|
|
On August 16 2014 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2014 02:23 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2014 02:15 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 16 2014 00:54 lprk wrote:On August 16 2014 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote:
It's really really simple.
1. If HotS does not require skill and strategy, then what separates the winning team from the losing team?
2. What is the point of forcing a game that is decided 20 minutes in, to drag out to 50 minutes, with the last 30 minutes consisting of the winning team kerb-stomping and essentially 1-shotting everyone on the losing team? 1. It does require skill and strategy, but skill cap is lower and strategic options are more limited. 2. It's fun for winning team. 1. Again, if the skill and strategy is so low, then why can't you always win as a result it being so easy to play well due to low skill cap and low strategy? 2. It's a waste of the time for winning team. The game is effectively over after 20 minutes. On August 16 2014 00:55 ComaDose wrote:
1. no one said this
2. you're exaggerating but to answer your snarky question anyway: if they cannot kill your base then the game is not over, for example in league of legends late in the game if you pick someone off and/or manage to get a great engage and teamfight and ace their whole team you can push really hard and probably get one of their inhibs even if the other team is winning by a lot. this evens up the game quite a bit, or you could just end it at 20 min by forfeiting. in either game if you are one shotting the enemy and it takes you 30 min to kill their base you are bad. On August 16 2014 00:56 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2014 00:54 lprk wrote:On August 16 2014 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote:
It's really really simple.
1. If HotS does not require skill and strategy, then what separates the winning team from the losing team?
2. What is the point of forcing a game that is decided 20 minutes in, to drag out to 50 minutes, with the last 30 minutes consisting of the winning team kerb-stomping and essentially 1-shotting everyone on the losing team? 1. It does require skill and strategy, but skill cap is lower and strategic options are more limited. 2. It's fun for winning team. Also, there is that chance of a comeback for the team that is behind, which we have all experienced in other moba. Hell, I have experienced it in Heroes too. On August 16 2014 00:14 ComaDose wrote:On August 16 2014 00:10 paralleluniverse wrote:
Dota 2 and LoL are bad games. yeah well, thats just, like, your opinion, man Let us not forget his epic blog where he provide it by citing the most broker heroes in dota(that every experienced player can shit on because they know how to play the game and the weaknesses of those heroes). No, the game is basically over. But it takes 50 minutes to officially end an average game in Dota 2 even when you have a very snowbally lead that has practically ended the game after 20 minutes. Of course, it this is so great, they could increase the snowball by doubling the HP of the buildings: then you can enjoy games decided 20 minutes in, but won't end until like 1.5 hours, while pointlessly wasting an hour of everyone's time, while the losing team gets stomped over and over. Of course comebacks are possible. Possible as in like 1 in every 100 games. In HotS, it's more like 1 in every 8. But your wrong and your wrong. Sure some games are stomps, but comebacks are the name of dota. Throwing leads is how the game works. The multikill mechanic and the way experience is dealt out for kills means that the team that is behind has gains more from winning a team fight. Its is the game of come backs. You do this a lot, where you act like some expert on Dota when you admit you do not play it a lot. People who are more experienced than you tell you that you are incorrect and you continue to make the same incorrect statements over and over. You cited Riki as being an overpowered hero, which is just simply incorrect on so many levels and the thing new, bad players say when they start playing. Seriously, stop being the Fox News of this thread and just stating incorrect information over and over. Comebacks almost never happen. I know because I've played hundreds of hours of Dota and have watched TI. It's not impossible for comebacks to happens. But then again, it's not impossible that a supernova destroys the Earth tomorrow.
I think you and I might be playing a different game or you just are bad at analyzing those 100 hours of dota. If you think come backs are impossible, you just simply don't know how the game works or understand Dota.
|
Might want to tone down the vendetta a bit, paralleluniverse... You're acting as if every single game of Dota 2 is decided within the first 20 minutes. It's often not the case. It reminds me of those people who call out "gg" when their team is losing 0-5 or something. Come backs in Dota 2 are very possible, and happen a whole lot.
Also, nobody said the strategy and skill factor of HotS was low. People said it was lower than in Dota 2 and LoL, which is true. Essential mechanics like last hitting and denying are removed, experience is shared on the whole map, etc. All of this is replaced by further interaction with the map, e.g. creeps and the AI.
They're just different types of games. HotS is Blizzard's take on the whole MOBA genre, and so far I quite like it. There is no need to bash other games and praise HotS as the ultimate version of MOBAs.
|
or maybe his team does never come back cause he's toxic as fuck and afk's after 20 min every game cause its over 
|
But telling your teammates they are terrible makes them play better. Being nice to them only rewards them being bad, which will just lead to them losing.
Spare the rod...
|
Just ignore him, it's a troll that probably never played dota/lol.
|
What makes it difficult to comeback in dota is not the game itself, but the people who give up instantly if the game is going bad for them.
High ground advantage is really a huge deal. The way items work also makes comebacks easier. Bkbs last less and self. And then, the best comeback item you can wish for: Smoke of deceit.
Also, your opponents getting cocky also helps a lot.
Yesterday I won a game where he lost ALL lanes. (ok the Bunty hunter offlane didn't went so bad, he died once, and let a void free farm, but hey! he got a fast 6 and a double kill once he it it!) Kunka lost a mid badly to a morphling, and the safe lane AM got destroyed by tiny lina. We where down by 10 kills. Then we started playing more defensibly, and eventually we won by picking good fights and AM split pushing.
If you can win a game that goes that badly against a such a tri core. You can win other games that don't start so terribly. You just have to not give up, and be smart.
|
since when do dota games take until 50+ mins to end
most of mine end around 35-40
|
On August 16 2014 06:37 Shaella wrote:
since when do dota games take until 50+ mins to end
most of mine end around 35-40
u have too many digits in ur mmr to understand
|
On August 16 2014 04:39 TMG26 wrote:
What makes it difficult to comeback in dota is not the game itself, but the people who give up instantly if the game is going bad for them.
High ground advantage is really a huge deal. The way items work also makes comebacks easier. Bkbs last less and self. And then, the best comeback item you can wish for: Smoke of deceit.
Also, your opponents getting cocky also helps a lot.
Yesterday I won a game where he lost ALL lanes. (ok the Bunty hunter offlane didn't went so bad, he died once, and let a void free farm, but hey! he got a fast 6 and a double kill once he it it!) Kunka lost a mid badly to a morphling, and the safe lane AM got destroyed by tiny lina. We where down by 10 kills. Then we started playing more defensibly, and eventually we won by picking good fights and AM split pushing.
If you can win a game that goes that badly against a such a tri core. You can win other games that don't start so terribly. You just have to not give up, and be smart.
On August 16 2014 02:30 Spaylz wrote:
Might want to tone down the vendetta a bit, paralleluniverse... You're acting as if every single game of Dota 2 is decided within the first 20 minutes. It's often not the case. It reminds me of those people who call out "gg" when their team is losing 0-5 or something. Come backs in Dota 2 are very possible, and happen a whole lot.
On August 16 2014 02:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2014 02:26 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 16 2014 02:23 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2014 02:15 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 16 2014 00:54 lprk wrote:On August 16 2014 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote:
It's really really simple.
1. If HotS does not require skill and strategy, then what separates the winning team from the losing team?
2. What is the point of forcing a game that is decided 20 minutes in, to drag out to 50 minutes, with the last 30 minutes consisting of the winning team kerb-stomping and essentially 1-shotting everyone on the losing team? 1. It does require skill and strategy, but skill cap is lower and strategic options are more limited. 2. It's fun for winning team. 1. Again, if the skill and strategy is so low, then why can't you always win as a result it being so easy to play well due to low skill cap and low strategy? 2. It's a waste of the time for winning team. The game is effectively over after 20 minutes. On August 16 2014 00:55 ComaDose wrote:
1. no one said this
2. you're exaggerating but to answer your snarky question anyway: if they cannot kill your base then the game is not over, for example in league of legends late in the game if you pick someone off and/or manage to get a great engage and teamfight and ace their whole team you can push really hard and probably get one of their inhibs even if the other team is winning by a lot. this evens up the game quite a bit, or you could just end it at 20 min by forfeiting. in either game if you are one shotting the enemy and it takes you 30 min to kill their base you are bad. On August 16 2014 00:56 Plansix wrote:On August 16 2014 00:54 lprk wrote:On August 16 2014 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote:
It's really really simple.
1. If HotS does not require skill and strategy, then what separates the winning team from the losing team?
2. What is the point of forcing a game that is decided 20 minutes in, to drag out to 50 minutes, with the last 30 minutes consisting of the winning team kerb-stomping and essentially 1-shotting everyone on the losing team? 1. It does require skill and strategy, but skill cap is lower and strategic options are more limited. 2. It's fun for winning team. Also, there is that chance of a comeback for the team that is behind, which we have all experienced in other moba. Hell, I have experienced it in Heroes too. On August 16 2014 00:14 ComaDose wrote:On August 16 2014 00:10 paralleluniverse wrote:
Dota 2 and LoL are bad games. yeah well, thats just, like, your opinion, man Let us not forget his epic blog where he provide it by citing the most broker heroes in dota(that every experienced player can shit on because they know how to play the game and the weaknesses of those heroes). No, the game is basically over. But it takes 50 minutes to officially end an average game in Dota 2 even when you have a very snowbally lead that has practically ended the game after 20 minutes. Of course, it this is so great, they could increase the snowball by doubling the HP of the buildings: then you can enjoy games decided 20 minutes in, but won't end until like 1.5 hours, while pointlessly wasting an hour of everyone's time, while the losing team gets stomped over and over. Of course comebacks are possible. Possible as in like 1 in every 100 games. In HotS, it's more like 1 in every 8. But your wrong and your wrong. Sure some games are stomps, but comebacks are the name of dota. Throwing leads is how the game works. The multikill mechanic and the way experience is dealt out for kills means that the team that is behind has gains more from winning a team fight. Its is the game of come backs. You do this a lot, where you act like some expert on Dota when you admit you do not play it a lot. People who are more experienced than you tell you that you are incorrect and you continue to make the same incorrect statements over and over. You cited Riki as being an overpowered hero, which is just simply incorrect on so many levels and the thing new, bad players say when they start playing. Seriously, stop being the Fox News of this thread and just stating incorrect information over and over. Comebacks almost never happen. I know because I've played hundreds of hours of Dota and have watched TI. It's not impossible for comebacks to happens. But then again, it's not impossible that a supernova destroys the Earth tomorrow. I think you and I might be playing a different game or you just are bad at analyzing those 100 hours of dota. If you think come backs are impossible, you just simply don't know how the game works or understand Dota.
I specifically said comebacks are NOT impossible. They happen like 1 in every 100 games in Dota 2. But in HotS, it happens probably more often than in 1 in every 10 games.
I'm not the only person to acknowledge this. Although Dota 2 fans, like many people here, won't admit it, there are plenty of prominent people who have also expressed views that MOBAs are too snowbally and games are already over after around 20 minutes despite dragging out to around 50 minutes, where the last roughly 30 minutes is mostly carries going around essentially 1shotting everyone on the losing team.
Here's TotalBiscuit. Here's Dustin Browder. Dustin Browder again:
There were people on the team against the idea of an item shop and a gold system, as they just allowed those in the lead to remain in the lead and crush the other side. It added a layer of complexity that may not be welcoming to new players. "You guys don't get it. Dota is about shitting on people. That's what it's about," designer Justin Klinchuch said. Browder remembers the moment well. "We look at him and said 'Well that's true, but is that the kind of game we want to make?" Source: http://www.polygon.com/2014/5/21/5723572/heroes-of-the-storm-making-of-blizzard
Finally, some guy call Arthur Gies (just a note: TI4 seems to have shown that in the current metagame, even at the competitive level, comebacks are exceedingly rare).
On August 16 2014 04:32 Klowney wrote:
Just ignore him, it's a troll that probably never played dota/lol.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/460977-rob-pardo-leaves-blizzard-entertainment?page=7#139
On August 16 2014 02:30 Spaylz wrote:
Also, nobody said the strategy and skill factor of HotS was low. People said it was lower than in Dota 2 and LoL, which is true. Essential mechanics like last hitting and denying are removed, experience is shared on the whole map, etc. All of this is replaced by further interaction with the map, e.g. creeps and the AI.
If HotS has so much less skill than Dota 2, then what separates the winning team from the losing team and why can't you always win? The problem is that you're in an archaic, masochistic-gaming mindset whereby you're looking for skill in the wrong places. In HotS, you won't find skill in last hitting or denying (if that add skill then so does removing multiple-unit selection and training unit queues from SC2). Instead you'll find it in executing and winning good team fights around map objectives. The fact is humans can only do a finite number of things at one time. So removing pointless gimmicks and restrictions frees them to focus on other real skills, like strategizing around merc camps and map objectives, landing skillshots, and winning team fights. Therefore, instead of doing less and lowering the skill cap, the skill ceiling doesn't change, it's still bounded by the finite amount of things humans can do just as before, but it shifts where skill is needed.
Suppose, for example, that auto-aiming was added in CS:GO. Does this dumb down the game, reduce skill or kill depth? No. The game will still require as much skill as it does now. Instead of being about aiming, auto-aim would shift the game to be about positioning, strategy, and firing with maximum lethality (minimizing recoil). The team with more skill in avoiding situations where they will be killed by the opponent's auto-aim by being at the right place at the right time would win. The skill of correct positioning would be absolutely critical. So playing CS:GO with auto-aim would require the same amount of skill it requires now, it just emphasizes different types of skills. Thus, the question is not whether removing features reduces skill (it doesn't), it's about WHAT skill the game mechanics emphasize. Is the game about skill in capturing map objectives or skill in memorizing optimal rune builds? Skill in microing armies or skill in fighting against a UI that doesn't have multiple-unit selection? Skill in winning team fights or skill in last hitting creeps?
In short, if you make it easier to do X, people won't simply do less, they will do less X and more Y.
On August 16 2014 02:30 Spaylz wrote:
They're just different types of games. HotS is Blizzard's take on the whole MOBA genre, and so far I quite like it. There is no need to bash other games and praise HotS as the ultimate version of MOBAs.
I made this picture, just for you:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pEhMu8i.png)
Of course if Dota 2 is so great, why not take all the fundamental design mistakes from Dota 2 that HotS specifically fixed, and supercharge them in Dota 2 to make the ultimate MOBA? So here's what that ultimate MOBA would look like.
Last hitting requires skill, but it's not enough skill. The following mechanic will be added to allow skilled players to differentiate themselves: You get +1 basic attack permanently under the following conditions: "If you hit a minion with 2 basic attacks where the time between the two attacks is between 1.4 to 1.6 seconds, then a pop-up appears with a simple arithmetic problem, like '4x13=?', and if you type in the correct answer within 2 seconds,you are awarded +1 basic attack permanently".
It's not enough that many games are practically over after around 20 minutes, yet still last for around 50 minutes. As a result, the HP of buildings has been tripled and dozens of new and way more powerful items have been added. The aim is to increase the snowball, and make games actually last for around 1.5 hours (of course, the game practically and essentially ends after around 20 minutes just as before). No longer will the losing team be stomped for around 30 minutes after the game has already practically ended, they will now be stomped for around 70 minutes until the game actually ends. This will make the game more satisfying, more hardcore, and more fun.
A new class of heroes have been added: super-carries. Super-carries are like carries, but super. Their auto-attack damage scales exponentially with level and also exponentially with items. Clearly carries 1-shotting everyone wasn't enough, super-carries are tuned so that they can instantly vaporize the losing team on sight.
|
you're stupid and so are your arguments.
Also, i like how you take that 'its not enough to succeed' quote to say thats good for you cause they're legitimately shit games, and not realize that exact quote is why dota is fun
And most dota games don't go over 50 minutes, most end at around 30-35 minutes, maybe 40 in the current meta
But more than that, I don't get ur hate boner for Dota
Don't like it? Don't fucking play it or watch it. When you take this mindset of Dota MUST fail u become and extremist douchebag and nobody likes that guy ok
Why you gotta be.. That guy?
Also ur understanding of design concepts is skin deep at best. lol.
srsly dude i don't get ur problem.
|
|
|
Alright. I think that by now, you really need to stop your vendetta. Because that's what it really is.
Let us decompose your arguments.
1. You say come backs happen 1 in every 100 games in Dota 2, and 1 in every 10 games in HotS. What is your sample size on this? How are you calling these stats, other than out of the air? I have about 500 hours of Dota 2 as well (plus thousands and thousands on the original Dota), and I have seen a ton of come backs. As I said earlier, come backs generally happen due to the other team making mistakes. Honestly, the "game over within 20 minutes but lasting another 30" just doesn't happen that often. It does happen, and it's definitely a shortcoming of Dota 2, but no, it's not that frequent.
In TI4, most losses and wins happened in the drafting phase. What games are you using to prove that come backs are rare? VG vs. NB? Where VG drafted the exact same thing four times, and NB, having figured them out, totally crushed them? Or the opposite example perhaps? Where EG drafted greedy lineups against the deathball push of VG, and lost?
You also have to understand that TI4, having such a higher skill level, will not have much room for come backs by default. Come backs happen for two reasons: insane plays, or insane mistakes. At this level, insane mistakes are unlikely to happen, therefore leaving less room for come backs. The biggest mistakes in TI4 happened in the drafting phase really (hello EG vs VG). And even then, I believe there were quite a few come backs in TI4. I definitely recall TeamLiquid having tough games and recovering - unless I am mistaken, one of them was against NewBee, where they had a good start, fumbled in the middle, and closed the deal later on. NB came very close to winning that game, despite being stomped the first 20 minutes.
2. Meaning no offense whatsoever, I have to say the people you quote are laughable. TotalBiscuit may be cool and all, but he's not immune to being wrong. Plus, in that same video you linked, he himself admits that HotS is far less complex than Dota 2 and LoL, and that the game has nowhere near the level of strategy of those two. Something you conveniently left out.
Also, TB released a video on Strife around the same time as the HotS video. In the Strife video, he speaks of HoN a lot. Warning: everything he says about HoN is completely false. All of it (that is, except for the toxicity of the players, which is entirely true). TB is entitled to his own opinion and you're free to agree, but he's not always right and just as any human, he's going to make mistakes and be wrong every now and then. The second person you quote is Dustin Browder, a Blizzard employee. The man in charge of HotS. Do you think he's going to say anything else? Of course he's going to point out the flaws of his direct concurrent (no matter how frequent they are), why wouldn't he? It's marketing.
No clue who the third guy is.
3. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY said winning and losing in HotS was random. Wins and losses happen for many reasons, they are just different than that of Dota 2 and LoL. In Dota 2, you can lose because of your draft, you can lose because of several teamfights, you can lose due to a lack of responsiveness (e.g. your opponent pushes and you don't react) and so on. In HotS, you'll lose because you ignored map objectives. You'll lose because you ignored creep camps. You'll lose because you botched a fight, or got caught.
Have you ever played CM or CD in Dota 2? Those two modes have a TON of strategy to them. With the current hero pool, Dota 2 has MANY strategies available, and drafting is just as important as execution. I'm sorry, but in its current state, HotS cannot reach that level of strategy. Which again, is fine. It's a different game - it doesn't need to be better or worse, it does things differently.
4. Your examples are specious. One can speculate about those changes all they want, we'll never see them: ergo, we'll never know what they would truly do. HotS is in alpha, the game is far from figured out yet. You don't know the metagame, you don't truly know how to be great at it. You don't know the very best talents to get yet, etc. No one does. Do not claim to have such a deep level of understanding of every game that you would know exactly how one given change would affect it. It's ludicrous.
Lastly, I personally prefer HotS at the moment. I find it more enjoyable, easier to digest, and simply extremely fun. It seems to be a great game with huge potential (and when I say potential, I mean potential in strategy, in execution, and many other aspects). I'm mostly arguing with you because you're rather toxic and annoying, and your irrational arguments have no place here. The message on top of the thread clearly states "my game is better than yours" discussions should stay out of here. This means you are free to have your own opinion, you can think Dota 2 is bad, but you can't try and use moronic facts to prove it. Because you can't, thus making it pointless, hence the guideline on top of the thread.
On that note, I'll be playing some HotS over Dota 2 later, because at the moment, that's what I want to do. Simple and harmless.
|
Not sure if vendetta, Blizzard Employee, or just stupid.
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
The only way Hots will overtake Dota is if everyone in the world becomes as retarded and spiteful as parallel.
|
Northern Ireland24437 Posts
On August 16 2014 21:16 ahswtini wrote:
The only way Hots will overtake Dota is if everyone in the world becomes as retarded and spiteful as parallel.
Han ffs
|
And i thought that playing pc games i would never see arguments as stupid as "whose best console!!!111!11".
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
I'm suprised that the game hasn't taken off a little bit, now i'd say twitch is not always a good metric but I very rarely see anyone streaming hots or people interested in watching it. Then again I have watched a bit of Idra's and it didn't really interest me that much, maybe the game isn't that fun to watch for me.
|
The player pool is quite limited.
There are ~3k to 3k7 players on at all times. There was hype when the first wave of the alpha hit, but now it's definitely died down.
I'm not worried though. This is Blizzard. They generated a ton of hype with Hearthstone, and nobody saw it coming. I think that when the beta hits, the game will have more presence on Twitch.
I can't really say whether or not HotS will "overtake" Dota 2 or LoL. It's unlikely. Then again, I really do feel like they made a great game, and with the general fame of the Blizzard games and franchises... I definitely see HotS becoming insanely popular.
|
For Hearthstone, you didn't really have many alternatives to watch. Yes, Magic online exists, but it is nowhere popular as blizzard games are. Then you get a beta, where they are sending invites every few weeks, and you could understand the hype building behind the game.
Hots ? Alpha, limited access (NA people only, right ? except streamers and the like), Dota 2 and LoL are really popular (more than Blizzard games). Etc.
Wave invites could increase the interest, but i don't see being instantly like Dota or LoL at twitch.
|
I'm not sure how exactly the alpha works.
I'm from EU, and I got invited. Same thing for my friend. Is the player pool even separated in regions?
In any case, I didn't mean to say that HotS would instantly grow to Dota 2/Lol numbers. That's not going to happen. But I don't doubt that it'll have some numbers, and possibly grow. Perhaps I'm biased because I enjoy the game a lot. I certainly would like it to be successful and enjoy good popularity. What I don't want is for people to try and rush it into an e-sport.
Please let all that happen by itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
