EPTI don't get it and i'm probably glad i don't.
I also have things i hate far more than i probably should, but even then, it's nothing compared to this lmao.
General Discussion - Page 6417
| 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. | ||
|
Unleashing
Denmark14978 Posts
I don't get it and i'm probably glad i don't. I also have things i hate far more than i probably should, but even then, it's nothing compared to this lmao. | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
*heavily editorialized. I think they've gone too far, but feel free to make up your own mind | ||
|
Unleashing
Denmark14978 Posts
I don't consider that a very relevant point though, if you kept dota at one patch consistently and instead changed the maps like in SC it'd also change the game massively without patching the game. They're just different approaches to keep a game fresh/allowing for new stuff to develop/occur imho. Also smogon has definitely gone too far. A bit happy they banned klefki with swagger/para though since that shit was so stupid. | ||
|
Skullflower
United States3779 Posts
On September 08 2014 12:01 icystorage wrote: well upheaval has a very long cast range so yeah. he can just stand in the back, drop golem, cast upheaval, alt+tab, check face book, balance his check book, tab back, fuck bitches is balancing a checkbook still even a thing | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
There's a fair case to be made that it was the same way for SC2, of course. Blizzard controlled the ladder map, and if we go back to BW, there was a good amount of map control done by KeSPA (at least, I think that's who it was). Perhaps there's going to be a definite authority no matter which way you slice it. Still curious that people still love chess while we're talking about games dying in a year. I think the Smogon excess started with Salamence in 4th-gen. Salamence was strong, to be sure. Really strong. It wasn't broken, though, just like Scizor wasn't. Set a bad precedence for what they considered to be too far. Then 5th came and rain became a massive issue, so they started in on that weird complex ban that was meant to address that one specific problem and got taken to mean "we can ban whatever." And there was also Moody, which led to something actually being banned from Ubers. I don't think there was any way to really make the process work after that point. The game got too big for them to reasonably control. Now they're banning an actual Pokemon (Mega Gengar) from Ubers. I don't even know what to think. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2478 Posts
And about chess - it's got incredible history and accessibility backing it up. You don't need a good computer to run chess, and it doesn't yet look dated with its prehistoric graphics  | ||
|
Unleashing
Denmark14978 Posts
But even chess has new 'modes' or rules and stuff being 'developed' for it. So it's not even like chess itself is stationary and never changing. That's just speaking averagely, there are probably people that would never get bored of dota even if the patch never changed. Same way there are people that'd never get tired of chess. But yeah, i only played ladder in SC2 and that was controlled by blizzard the same way patches are controlled by valve. So to me they're just different approaches to the same thing. | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
| ||
|
Unleashing
Denmark14978 Posts
| ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
*than WC3 or BW | ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
Almost all competitions have a history of development that lasted many years. Football today is pretty much unrecognisable to when it was first getting codified two centuries ago. If someone had said in 1848, when the Cambridge Rules were getting devised, "Oh, doesn't it suggest a major problem with the game that we keep changing the rules?" they might have a point. The game did need changing for a long time afterwards. However, it evolved into the largest sport we have today and I suspect most people would be absolutely fine if it never altered again. You brought up chess and, while I'm not well versed in its history, I believe it goes back millennia until the rules were largely finalised in the 15th century, though it still went through changes after that. My point is, everything takes time to develop. Dota still being under development might suggest the current form has problems - why would you change something if it didn't? - but it doesn't suggest that those problems are entirely insurmountable. Now, do I think a final patch will be released any time soon? Of course not. But if football got centuries, I'll give Dota a little more time before writing it off as unfixable. | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
Chess has that in spades, of course, because it's got such an unbelievably complex gamestate. I would argue that DOTA2 lacks this same quality, at least at present, because although heroes can be a little bit this way or that way at any point in time, many of the states are more or less equal. In chess, it matters if a pawn is a space forward or back. In DOTA2, 2 CS at 10 minutes isn't that big a deal. Similarly, if you're ever "behind" in DOTA2 against a certain set of heroes, you always play more or less the same way. In chess, there are very specific sets of movements that all adjust to the precise configuration of the gameboard. For this reason, I'd say that chess is probably a bad comparison. I like your comparison to association football much more, so let's take a look. Football only ever has one strategy: get the ball into the other net. There are a few more specific tactics: Clear the ball! Pass the ball! Shoot the ball! Lovely. I oversimplify, of course, but not by much. That's the point. So why do people still love the game and find value in it? I could be camp and point to tribalism or cultural norms, but that's honestly just pathetic. I think the real reason is that the execution of the game is thought to be inherently beautiful. There is something wonderful about using your body to complete a physical action, whether it be a dribble or a pass or a last hit or a Vacuum-Wall. It's that sort of primal joy that keeps football alive, I'd posit, and the rules are just put in place to give a general framework for people to perform those actions steadily over a given period of time. The relation to Broodwar is immediately apparent: various aspects of micro and macro (for example: Mutalisk micro) are exactly the kind of beautiful action that is found in football. So can this too be achieved in DOTA2? For that to be the case, there need to be a set of heroes in the forefront of the metagame that are wonderful to play for their own sake. I would imagine these to be heroes like Sand King, like Lone Druid, like Rubick: the heroes that have complex mechanical and strategic actions at their core. The kind of hero that you can sit down and say: yeah, I'm just playing this for forty games straight. Moreover, the kind of hero you can be happy about playing for forty games straight. Perhaps that would be better for the sustainability of the game than any aim for a massive heropool. Instead, a relatively shallow set of preferred heroes and a far larger set of situational and niche picks. But hey, that's just me spouting. All I hope is that the last patch has Void as a weak-as-fuck shitstain. | ||
|
njt7
Sweden769 Posts
Ye if the official support actually stopped we would probably see a decline in players as the infrastructure is shifted around but dont forget how we got here. Dota has a life of its own. It doesnt lie down and die easily. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2478 Posts
On September 08 2014 17:47 Acritter wrote: Well, that simply raises the question: what is it that makes a game timeless? BW, towards the end of its career, had entered an almost timeless aspect. The only flaw in it was outdated controls and graphics that made the shiny new SC2 and LoL seem more attractive to Korean professionals, but if there were no alternatives it might have lasted forever. So we'll have to ignore that part, because eternal graphics and controls are simply not something we can ever hope to have. So what's left? There needs to be something in the game that can be "figured out" again and again, without any kind of cessation, that makes it constantly interesting to take part in. Chess has that in spades, of course, because it's got such an unbelievably complex gamestate. I would argue that DOTA2 lacks this same quality, at least at present, because although heroes can be a little bit this way or that way at any point in time, many of the states are more or less equal. In chess, it matters if a pawn is a space forward or back. In DOTA2, 2 CS at 10 minutes isn't that big a deal. Similarly, if you're ever "behind" in DOTA2 against a certain set of heroes, you always play more or less the same way. In chess, there are very specific sets of movements that all adjust to the precise configuration of the gameboard. For this reason, I'd say that chess is probably a bad comparison. I like your comparison to association football much more, so let's take a look. Football only ever has one strategy: get the ball into the other net. There are a few more specific tactics: Clear the ball! Pass the ball! Shoot the ball! Lovely. I oversimplify, of course, but not by much. That's the point. So why do people still love the game and find value in it? I could be camp and point to tribalism or cultural norms, but that's honestly just pathetic. I think the real reason is that the execution of the game is thought to be inherently beautiful. There is something wonderful about using your body to complete a physical action, whether it be a dribble or a pass or a last hit or a Vacuum-Wall. It's that sort of primal joy that keeps football alive, I'd posit, and the rules are just put in place to give a general framework for people to perform those actions steadily over a given period of time. The relation to Broodwar is immediately apparent: various aspects of micro and macro (for example: Mutalisk micro) are exactly the kind of beautiful action that is found in football. So can this too be achieved in DOTA2? For that to be the case, there need to be a set of heroes in the forefront of the metagame that are wonderful to play for their own sake. I would imagine these to be heroes like Sand King, like Lone Druid, like Rubick: the heroes that have complex mechanical and strategic actions at their core. The kind of hero that you can sit down and say: yeah, I'm just playing this for forty games straight. Moreover, the kind of hero you can be happy about playing for forty games straight. Perhaps that would be better for the sustainability of the game than any aim for a massive heropool. Instead, a relatively shallow set of preferred heroes and a far larger set of situational and niche picks. But hey, that's just me spouting. All I hope is that the last patch has Void as a weak-as-fuck shitstain. As a semi-casual socc...err...football fan (and north american to boot) I don't really have the grounds to yell at you for oversimplifying the sport so much, but a part of me hopes someone with a better understanding yells at you for undervaluing the strategic depth and mental requirements of eleven people working towards a common goal against eleven people trying to do the opposite. Saying soccer (sorry) is just trying to put the ball in the net is saying dota is just killing the ancient. It's true, but not at all true. Though that's not really that important. What's important is fuck void into the cold vacuum of space. | ||
|
r_con
United States824 Posts
| ||
|
TRAP[yoo]
Hungary6026 Posts
On September 08 2014 17:47 Acritter wrote: Well, that simply raises the question: what is it that makes a game timeless? BW, towards the end of its career, had entered an almost timeless aspect. The only flaw in it was outdated controls and graphics that made the shiny new SC2 and LoL seem more attractive to Korean professionals, but if there were no alternatives it might have lasted forever. So we'll have to ignore that part, because eternal graphics and controls are simply not something we can ever hope to have. So what's left? There needs to be something in the game that can be "figured out" again and again, without any kind of cessation, that makes it constantly interesting to take part in. Chess has that in spades, of course, because it's got such an unbelievably complex gamestate. I would argue that DOTA2 lacks this same quality, at least at present, because although heroes can be a little bit this way or that way at any point in time, many of the states are more or less equal. In chess, it matters if a pawn is a space forward or back. In DOTA2, 2 CS at 10 minutes isn't that big a deal. Similarly, if you're ever "behind" in DOTA2 against a certain set of heroes, you always play more or less the same way. In chess, there are very specific sets of movements that all adjust to the precise configuration of the gameboard. For this reason, I'd say that chess is probably a bad comparison. I like your comparison to association football much more, so let's take a look. Football only ever has one strategy: get the ball into the other net. There are a few more specific tactics: Clear the ball! Pass the ball! Shoot the ball! Lovely. I oversimplify, of course, but not by much. That's the point. So why do people still love the game and find value in it? I could be camp and point to tribalism or cultural norms, but that's honestly just pathetic. I think the real reason is that the execution of the game is thought to be inherently beautiful. There is something wonderful about using your body to complete a physical action, whether it be a dribble or a pass or a last hit or a Vacuum-Wall. It's that sort of primal joy that keeps football alive, I'd posit, and the rules are just put in place to give a general framework for people to perform those actions steadily over a given period of time. The relation to Broodwar is immediately apparent: various aspects of micro and macro (for example: Mutalisk micro) are exactly the kind of beautiful action that is found in football. So can this too be achieved in DOTA2? For that to be the case, there need to be a set of heroes in the forefront of the metagame that are wonderful to play for their own sake. I would imagine these to be heroes like Sand King, like Lone Druid, like Rubick: the heroes that have complex mechanical and strategic actions at their core. The kind of hero that you can sit down and say: yeah, I'm just playing this for forty games straight. Moreover, the kind of hero you can be happy about playing for forty games straight. Perhaps that would be better for the sustainability of the game than any aim for a massive heropool. Instead, a relatively shallow set of preferred heroes and a far larger set of situational and niche picks. But hey, that's just me spouting. All I hope is that the last patch has Void as a weak-as-fuck shitstain. dota also has a pretty simple goal. its all about destroying the enemys throne. the only thing thats changing is how people get to that point | ||
|
Laserist
Turkey4269 Posts
| ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22207 Posts
 | ||
|
Targe
United Kingdom14103 Posts
| ||
|
nojok
France15845 Posts
| ||
| ||
