|
I find it interesting that attitudes towards this are polar opposites in dota and lol community.
In LoL, people will tell you, hands down that becoming REALLY good with 2-3 champions is the way to go.
In Dota, people don't like to stick to one champion and just play through all of them, and they would tell you that you need to learn each champions abilities, all roles etc etc.
Obviously both sides have their pros/cons.
What do you guys think ?
The reason i am asking, is that for most of new players, it will be a choice between buying the whole lot of of 450-1350-3150 IP champs and playing them out. Thus having the ability to counter pick, deal with banning, play more roles, knowing what other champions can do etc.
OR saving for that expensive 6300ip champion, and playing him exclusively. Thus becoming really good at him, getting better at skill shots, judging what and when they can pull off, lane dominance etc etc.
1. Why is this so different in dota and lol ? (only reason i can think of is IP restrictions and skill shots which plague lol, while mechanics are brushed aside)
2. What do you think is the better option ?
|
the two aren't mutually exclusive
when i started playing, i played only shen for probably 300 straight games
i still learned what all the other champions do, the roles, and the intricacies of other champs
to be fair i started when there were like... 45 champs, so i could learn them every other week as they filtered in. it'd be much harder now, but still doable. just plan to lose against a champ the first time you see them, then learn what they do that game, and boom you're a better player by losing, and you can still play your favorite/only champ
in the end i'd say runes are more important than a wide champ pool so sticking to 1 champ isn't a bad idea
|
Honestly, do whatever makes you have fun, because that will keep you playing the game, and the more you play the game, the better you'll get. Some people like doing it with one champ, some people like doing it with a ton of them, but it doesn't matter. One is probably better than the other if we're measuring it in terms of how much skill you'll gain over a specific period of time but LoL isn't about how fast you can learn a skillset, IT'S ABOUT HAVING FUN.
|
There's no better option, it's going to depend on the player.
Consider a player who has done nothing but play Ashe, ever. 1000 Ashe games. This player probably knows Ashe inside and out, but even with the best observational skills their ability to play other AD carries, let alone other roles entirely, will be somewhat more limited. It's in this player's best interest to mess around with a greater variety of champions in order to flesh out their understanding of the game.
Now consider a player who constantly swaps champions and roles, never settling on anything. 1000 games later, this player probably knows a lot about many different champions, has a decent grasp of how each role makes decisions, and generally has some good big picture insights into the game. However, they haven't really mastered any particular champion, lack refinement in play or understanding of any given role, and probably have generalized builds that are often dodgy for specific picks. It's in this player's best interest to pick a champion and role and focus themselves.
Everyone probably falls somewhere between these two players. What you really want is a balance between the two, enough focus to understand your role and favored champions really well, but enough breadth of experience and understanding to have a clear picture of the game and where you fit in.
|
If you actually want to get better at the game it's best to learn 3 champs in each roles, if you want to play the game for fun, play them all.
|
Also, some people, like me, can't stand to always play the same champ, and even the same role ( I main support but I love top and mid )
I think it's really up to the people concerned to choose on how they are and how they want to play this game.
Because messing around a lot on many champs and many roles won't get you to 2k elo ( its really unlikely at least ) whereas practicing a lot on 3 to 5 champions ( less than 3 seems really not enough because at high elo if you're that good you'll probably have your 2 mains ban or firstpicked ) you can reach dat elo and then maybe extend even more and get into competitive play.
|
Burden of Knowledge is something that plagues DotA. You HAVE to play almost every hero so you learn how he works. LoL is a lot more intuitive about that.
|
I group my champion pools in 3 categories, the ones I prefer to play, the ones I play situationally (usually as a counterpick or a pick to support a certain comp), and the ones I will never play. Say for mid lane, I currently prefer to play TF, Morde, and Katarina; I also play Swain, Karthus, and Cassiopeia. I would probably never play (say) Ahri or Ryze in ranked even though they are pretty strong and I own them.
I am really fickle when it comes to my champion pool though. Small buffs/nerfs really affect how I place my champions in my pool.
|
People don't get told to "play 2-3 champions" in LoL, but rather to "play 2-3 champions per role". It narrows down to "2-3 champions" if they're able to focus on only one role (think how Shake always gets jungle, or Smash always gets top), but they still need side champions in other roles in case they don't get what they want.
And it doesn't mean "don't play the others at all", you still need to get a grasp of how they work. 
|
I can still name every champ's passive gggggggggggggggg
|
Pub-level DotA is not as matchup dependent as LoL is, nor are the laning assignments set and you have to be prepared to deal with anything. In addition, laning phase could be either really long or really short. You tend to learn heroes, not roles. It doesn't help that certain heroes can play multiple roles depending on their item build.
On the other hand, if you know your matchups in LoL, you can crush your lane and win the game, given the long length of laning phase.
With that said, you still need to practice heroes in DotA specifically. If you don't play any micro-based hero often, your micro skills will be terrible. No amount of Antimage play will prepare you to play as Meepo or Chen, and you need to play them for many, many games to get competent with them. And signature heroes still exist, so it's not like people aren't specializing in DotA either.
|
I agree with 5hit, I'd say it depends on your goal. I play to have fun, so I have a list of champs I want to be able to play well and mostly practice those 10-15, but sometimes I think "screw it, I really want to play TF this game." I go for it, because it's fun.
On the other hand, if your goal is to climb ELO, the thinking is the same as Starcraft: If you can execute one build for each race at a Masters level and everything else at a Platinum level, you're a Masters player. If you can execute a ton of builds at a Diamond level, you're still in Diamond. If you can play 1 champ at an 1800 level but nothing else, you can climb to 1800.
|
That's how I got plat S1 in spite of how bad I was, no joke
l0L
|
I play 3 or so for each role a lot, and then sometimes i play something if it fits the team comp really well (and I've played enough aram with them). eventually i play enough like that, that i'm comfortable playing them normally.
|
I, for one, support playing one champ to really master the champ. Once you know everything and anything there is to know about that champ, your matchups/your lanes, you can then learn other champs/lane but IMO, I think it is better to stick to 1-2 champs. (In a ranked situation of course). I know this is the lamest thing since sliced bread but let's use my favorite Bruce lee quote and change it into a LoL quote.
"“I fear not the summoner who has practiced 100 champs once, but I fear the summoner who has practiced one champ 10,000 times.”"
|
I think around 6-8 champs is the ideal number if you want to versatile and be able to compete.
That said, you still need to play every champ a 4-5 times to get a good understanding of them.
I personally think 3 for every role is too much. I play 0 top 2 jungle 3 ad carry, 4 support(since its same same but different) i don't mid ever so i play 0 there. I have been forced into top once in all my games never been forced into mid. My junglers are Lee and Zed which can top lane and mid lane fine if needed.
|
On January 23 2013 09:14 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
I can still name every champ's passive gggggggggggggggg
thats awesome in a name the champs passive quiz, but do you know what the passives do? XD
I certainly dont know 50% of the champs skills / passives / crap by name or can recall them, but when i come up against them i'll know how they play, what they can do, and when im going to get fucked. I basically know their skillsets by heart, but not by name.
I know how to play a few champs for each role, like its been said already 2/3 each role is good, knowing every champ in the game is hard, but you need to know them to improve / be competitive. You can play the champs once each to get a general grasp, but most of it comes from playing against them and seeing what they can do and how you can assfudge them when they do it.
|
when it came to ban and picks
and when it came to your role is taken
|
I take it youre new. I was new last october with no prior moba experience and for the most part Ive stayed in the jungle, playing various champs. It has been a fun time, but i can say it hasnt developed my last-hitting as much as I wanted to. Im now looking to expand more to mid and top (Ive played some heros in those lanes throughout).
Im no expert, but I think building up a stack of champions you like/intrigues you is the best way to go about it. Buy and play the champions you like. But when a new free rotation comes in, play the free heros that are interesting or you see very often in games. Just a handful of games with popular heros will let you deal with them much more easily, cuz youll know when they are weak/strong/what items they need/etc.
Some heros, like Trundle for instance, you "never" see and he doesnt interest me much, so i never considered playing him.
my 2 cents...
Edit:
By the way, what do you (more experienced, mid-high ELO, etc) guys think about all-pick vs. draft pick when learning the game? All-pick certainly lets you churn out mores games. Ive tried to draft from time to time, but its so frustrating to have to go through 5 drafts and wait 15 mins for a game to start. However the matchups seem more balanced and more meaningful. More games vs. better games - whats the consensus?
Edit2: Some heros lets you learn things faster. I think ziggs, tf, panth for instance lets you get better global map-awareness cuz of their ults. Might be a good choice to learn heros that excels at some skills.
|
On January 23 2013 15:50 Capped wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 09:14 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
I can still name every champ's passive gggggggggggggggg thats awesome in a name the champs passive quiz, but do you know what the passives do? XD I certainly dont know 50% of the champs skills / passives / crap by name or can recall them, but when i come up against them i'll know how they play, what they can do, and when im going to get fucked. I basically know their skillsets by heart, but not by name. I know how to play a few champs for each role, like its been said already 2/3 each role is good, knowing every champ in the game is hard, but you need to know them to improve / be competitive. You can play the champs once each to get a general grasp, but most of it comes from playing against them and seeing what they can do and how you can assfudge them when they do it.
Sorry, I should have been more precise, I know what every champ's passive does.
I can't name even 1/4 of them, but I can tell you what they do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
