|
May your nightmare never end. GNAHAHAHAHHA
|
On December 01 2013 05:04 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 05:00 SKC wrote:On December 01 2013 04:57 TheYango wrote:On December 01 2013 04:53 SKC wrote: Fixing a sympton is fine. Plenty of heroes received no changes and were suddenly overpowered or underpowered because of changes to the gameplay. They were often nerfed/buffed to compensate. The question should be whether the change that made Midas so good was good for the game and whether there is a good change to the game that can also help fixing Midas. If that's not the case, there is no reason why you cannot nerf an item that became good because of how the gameplay developed. There is nothing inheremtly wrong with fixing symptons. Well, no, because if what makes Midas boring is that lull in the action that promotes its use (an item being boring by itself makes no sense, only the gameplay associated with it can be boring), nerfing Midas won't fix that. The question is whether you can easily fix that lull in the action. It's mostly because of the increase in difficulty of pushing into higher tiers of towers, requiring the winning team to play passive and prepare better before pushing. A change that promotes pushing your advantage immediatly may also cause the game to be more snowbally and diminish the defenders advantage that creates amazing comebacks and great games. Changing Midas is a easier and less impactfull choice than changing the core of how the game is played, specially so soon after a major patch. It's a safer choice and I really wouldn't be surprised to see it nerfed. The causal relationship is important here. Seeing 5 Midases in a game is not what's boring. Seeing 5 Midases and people farming for 5-10 minutes with them (or alternatively just losing the game when they can't win a fight) is boring. But the question is, are people farming for 5-10 minutes because they're buying Midas because it's too strong? Or are they buying Midas because some other factor compels them to farm for 5-10 minutes, and Midas is naturally the item to buy for that? Because if it's the latter, nerfing Midas won't stop people from farming for 5-10 minutes, which is the real gameplay problem that bothers people. It's not that I think fixing the symptom is worse--I think fixing the symptom doesn't do ANYTHING. Nerfing or removing Midas doesn't alter the need for a farming phase to build up a larger item advantage before pushing. In fact, without a tool to accelerate farm from an advantage, it's actually possible that the farming phase could be even more drawn out. And wasn't it common for teams to farm for 5-10 minutes or a Rosh before pushing high ground before the Midas craze? Yet far less people complained about it than they do about Midas. It's a much harder issue to fix.
|
In-game lagging for anyone else?
|
On December 01 2013 05:00 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 04:57 TheYango wrote:On December 01 2013 04:53 SKC wrote: Fixing a sympton is fine. Plenty of heroes received no changes and were suddenly overpowered or underpowered because of changes to the gameplay. They were often nerfed/buffed to compensate. The question should be whether the change that made Midas so good was good for the game and whether there is a good change to the game that can also help fixing Midas. If that's not the case, there is no reason why you cannot nerf an item that became good because of how the gameplay developed. There is nothing inheremtly wrong with fixing symptons. Well, no, because if what makes Midas boring is that lull in the action that promotes its use (an item being boring by itself makes no sense, only the gameplay associated with it can be boring), nerfing Midas won't fix that. The question is whether you can easily fix that lull in the action. It's mostly because of the increase in difficulty of pushing into higher tiers of towers, requiring the winning team to play passive and prepare better before pushing. A change that promotes pushing your advantage immediatly may also cause the game to be more snowbally and diminish the defenders advantage that creates amazing comebacks and great games. Changing Midas is a easier and less impactfull choice than changing the core of how the game is played, specially so soon after a major patch. It's a safer choice and I really wouldn't be surprised to see it nerfed.
The reason why midas isn't punished as well and passive play is preferred instead is that people are still pretty sloppy in timings in Dota 2 (as well as timings being more fuzzy overall within the game), so if you don't have too many overlapping midases it's hard to punish when you don't know the timings unless you're constantly roaming around causing pressure/chaos like Na'Vi do (hence Aui's comments and also n0tail's comments about "good/bad midas"). I'm not sure if I would support a midas change just because people are too lazy to learn more precise timings.
|
On December 01 2013 05:05 WindWolf wrote: In-game lagging for anyone else? Yeah
|
On December 01 2013 05:06 ymir233 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 05:00 SKC wrote:On December 01 2013 04:57 TheYango wrote:On December 01 2013 04:53 SKC wrote: Fixing a sympton is fine. Plenty of heroes received no changes and were suddenly overpowered or underpowered because of changes to the gameplay. They were often nerfed/buffed to compensate. The question should be whether the change that made Midas so good was good for the game and whether there is a good change to the game that can also help fixing Midas. If that's not the case, there is no reason why you cannot nerf an item that became good because of how the gameplay developed. There is nothing inheremtly wrong with fixing symptons. Well, no, because if what makes Midas boring is that lull in the action that promotes its use (an item being boring by itself makes no sense, only the gameplay associated with it can be boring), nerfing Midas won't fix that. The question is whether you can easily fix that lull in the action. It's mostly because of the increase in difficulty of pushing into higher tiers of towers, requiring the winning team to play passive and prepare better before pushing. A change that promotes pushing your advantage immediatly may also cause the game to be more snowbally and diminish the defenders advantage that creates amazing comebacks and great games. Changing Midas is a easier and less impactfull choice than changing the core of how the game is played, specially so soon after a major patch. It's a safer choice and I really wouldn't be surprised to see it nerfed. The reason why midas isn't punished as well and passive play is preferred instead is that people are still pretty sloppy in timings in Dota 2 (as well as timings being more fuzzy overall within the game), so if you don't have too many overlapping midases it's hard to punish when you don't know the timings unless you're constantly roaming around causing pressure/chaos like Na'Vi do. I'm not sure if I would support a midas change just because people are too lazy to learn more precise timings. You are saying nothing needs to be fixed. Yango is saying the core gameplay needs to be fixed, not Midas. Diferent things.
|
On December 01 2013 04:48 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 04:46 Manit0u wrote:On December 01 2013 04:37 govie wrote:On December 01 2013 04:28 trinxified wrote: Hence why Midas ruins games now. Imagine if item was removed. Heroes will actually get their core items now without having to debate if Midas is better. I dont agree. The midas gives the supports more farm, making the game more dynamic. There is more damage then just a carry, semi carry. I think midas is a blessing for supports and a more dynamic dota2 teamfight. They should do it the way HoN did. Support gold for kills. You get the gold (and it's as much as 150g) if you participated in the kill (if you hit the hero that dies later with one auto-attack for example or if you cast a spell on him). And you get this gold regardless if you're anywhere near the kill (you can even be dead at the time). This helps supports with their farm immensely and makes for faster item progression overall and thus more dynamic environment. Support gold exists, and it can be quite meaningful. But you get it from being near a kill instead of getting an assist.
And that's the problem. With you getting gold from assist (as opposed to being near the kill) it's much easier for squishy supports to get it.
|
On December 01 2013 05:07 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 05:06 ymir233 wrote:On December 01 2013 05:00 SKC wrote:On December 01 2013 04:57 TheYango wrote:On December 01 2013 04:53 SKC wrote: Fixing a sympton is fine. Plenty of heroes received no changes and were suddenly overpowered or underpowered because of changes to the gameplay. They were often nerfed/buffed to compensate. The question should be whether the change that made Midas so good was good for the game and whether there is a good change to the game that can also help fixing Midas. If that's not the case, there is no reason why you cannot nerf an item that became good because of how the gameplay developed. There is nothing inheremtly wrong with fixing symptons. Well, no, because if what makes Midas boring is that lull in the action that promotes its use (an item being boring by itself makes no sense, only the gameplay associated with it can be boring), nerfing Midas won't fix that. The question is whether you can easily fix that lull in the action. It's mostly because of the increase in difficulty of pushing into higher tiers of towers, requiring the winning team to play passive and prepare better before pushing. A change that promotes pushing your advantage immediatly may also cause the game to be more snowbally and diminish the defenders advantage that creates amazing comebacks and great games. Changing Midas is a easier and less impactfull choice than changing the core of how the game is played, specially so soon after a major patch. It's a safer choice and I really wouldn't be surprised to see it nerfed. The reason why midas isn't punished as well and passive play is preferred instead is that people are still pretty sloppy in timings in Dota 2 (as well as timings being more fuzzy overall within the game), so if you don't have too many overlapping midases it's hard to punish when you don't know the timings unless you're constantly roaming around causing pressure/chaos like Na'Vi do. I'm not sure if I would support a midas change just because people are too lazy to learn more precise timings. You are saying nothing needs to be fixed. Yango is saying the core gameplay needs to be fixed, not Midas. Diferent things.
I said midas shouldn't be changed so casually like that and you threw my suggestion onto the roadside - good thing you put words into my mouth for me - ______ -
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 01 2013 05:05 SKC wrote: And wasn't it common for teams to farm for 5-10 minutes or a Rosh before pushing high ground before the Midas craze? Yet far less people complained about it than they do about Midas. It's a much harder issue to fix. I think that's a difference in expectation. High ground defender's advantage has always been that large. It's normal to people to have that lull prior to a high ground push and it's usually accompanied by gem+aggressive ward map pressure, so it's not really passive in the same way.
A lull in action from pushing T1->T2 is weird for people, especially since for the most of DotA 2, a team being able to steamroll directly from T1 to T2 with their advantage was the norm.
|
One "off-topic" question, whats the typical age Dota/Dota2 players retire ? Loda/Xboct are 25
|
Trixi overextending
|
On December 01 2013 05:09 Faruko wrote: One "off-topic" question, whats the typical age Dota 2 players retire ? Loda/Xboct are 25 Dota players don't retire. Hard to answer it.
|
United States47024 Posts
On December 01 2013 05:07 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 04:48 SKC wrote:On December 01 2013 04:46 Manit0u wrote:On December 01 2013 04:37 govie wrote:On December 01 2013 04:28 trinxified wrote: Hence why Midas ruins games now. Imagine if item was removed. Heroes will actually get their core items now without having to debate if Midas is better. I dont agree. The midas gives the supports more farm, making the game more dynamic. There is more damage then just a carry, semi carry. I think midas is a blessing for supports and a more dynamic dota2 teamfight. They should do it the way HoN did. Support gold for kills. You get the gold (and it's as much as 150g) if you participated in the kill (if you hit the hero that dies later with one auto-attack for example or if you cast a spell on him). And you get this gold regardless if you're anywhere near the kill (you can even be dead at the time). This helps supports with their farm immensely and makes for faster item progression overall and thus more dynamic environment. Support gold exists, and it can be quite meaningful. But you get it from being near a kill instead of getting an assist. And that's the problem. With you getting gold from assist (as opposed to being near the kill) it's much easier for squishy supports to get it. 1300 range is extremely lenient. For the most part it's actually easier to be in 1300 range when the enemy hero dies than to have actually contributed something directly to the kill.
|
|
|
On December 01 2013 05:07 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2013 04:48 SKC wrote:On December 01 2013 04:46 Manit0u wrote:On December 01 2013 04:37 govie wrote:On December 01 2013 04:28 trinxified wrote: Hence why Midas ruins games now. Imagine if item was removed. Heroes will actually get their core items now without having to debate if Midas is better. I dont agree. The midas gives the supports more farm, making the game more dynamic. There is more damage then just a carry, semi carry. I think midas is a blessing for supports and a more dynamic dota2 teamfight. They should do it the way HoN did. Support gold for kills. You get the gold (and it's as much as 150g) if you participated in the kill (if you hit the hero that dies later with one auto-attack for example or if you cast a spell on him). And you get this gold regardless if you're anywhere near the kill (you can even be dead at the time). This helps supports with their farm immensely and makes for faster item progression overall and thus more dynamic environment. Support gold exists, and it can be quite meaningful. But you get it from being near a kill instead of getting an assist. And that's the problem. With you getting gold from assist (as opposed to being near the kill) it's much easier for squishy supports to get it. what
the gold aoe is huge (1300 range)
hows landing a spell or right click easier than just being in the area
|
On December 01 2013 05:09 Faruko wrote: One "off-topic" question, whats the typical age Dota/Dota2 players retire ? Loda/Xboct are 25 25 is pretty normal. I imagine Loda and Hvost are gonna stick around until they stop getting paid, though.
|
On December 01 2013 05:09 Faruko wrote: One "off-topic" question, whats the typical age Dota/Dota2 players retire ? Loda/Xboct are 25
I think Dota does not require as young an age as things like FPS and RTS. Even in Starcraft WhiteRa, Nestea etc show you can definitely go until 30.
|
Czech Republic18921 Posts
Freezing Field, motherfucker.
|
In-game starting to lag more and more Wonder if the streams are any better
|
Well the meta will evolve to punish the midas kinda like the EE stack strat or it becomes more passive. Its far too early to tell. Midas also makes alot more heroes viable. It might be easier to make midas cheaper but give less gold and the same amount of xp.
|
|
|
|
|
|