EPTGeneral Discussion - Page 6375
| Forum Index > Dota 2 General |
IRC chatter should remain in IRC - http://webchat.quakenet.org/?channels=tl.dota2 Posts that relate to topics with their own thread, such as in News, Tournaments or Strategy should go in those threads. | ||
|
Jinxed
United States6450 Posts
| ||
|
Kupon3ss
時の回廊10066 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 05 2014 00:57 Kupon3ss wrote: as long as the intent is to replicate dota1 interactions, anything that does not do so and is not explicitly stated as intended changes is considered a bug What if the interaction that they wanted in Dota 1 cannot be created in the engine, but can be in dota 2? | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 05 2014 00:56 LeLoup wrote: And that is why the whole argument of 'it worked this way in Dota 1' is moot. As much as Valve wanted to completely copy the original the differences in engines made that nearly impossible. Honestly I'm impressed that they have gotten as close as they have. In the majority of cases, the reason for the bug existing is simple negligence (i.e. some DotA 2 programmer didn't play DotA 1 and programmed a skill solely based on the PlayDotA.com description), not engine limitations. There are some core changes that are difficult to fix (i.e. DotA 2 engine doesn't separate base/bonus stats well which causes a lot of wide-reaching differences) but these tend to be rare. Some of the time, they result in some different gameplay that Icefrog likes and declares as his new intent. That doesn't mean he likes all such changes and they all represent his intent. On September 05 2014 01:00 Plansix wrote: What if the interaction that they wanted in Dota 1 cannot be created in the engine, but can be in dota 2? That can never be the working assumption unless Icefrog explicitly specifies it to be the case. Most of the time even when that's the case, Icefrog fudges the change in DotA 1 to be similar to the DotA 2 interaction (see Centaur and Slark's reworked ultis), even though an identical reproduction is impossible. No change at all in DotA 1 tends to signify negligence rather than intent being limited by the engine. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
| ||
|
Jinxed
United States6450 Posts
On September 05 2014 00:59 TheYango wrote: The working assumption should still be that DotA 1 behavior signifies Icefrog's intent. His intent may change, but unless he indicates this to be the case (through patch changes or official announcement), it's a better assumption than assuming DotA 2 behavior signifies intent. At this point intent is irrelevant. If things were considered bugs and the intention was to fix them they would get fixed. As it stands though there are balances being made around said bugs to the effected heroes. This means that the 'bugs' are no longer defined that way and instead are at the very least just unforseen mechanics and interactions with the new engine and are fixed/upheld at icefrog's whim. | ||
|
Kupon3ss
時の回廊10066 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
This means that the 'bugs' are no longer defined that way and instead are at the very least just unforseen mechanics and interactions with the new engine and are fixed/upheld at icefrog's whim. You make it sound like Icefrog has the sole decision on what bugs do and don't get fixed, when it's more likely that it's simply a product of a semi-functional software development process at Valve that Icefrog has zero input on (as is typically the case with bug-fixes at software development companies). | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
| ||
|
Kupon3ss
時の回廊10066 Posts
TI4 has been the only TI where straight up bugs and their use/abuse in the game didn't completely change the results of certain games | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
| ||
|
Kupon3ss
時の回廊10066 Posts
icefrog had actually taken the time to create a specific "courier armlet" for use on the lone druid bear that had different (much weaker) activation stats and no life drain. The coder who did dota2 implementation did not realize that this was the case and simply threw the hero activation armlet onto the bear without lifedrain. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
So then people decided to muddle the argument based on this fact. Icefrog's eventual solution was just a compromise between the two. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
as was old armlet toggling when item-activation isn't ping-dependent. etc | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 05 2014 01:19 Sn0_Man wrote: armlet + stat changes was also an interesting interaction That was a straight up DotA 2 bug because the DotA 2 engine fundamentally never distinguished base HP from bonus HP and every case where this distinction matters either required a hardcoded workaround or is still inconsistent to this day. It makes the current situation really awkard because Valve has tried to fix every case where this is actually a significant issue (Morphling, Undying, Armlet, OD mana gain/loss), but because the engine doesn't support the distinction on a basic level, they have to leave out a lot of the minor things (Slark's stat stealing, HP/mana gains on level-ups). Clearly given how vigilant they've been about fixing the major cases implies that the DotA 1 behavior is the intent, but it's beyond their power at the moment to provide such a core engine change to recreate DotA 1 behavior. | ||
|
Kupon3ss
時の回廊10066 Posts
Its obviously not a bug if he created a specific armlet implementation specifically for that singular corner case, that's called the solution to a previous bug. | ||
| ||
