|
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.
|
I'm one of those people that thinks that its best to learn a couple of champions and stick to them. I believe that you learn how to deal with "counters" and other unpleasant situations. Playing every champion once or twice doesn't really give the person in depth knowledge of what to do in any given situation. Where as experience with a select few would.
On January 23 2013 18:18 Aphasie wrote:
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.
Personally, I find that being in draft is much better because you're able to prepare accordingly for your match up, changing runes/masteries appropriately. Better games should provide better practice and be more enjoyable really allowing you to play more games.
|
On January 23 2013 18:18 Aphasie wrote:
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...
Well, i am not really new. I just had a brake from lol since May xD
I know every champion does up to Varus patch, and since i started again, i have learned most of the new ones as well. )I am asking more out of curiosity. )
But i have only 15 champions i bought from IP, and basic 2 rune pages 
Very interesting advice so far. And its as i would expect , do something in between. Have 2-3 champions for ~4roles you play.
Also, i was thinking that if you wanted to specialize in only one champion, it would be ideal if it was some versatile champ that can play 3+ roles...on top of my head, lee sin/nidalee/gragas/kennen/kayle/nunu....
|
Pick a lane you like.
Invest the rest of your IP on champs, runes, and pages for that lane.
solomid.net or mobafire your opponent before the 2 minute mark to figure out their skills.
Or
Pick a champ you like.
Get runes for him.
Play him in the top, mid and jungle (unless you pick an adc or pure support char)
Then pick a lane you like.
And finally, force yourself to go to other lanes in order to not be completely screwed over in ranked games if you're planning to go on the ladder.
|
As a new player I am kinda going through this I have been playing mainly ash alot and doing well but I also want to learn some other roles beside carry and different players and I can def see a drop in play but in the long run it will make me better
|
I think everyone should spend some time learning jungle and support, preferably with simple(but not necessarily easy)-to-use heroes like nunu and janna. I think those two roles teach you more about game flow and map awareness than the others. Also, playing new roles is fun!
|
On January 23 2013 04:10 Gotmog wrote:
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 ?
To be any good at LoL, you really should be good with a bare minimum of 5 champions (one for each role in the current meta), in case you are forced to play a role that you don't normally play. You also need to be good with back-ups in case your main is banned. So no, LoL players really don't just stick with one or two champions. Also, you are still expected to know all of your opponents' abilities.
|
On January 27 2013 11:33 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 04:10 Gotmog wrote:
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 ?
To be any good at LoL, you really should be good with a bare minimum of 5 champions (one for each role in the current meta), in case you are forced to play a role that you don't normally play. You also need to be good with back-ups in case your main is banned. So no, LoL players really don't just stick with one or two champions. Also, you are still expected to know all of your opponents' abilities.
I disagree. You should definitely have backups but it is extremely slim chance that all of your 3-4 champs will be banned outright, so I'd say 5 is a good medium but not one per role but rather 2-3 roles you're particularly good at. Any others you should really just play to figure out how they work. Even better if you can find people to play with, even a single one.
|
Wouldn't say learn one or two champs or learn all of them. Well this actually applies more to those who solo queue but I think learning how to play 1-2 heroes in each role is the best. There is nothing i hate more than when people get into ranked games, someone calls a lane and then a person is like "but i only know how to play top" etc etc. I wish there was some sort of testing system before you got placed into ranked where you have to win at least a couple games in each role, would hopefully increase some empathy between players ie realizing you can't expect jungle ganks to magically to appear when you over push your lane and other lanes are struggling or how much effort it takes to be a good support.
If you've got a team I guess for the sake of performance it would be much more better play few champs in your set role.
|
On January 23 2013 18:29 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 15:50 Capped wrote: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.
I can name every skill including passives of every champion in the game.
Get on my level.
Soon I'll know every ratio on every ability, but that's for another time (never).
|
There's diminishing returns when you play a champ too much.
|
On January 27 2013 11:33 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2013 04:10 Gotmog wrote:
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 ?
To be any good at LoL, you really should be good with a bare minimum of 5 champions (one for each role in the current meta), in case you are forced to play a role that you don't normally play. You also need to be good with back-ups in case your main is banned. So no, LoL players really don't just stick with one or two champions. Also, you are still expected to know all of your opponents' abilities.
I think 2-3 roles is enough. 5 is a stretch.
|
To play in ranked you need 2 to 3 roles (it helps if ones support), with 2-3 champs for each. There are some players who seem to get by with less, but by only being able to play one role force other players into roles they're not great at. Ideally you should be ok in all 5 at a pinch.
Either way though, learning a wide spread champs is incredibly helpful, because it makes you aware of how to lane against them, cooldowns and so on. I feel far more confident laning against champs I have used a lot, because I know exactly what they are capable of doing.
|
If you're not a pro gamer and you only play one role and refuse to play anything else then I hate you.
|
5 champs per role, all 5 roles - 25 champions.
Why?
The literal worst thing that can happen is your forced to play X role, 3 of your champions for that role are banned out and another is taken by someone.
Then your left with 1 champ you can play ^^ not taking into account counterpicks and whatnot but that chances of 4/5 of your champs being bent over is minimal, your usally have the pick of 3-4 to counterpick with
|
On February 09 2013 22:27 Capped wrote:
5 champs per role, all 5 roles - 25 champions.
Why?
The literal worst thing that can happen is your forced to play X role, 3 of your champions for that role are banned out and another is taken by someone.
Then your left with 1 champ you can play ^^ not taking into account counterpicks and whatnot but that chances of 4/5 of your champs being bent over is minimal, your usally have the pick of 3-4 to counterpick with
The chances of that scenario as well are minimal. I'd say either find champs capable of multiple roles (Shen's been amazing both for top and jungle, for example) if you're really preparing for everything. You want to have the lowest number of champions you play, as long as you feel very comfortable that you will be able to pick one. 25 is definitely a stretch because mastering that many champions and adapting to current meta will take a huge amount of time, and although the rewards will be great if you are proficient with all 25 of them, I'd still say you could put that time into even 15 and play those 15 a lot better than the 10 redundant ones.
|
^ Well multi-role champs are awesome yeah, i didnt mention that..it does the same job only with less champs.
Like nida, lee, lux etc
|
Elise can play every role
(except AD )
|
I play like 5 champs and I never had the situation in ranked that I was forced to play anything different nor did I had the feeling that a bigger champion pool would have been of huge benefit.
I have some more champs I play to a decent level (for my standards) but I never have to play them.
|
I think it's interesting to practice one or two champs a lot for solo queue but it's not if you play competitively because the other team will just ban the champ you're good at..
For example the NA guy called "Best Riven NA" is a sick Riven player and own solo queue, same with XJ9 he's really good with Vi..
|
|
|
On February 10 2013 02:11 Lylat wrote:
I think it's interesting to practice one or two champs a lot for solo queue but it's not if you play competitively because the other team will just ban the champ you're good at..
For example the NA guy called "Best Riven NA" is a sick Riven player and own solo queue, same with XJ9 he's really good with Vi..
Even then Its not too bad because if they are giving you respect bans they have 1 less ban to use against you. You can use that to your advantage if you learn something else :D (froggennivia, hotshotnidaleegg, regis lb, Toyz Orianna, I can go on...)/
|
Wanna be good: Play a pool of champions in one role. Want to be great: Know every champion and all of his abilities.
imo. ^.^
|
I've practiced only one champion for extensive periods of time. During season 2, I had 656 games on Graves alone. I learned not just how to make him work during laning, teamfighting, late game, hyper carry if necessary, etc. but how to deal with other champions as Graves.
I took the liberty of devoting season 3 to Vayne, with 333 games on her so far. I know her far enough to the point where I'm much more comfortable picking her against a Draven or Graves than a safer pick like Ezreal, and I'm more worried about the billion possibilities of how my support can fulfill Murphy's Law.
At least in LoL, you can go champion specific and still learn about any other champion while learning that one champion and how to deal with the rest of the cast. DotA is nowhere as restricted as LoL in terms of roles.
|
Bot lane might be complicated on another level, because you need not only learn the matchup of your own champion, but also how he works with and against all possible supports on bot lane.
Anyway, on topic I've always played a pretty wide selection of champions (mostly without sense or system), but since S3 started I've pretty much restricted myself to jungle/top (prefferebly jungle, but not all ranked queues agree  ) and 3 champions max within those roles. So far I can clearly see a marked improvement in my own games when i get to play one of those 3 junglers.
Restricting myself to a single champion might work, but my favorite jungler has been Xin this season so it would be fairly unrealistic (been banned quite a bit lately and is often picked fast by the enemy team as well). Still the point remains, if you want to get good (instead of just having fun) stick to a smallish champion pool and really learn the ins and outs of those.
Out of interest, if you say you simply want to play 1 champion in ranked how often do you have to dodge queues to get that role? :p Even with jungle not being quite as popular as mid or Top I've had up to 5 games in a row where other people insisted they had to jungle.
|
It's kind of unrealistic to play just one champion in every single game if you play soloq. Even if your champion doesn't get banned or picked often, people will "steal" your role.
I do think that focusing most of your attention on a single champion is a good way to climb the ladder, just look at Destiny. Just make sure you have some backup champions if you don't get to play your ace.
If you play normals with friends, or ranked 5s, it can be possible to get your desired champion every single game though.
Also, when you reach a certain level, you might have to expand your champion pool. Some champions have lanes that are almost unplayable at high levels, when you can't expect your opponent to make stupid mistakes. But for getting to that higher level of play? Go ahead and play 90% of your games with a single champ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
