talking the point of in-house leagues as a whole, not personal experience. Your argument kind of validates my point (I bolded it for you). I'm not against organized play but I don't think integrating them as separate, but attached points to the client would be a perfect fit. I like the idea in the Reddit thread where there were daily/weekly small tournaments like in WarCraft III. I did a few of those (undead ftw) and I think those can be a lot of fun. These sorts of things also apply some sort of "trophy case" for teams similar to those small cups in SC2 also had a long-term achievement feeling [anyone remember Hyun's streak with IPL Fight Club] I think TMM should be shaped better and Guilds could be better implemented to replicate what IHL provided. Maybe "tiers" within TMM to provide a more rotated form of ranking within a smaller group (similar to SC2's Platinum/Diamond/Masters concept). Not sure why you've taken such a tone, not like I work for Valve or anything. I've bolded the parts where your points sort of validate what I was saying. This was my thesis: I don't think in-house leagues are of value to finding ripe new players as I find constant qualifies for major tournaments to be a valid start towards incorporating a better transition from amateur to professional. I don't think the focus of IHs is to find players who go amateur -> professional. Rather, players can transition from pub/pubstar -> amateur You can grind out your mechanics in RMM, but it is much harder to develop game knowledge and team play. What I dislike about RMM is how similar most games are. You will never see a draft/team strategy that deviates far from "lets pick good/popular heroes for every role and try to have equal/better late game). Unconventional/unpopular synergies are never explored because that requires a coordinated draft, and coordinated in game execution. I thought IHL were to highlight key teams or players that could make it as professionals? Showing consistency in achievement, strategy, etc. I agree with the rest of your point though.
I think mike and spit went for the "pro breeding ground" argument because it is easy to support with specific examples, and it seems significant.
It might even be true for the top players in NEL/CDEC/etc
but imo the real value of IHs is to create a large pool of skilled players. "Esports" requires a big pyramid in order to produce top players. To me, it was BWs mass popularity in korea that was responsible for the scene. Thats why League will inevitably have a healthy scene even if their game design is a bit worse.
Given how BW is 1v1 there wasn't a need to create an external structure that would help develop teamwork and drafting. I don't know how league does it but I hear they just have a lot of amateur teams
|
On June 22 2014 20:42 Plansix wrote:
It just seems like the "bro, do you even lift?" of dota. I get the counter argument, but the opening just seems like a cheap way to make his augment seem stronger with very little effort.
I get emotional over internet arguments sometimes so you're right, that was my bad. Sorry, Torte.
Still though, your thesis, and I feel like a lot of your ideas you presented, are all revolving around teams, not players themselves, especially the argument referring to the number of open tourneys. I was talking about IHLs in general - they were there to enable every player to play in a semi-competitive environment and you didn't necessarily have to commit a lot of your time into finding four other players to form a team with, organizing scrimmages, putting up practice plans together or whatever else. ixmike's idea to somehow integrate the functionality of such relatively closed environments into the client is valid due to the two issues - accessibility and validity of the endeavor - which can't be solved using tools they used so far. How it's gonna be done is sure up for a discussion, maybe not with everyone, but with those mostly interested in it. And I can bet with you that casuals won't be interested in it, you can read Reddit if you don't believe. So when I saw you deprecating the value of IHLs as old school things and saying teams can manage otherwise, I jumped in my chair, hence the heated argument. Sorry about it.
|
IHs are also better dota and more fun if you are into that kind of thing. Playing good dota with the same players while chatting in game is a great time
I'd rather wait for 20-30 minutes for an IH than play RMM but currently I can't even do that
|
|
|
On June 22 2014 21:20 makmeatt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2014 20:42 Plansix wrote:
It just seems like the "bro, do you even lift?" of dota. I get the counter argument, but the opening just seems like a cheap way to make his augment seem stronger with very little effort. I get emotional over internet arguments sometimes so you're right, that was my bad. Sorry, Torte. Still though, your thesis, and I feel like a lot of your ideas you presented, are all revolving around teams, not players themselves, especially the argument referring to the number of open tourneys. I was talking about IHLs in general - they were there to enable every player to play in a semi-competitive environment and you didn't necessarily have to commit a lot of your time into finding four other players to form a team with, organizing scrimmages, putting up practice plans together or whatever else. ixmike's idea to somehow integrate the functionality of such relatively closed environments into the client is valid due to the two issues - accessibility and validity of the endeavor - which can't be solved using tools they used so far. How it's gonna be done is sure up for a discussion, maybe not with everyone, but with those mostly interested in it. And I can bet with you that casuals won't be interested in it, you can read Reddit if you don't believe. So when I saw you deprecating the value of IHLs as old school things and saying teams can manage otherwise, I jumped in my chair, hence the heated argument. Sorry about it.
I mean, from what I'm reading here, I understood it as a team thing. But it's looking like two-level platform.
No worries, I'm just trying to understand it better and that was my perspective; that it was good, but I would rather see IHL reincarnated into something more intergral with the client and what it offers as organizational aspects (Guilds, TMM, etc.). I think those are good options, just poorly done and can reinvent the IHL idea into something that is a bit more convenient.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On June 22 2014 21:41 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2014 21:20 makmeatt wrote:On June 22 2014 20:42 Plansix wrote:
It just seems like the "bro, do you even lift?" of dota. I get the counter argument, but the opening just seems like a cheap way to make his augment seem stronger with very little effort. I get emotional over internet arguments sometimes so you're right, that was my bad. Sorry, Torte. Still though, your thesis, and I feel like a lot of your ideas you presented, are all revolving around teams, not players themselves, especially the argument referring to the number of open tourneys. I was talking about IHLs in general - they were there to enable every player to play in a semi-competitive environment and you didn't necessarily have to commit a lot of your time into finding four other players to form a team with, organizing scrimmages, putting up practice plans together or whatever else. ixmike's idea to somehow integrate the functionality of such relatively closed environments into the client is valid due to the two issues - accessibility and validity of the endeavor - which can't be solved using tools they used so far. How it's gonna be done is sure up for a discussion, maybe not with everyone, but with those mostly interested in it. And I can bet with you that casuals won't be interested in it, you can read Reddit if you don't believe. So when I saw you deprecating the value of IHLs as old school things and saying teams can manage otherwise, I jumped in my chair, hence the heated argument. Sorry about it. I mean, from what I'm reading here, I understood it as a team thing. But it's looking like two-level platform. No worries, I'm just trying to understand it better and that was my perspective; that it was good, but I would rather see IHL reincarnated into something more intergral with the client and what it offers as organizational aspects (Guilds, TMM, etc.). I think those are good options, just poorly done and can reinvent the IHL idea into something that is a bit more convenient.
if valve were to introduce an inhouse system, great, but its up to them
iccups looked legit when that was announced
|
wasnt there also a dotacinema inhouse thingy that noone really gave a shit about a couple weeks ago? what happened to that
|
The fuck is this? Newbee versus DK again?
|
to many leagues, i bet valve will go the same route as blizzard did with wcs. So many leagues hurts the scene more then it contributes.
|
Valve has said they have no desire for that and I have no desire to watch that. Good teams play each other a lot in tournaments because they're good. But you should still have a large number of tournaments because otherwise you end up stagnating your game and then its the same crap for months on end.
Problem is that too many tournaments are stacked up right now. If it wasn't for the timing it couldn't be an issue, but everyone wanted to get in before TI and voila there you go.
|
United Kingdom24425 Posts
On June 22 2014 22:40 govie wrote:
to many leagues, i bet valve will go the same route as blizzard did with wcs. So many leagues hurts the scene more then it contributes. How much do you want to bet?
Because it will never happen, and people saying that it will hurt the scene have absolutely no proof of it doing so other than crying StarCraft fans.
|
I dont mind so many matches, i actually enjoy the matches just as much as when there werent that many. But i do think the scene is oversaturated with tournaments. I dont care or follow most standings anymore, just watch the TL matchticker and choose a match i like to watch today. That used to be different, i used to follow most league standings.
|
United Kingdom24425 Posts
When was the time that people didn't call Dota 2 oversaturated? Like early Beta maybe. Even before TI2 people were saying there was too many tournaments.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
there ARE too many, wat that leads to i dunno
all i can seriously follow is TI, the rest i dont really care
|
United Kingdom24425 Posts
You can't say that there are too many if you don't know what that leads to. It has to be far too many for something.
Far too many for you to follow. Okay. Is that a problem? There's far too many of most sports matches for most fans of those sports to follow as well.
The only reason people make these arguments is because they used to be able to watch everything. That doesn't mean they're supposed to, if the demand is there, it's not a problem.
|
|
|
On June 22 2014 23:08 teapoted wrote:
You can't say that there are too many if you don't know what that leads to. It has to be far too many for something.
Far too many for you to follow. Okay. Is that a problem? There's far too many of most sports matches for most fans of those sports to follow as well.
The only reason people make these arguments is because they used to be able to watch everything. That doesn't mean they're supposed to, if the demand is there, it's not a problem.
Thank you for finally making the argument that people want to ignore.
The demand is clearly there for people to want to watch. Enough that people will buy in game tickets and watch VoDs if they have to. Stream numbers =! interest and the best part about the way that the Valve system works is that you don't even have to have viewers on stream to make money from people.
I have 0 desire to have that watered down BS that is WCS and LCS. Both of those are terrible examples of giving your scene a steady ground to work on. WCS can't get any players sustained exposure outside of the complete top tier and LCS is just artificially propping up their scene and is pretty much impossible to break in to. I like having a good number of Major tournaments (maybe we could tone back the online Qualifiers a bit though. Having them for every single LAN out there is a bit much) but overall it's nice to be able to go and watch professional Dota any day that I want to, because there was always at least one match each day that you know is going to be great.
Just for the record, this is the 4th series between NB and DK and it still has 74k viewers in the West watching it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
