|
Same rules apply, per usual. Please use the appropriate threads (QQ, Brag, Champion, etc) whenever appropriate. Keep the resident Banling content.
Thanks. Happy Gaming. |
On March 08 2012 23:21 TheYango wrote:As much as Riot might call it un-fun gameplay, I think there's something that having off-screen or invisible threats adds to the experience. In LoL, most threats are on your screen for a good 2-3 seconds before you absolutely cannot do anything about it (more so when you consider infinite wards). There's a certain amount of foresight that needs to go into predicting threats that can instantly jump you from out of your vision, and a certain amount of intelligent risk-taking that's required to maximize your gains while accounting for those threats. It creates tension, excitement, and action that really just aren't the same with most heroes in LoL (though there are a few that do present this kind of threat--it's often on a long cooldown). Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 23:06 BlueSpace wrote:On March 08 2012 21:40 TheYango wrote:Quoting myself from Smash's blog thread because it's relevant to this "difficulty" discussion: And frankly, I don’t see how these higher level facets of the MOBA genre are so much easier in LoL than they are in DotA. I think that as LoL is right now, the general understanding of these concepts of team composition and general game-flow are much less fleshed-out than in the DotA--but that's almost entirely a product of the fact that LoL is a young game right now. The teams that are good right now don't need to be good at a lot of those things yet, because the level of play *currently* isn't that high. It's like Two_Down mentioned in another thread--drafting as a skill is barely necessary in competitive play because teams often just pick 5 heroes that their team is capable of playing well. Whether the game is inherently less skillful remains to be seen, but right now the demand on an individual competitive player to, for example, know all the heroes, or even all the heroes in their role exhaustively, is not there. Put simply, it's hard to disjoin the difficulty of the inherent qualities of the game from the difficulty of the competition. To use a Starcraft example--is SC2 easy because the game is inherently easier, or because Flash isn't playing yet? I think the entire difficulty discussion between LoL and Dota is hilarious if you think about it in terms of early ganking. It is actually more difficult to dive and gank in LoL then in Dota because towers are so powerful. And that is not even relevant because it has nothing to do with the skills of the players that are involved. LoL is made in a way that towers are more powerful and therefore you can't dive as effectively at low lvl. It's a simple design choice and has nothing to do with the "general skill levels" of the players. But the I meet the sentiment everywhere that Dota is more skillful then LoL because you can gank better in early laning phase or better dominate your opponent. It's like saying that soccer is an easier sport then basketball, because the teams score less points in soccer. Diving is actually just as dangerous, if not more so in DotA than in LoL. If someone's teammates aren't retarded, you will have 1-4 TPs to that tower if that person is rescuable. Towers do more damage in LoL, sure, but towers can't stun you--heroes that TP in can. If ganking is easier in DotA, it is a product of: - Less map vision, due to limited wards, Smoke of Deceit, and day/night vision. - Less escapes - More, and longer CC (by level 6-7, many heroes already have access to 3-4 second stuns).
You kind of missed my point there. I was talking about early laning. You might very well be right, that different mechanics are more important then the relative weakness of towers.
But that doesn't really matter, because I was trying to argue that easier/more difficult ganking due to different mechanics cannot be a good measure for the skill needed to play LoL/Dota.
|
On March 08 2012 23:15 Two_DoWn wrote:
Everyone and their mother has a dissable in dota.
And everyone and their mother has either a cc or a gap closer in lol. your point ?
|
Fiora is really growing on me, theres very little champions that she cant beat in a straight up fight. I got 'counterpicked' by an Akali the other day, was happy to see that Fioras W blocks that after-Q attack nicely, negating half the damage.
Udyr is a tough cookie to crack, shen is shen and vs irelia its a freefarm for everyone
|
The whole "SC/BW requires more APM than DOTA games" argument kinda annoys me. It's just something that really has no relevance to 99% of people who play the game.
Most of what allows you to be a decent Starcraft player is game knowledge and solid macro. That means knowing builds for your race, how to scout and take important information from scouting, how to watch your supply and resources and keep them under control, and decision making under pressure. Just like in League, sometimes you might need to have absolute split second reactions to dodge some important ability but most of the time it's just about last-hitting well while watching your mini-map and knowing everything you can about the game and the champions in it. Someone who can marine split perfectly but doesn't have sufficient game knowledge or macro mechanics or whatever will never be good, because it's a strategy based game where knowledge is important, just like LoL.
The endpoint of that argument is to suggest that only something like Quake is a true test of "skill" since it's the game where reaction speed and so on is the most important, but I doubt anyone who follows esports truly believes that.
|
On March 08 2012 22:50 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2012 22:00 TheYango wrote:
As far as spectating goes, I'd say the absolute worst thing for LoL is that phase of the game where regardless of everything else, Baron pressure becomes enormous, and both teams start posturing mid like it's an ARAM. Then both teams just posture for about 2 minutes until someone derps and gets hit by a Morgana binding or something and his team gets fucked because of it. As a spectator experience, that's absolutely terrible. The buildup is boring as fuck, and the resolution is anticlimactic. I blame a couple things. First: Not enough high/low ground alternation and vision block Second: The area around baron is too clumped up Third: No 1200 range blink Fourth: Not enough hard initiates
they could just lessen the reward of baron. right now when there is a baron contest, especially late game where you can 2 man him easily, the result in so binary. you either get 1500 team gold and a buff, or you get nothing.
if it was possible to 'defend' baron with 4 while another person farmed. it would be more interesting to see how the dynamic shifted, the team of 5 forcing baron would be in a race against time to make it worth the loss of farming to get him.
it feels like baron just isnt powerful enough, and because he only engages when attacked and cant move its easy to avoid him till you have control of the area.
|
United States47024 Posts
I mean, a large part of it is more the multitasking requirement--where at the micro level you have to make many somewhat disparate small-scale decisions that will tie into your overall gameplan over the next few minutes, but in ways that may not necessarily be immediately apparent. LoL doesn't have that requirement, because all micro-level decisions are made in the context of your hero.
On March 09 2012 00:26 turdburgler wrote:
they could just lessen the reward of baron. right now when there is a baron contest, especially late game where you can 2 man him easily, the result in so binary. you either get 1500 team gold and a buff, or you get nothing.
if it was possible to 'defend' baron with 4 while another person farmed. it would be more interesting to see how the dynamic shifted, the team of 5 forcing baron would be in a race against time to make it worth the loss of farming to get him.
it feels like baron just isnt powerful enough, and because he only engages when attacked and cant move its easy to avoid him till you have control of the area.
I think it's T_D that said a while back that Baron is "too strong" in that his debuffs are too powerful, and being the team that engaged Baron first is too punishing in a fight, but at the same time "too weak" in that he's killed too quickly.
|
I still maintain that the only criteria for a game being competitive is the amount of competition you face. I can make the most horrifyingly mechanically challenging game in the world that you can't play without 10 years of practice, but it's not competitive if no one else bloody plays it.
LoL is competitive because there's a ton of LoL players. Contrary to elitist beliefs, you can actually be competitive even if you bloody suck at a game, so long as you're playing against someone who is a good match for you.
A game being competitive and whether it's viable as a spectator sport is different issue, though.
|
On March 09 2012 00:27 TheYango wrote:I mean, a large part of it is more the multitasking requirement--where at the micro level you have to make many somewhat disparate small-scale decisions that will tie into your overall gameplan over the next few minutes, but in ways that may not necessarily be immediately apparent. LoL doesn't have that requirement, because all micro-level decisions are made in the context of your hero. Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 00:26 turdburgler wrote:
they could just lessen the reward of baron. right now when there is a baron contest, especially late game where you can 2 man him easily, the result in so binary. you either get 1500 team gold and a buff, or you get nothing.
if it was possible to 'defend' baron with 4 while another person farmed. it would be more interesting to see how the dynamic shifted, the team of 5 forcing baron would be in a race against time to make it worth the loss of farming to get him.
it feels like baron just isnt powerful enough, and because he only engages when attacked and cant move its easy to avoid him till you have control of the area. I think it's T_D that said a while back that Baron is "too strong" in that his debuffs are too powerful, and being the team that engaged Baron first is too punishing in a fight, but at the same time "too weak" in that he's killed too quickly.
Yar that was me.
ATM Baron sets up a play where you cant do it because you will get aced, but you cant go somewhere else because then the enemy will get it and win the game. So baron ends up limiting play and decisions more than it creates them.
I think you either need to move in the dota direction and just have it drop a single buff, that while powerful, doesnt mean the game is over, or switch it up so that baron has a shit ton of health but doesnt do a lot of damage, or some combination of the 2.
|
On March 09 2012 00:30 Juicyfruit wrote:
I still maintain that the only criteria for a game being competitive is the amount of competition you face. I can make the most horrifyingly mechanically challenging game in the world that you can't play without 10 years of practice, but it's not competitive if no one else bloody plays it.
LoL is competitive because there's a ton of LoL players. Contrary to elitist beliefs, you can actually be competitive even if you bloody suck at a game, so long as you're playing against someone who is a good match for you.
A game being competitive and whether it's viable as a spectator sport is different issue, though.
this is true to an extent, but tic tac toe is played around the world but isnt competitive because the game is so simple its been solved. there is a correct move in every situation, which always results in a tie.
|
Well, the thing is that tic tac toe not a "competition" at that point because it's not a game once you've beaten
it. However, I think that it's a perfectly valid 2-man competition up until the point where one party member figured out the optimal solution.
|
On March 09 2012 00:43 Juicyfruit wrote:
Well, the thing is that tic tac toe not a "competition" at that point because it's not a game once you've beaten
it. However, I think that it's a perfectly valid 2-man competition up until the point where one party member figured out the optimal solution.
Yes except the depth of a game is directly related to how easy it is to figure out the optimal solution.
Tic tac toe has no depth whatsoever and therefore is not really a useful example.
|
On March 09 2012 00:21 Gondlem wrote:
The whole "SC/BW requires more APM than DOTA games" argument kinda annoys me. It's just something that really has no relevance to 99% of people who play the game.
Most of what allows you to be a decent Starcraft player is game knowledge and solid macro. That means knowing builds for your race, how to scout and take important information from scouting, how to watch your supply and resources and keep them under control, and decision making under pressure. Just like in League, sometimes you might need to have absolute split second reactions to dodge some important ability but most of the time it's just about last-hitting well while watching your mini-map and knowing everything you can about the game and the champions in it. Someone who can marine split perfectly but doesn't have sufficient game knowledge or macro mechanics or whatever will never be good, because it's a strategy based game where knowledge is important, just like LoL.
The endpoint of that argument is to suggest that only something like Quake is a true test of "skill" since it's the game where reaction speed and so on is the most important, but I doubt anyone who follows esports truly believes that.
i need to kick the ball with my foot more in soccer than in basketball
this is what i think of the apm argument
anyways chu8 playing bot lane jarvan with his friend maokai support bot lane, they didn't do too well (but not too bad) in lane vs corki soraka, they ended up winning the game, and it wasn't in the highest elo ever but i've been wanting to see chu try more new stuff ^^
|
On March 09 2012 01:07 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 00:43 Juicyfruit wrote:
Well, the thing is that tic tac toe not a "competition" at that point because it's not a game once you've beaten
it. However, I think that it's a perfectly valid 2-man competition up until the point where one party member figured out the optimal solution.
Yes except the depth of a game is directly related to how easy it is to figure out the optimal solution. Tic tac toe has no depth whatsoever and therefore is not really a useful example.
But my point is that up until you figured everything out, the game is just as competitive as a game with "more depth". It might take much longer to figure out the optimal solution but that's not what defines how competitive a game is - it's the amount of people who can challenge and compete with you.
|
On March 09 2012 01:20 Juicyfruit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2012 01:07 WaveofShadow wrote:On March 09 2012 00:43 Juicyfruit wrote:
Well, the thing is that tic tac toe not a "competition" at that point because it's not a game once you've beaten
it. However, I think that it's a perfectly valid 2-man competition up until the point where one party member figured out the optimal solution.
Yes except the depth of a game is directly related to how easy it is to figure out the optimal solution. Tic tac toe has no depth whatsoever and therefore is not really a useful example. But my point is that up until you figured everything out, the game is just as competitive as a game with "more depth". It might take much longer to figure out the optimal solution but that's not what defines how competitive a game is - it's the amount of people who can challenge and compete with you.
I can agree with that completely, even though I just think tictactoe is a crappy example. I've just started playing DotA 2 and right away I noticed the level of...let's call them 'variables' in terms of gameplay are way higher than in LoL, both mechanical and strategical. Doesn't say much about the level of competition however since in either game there are two factors crucial to competition in my opinion:
1) the ability to improve oneself
2) a vast and diverse player pool against whom you can play
(2a - people who are better than you at the game - this is a combination of the above two points really.)
Both games have this in abundance, as does chess, making it a good example as well. Tictactoe arguably has neither, therefore it is not competitive.
Interesting thing to note here is that people think a game like Mario Kart isn't competitive and never will be, but if you think about it, it technically fills the above criteria....
(I suppose the second point might be debatable but nontheless, it is a competitive game. Now if one wants to bring competitive on an E-sports level, a whole bunch of other criteria must be added, which opens up a whole new can of worms. Maybe I'll get into this.)
|
|
|
meandering arguments about the viablity/efficiency of various gp/5 seem so interesting to me now
thoughts on getting avarice blade if you're gonna be building ghostblade?
|
I think avarice is alright if you're just going to be afk farming your jungle, but the raw stats on brutalizer are just so much more useful immediately, that its hard to justify sitting on the avarice blade long enough for it to be cost efficient, when brutalizer is so efficient to begin with.
|
On March 08 2012 14:29 barbsq wrote:
ps: y i see no corgis in your blog... it's like if I made a blog without putting any bears in it
I'll find a way to incorperate them into the banner, but I haven't figured it out yet.
|
On March 09 2012 03:39 Sabin010 wrote:
I think avarice is alright if you're just going to be afk farming your jungle, but the raw stats on brutalizer are just so much more useful immediately, that its hard to justify sitting on the avarice blade long enough for it to be cost efficient, when brutalizer is so efficient to begin with.
yeah that's the issue for me, the biggest reason i get youmuu's in the first place is that early game power spike when you first get brutalizer.
but then it seems like such a waste to not pick up avarice since you're gonna be paying for it anyway, which is then countered by the fact that once you have bruta avarice is only 600g cheaper than finishing ghostblade so no matter what i do it seems awkward and inefficient
|
On March 09 2012 03:33 chalice wrote:
meandering arguments about the viablity/efficiency of various gp/5 seem so interesting to me now
thoughts on getting avarice blade if you're gonna be building ghostblade?
Well, of course, when you are getting a Ghostblade SOON (not 5k gold later), then Avarice is good enough. But if you go shop with 1400 gold and buy an Avarice over a Brutalizer, you're going to regret it. If you don't have exceptional amounts of AD (stereoids) or get more than usual out of crit like GP or Trynd, then I would probably also prefer 2 Longswords over an Avarice Blade if I go to shop with 830+ and have neither.
Basically: Ignore the gold/10 stat on Avarice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
