In-Game Standard Hero Builds Project - Page 296

On April 03 2016 08:54 Belisarius wrote:

But that wasn't where we left off. There were several pages of discussion which arrived at the list that I quoted, which Yango then concurred with and which wasn't really discussed further .

If you didn't agree with that list, no problem. But if you want input, you're better off stating what you disagree with and why, so we can find something you're happy with.

I realise that zeus etc were in the changelog, so "silent" wasn't the correct term, but none of those changes had been asked for up until that point, and then they suddenly ended up in the official version with no explanation or comment. That's pretty confusing and makes me wonder why we spent so much time discussing things in the first place.

I'll take a look at that text. I used the latest portrait list you provided to cross-reference but didn't see much difference. In essence, I did see the last post made about the generally agreed additions and cross-referenced with where my last 'summary' post was left off. I'll take a more thorough look.

Sorry about that.


I think you should keep the section. Support Mirana and QW voker are non-negotiable, at minimum. The rest could be removed until you're ready to discuss and implement them.

Agreed


I said this before: the current version is maxed out because it's trying to do two different builds at once. Furion is an extremely complex hero to build, but what he chooses to buy has very little to do with whether he comes from jungle or offlane, so splitting the guide won't help you.

It sounds like you would prefer to eg. split the orchid build off into the jungle, and do the drums mael build from lane. That would free up space, but unfortunately it's based on a false dichotomy. There isn't much reason why Furion would build orchid more often from jungle or maelstrom from lane, or vice versa.

I would prefer a single Furion build with a single core and a large situational, rather than a confusing dual core that takes up space. Two guides would be fine, and perhaps it's worth it to tell the 2ks that he can be played in lane, but it just seems a bit wasteful to me.

The current Furion build is trying to achieve three builds. We can either create two builds, even if they aren't dictated by offlane/jungle, to try and accommodate all builds or we can make an executive decision and only include XYZ number of builds (1-2 preferably)

Since we were expanding the builds, I didn't want to create that decision alone and opted for two guides to offer the most and the expense of myself with more labour.


Again, if you disagree or would like more input, you should continue asking for it, but you could at least acknowledge the discussion that's already taken place so new people have something to go on and people who commented last time don't feel they need to repeat themselves.

If I recall, the discussion made were: Windranger -> Core + Support itemization and Nyx (Core) was suggested to be Dagon, even though I disagreed with it, I didn't have any argument against it if it meant avoiding deleting guides.

The last one for discussion was for Legion Commander Jungle which was suggested for the same reason as Nyx Core - to avoid deleting.

I didn't disagree and so I kept the suggestions in.

On March 15 2016 08:19 Torte de Lini wrote:
Although I do dislike Jungle Legion, I can see the problem that we have an extra guide with 0 applicability.

On March 15 2016 08:24 Belisarius wrote:

That's fair, although I do wonder how many of your subscribers actually read your announcements. My guess is it's a very small percentage.

So for add/delete, we're currently at:

Keep:
(C), (->S), (C), (J), (->J)

Add:
(S), QE, (S), (O), (C/O)

Delete:
, , , , , , , ,
(C), (C), (C), (C), (C), (S), (S)

Consider:
(C), (O), (C), (S),
(C), (O), (C), (O/C), (C)

Is that correct?

On March 15 2016 08:58 Velzi wrote:
How can we keep support WR if it doesnt exist in the first place?

Pudge is pretty much always played as pos4 roaming support nowadays, its been like this for atleast a year already, time to change mid->support?

ET mid isnt really a thing anymore, remove?

On March 15 2016 09:05 Belisarius wrote:
We have two WR guides at the moment. Currently, one is mid and one is lane but both build dps. We change one to core, no questions. Therefore the choice is between deleting the other or setting it to support. "Keep" is probably a bit unclear, but the inertia is in the subscribers, not in whatever the guide is currently set to.

The existing pudge guide should definitely switch to support/roam.

My position on the two ETs is the same as my position on the two warlocks. The hero is unplayed at the moment, and virtually guaranteed to get a buff next patch, but it's a coinflip as to whether icefrog buffs the core or support version. Therefore it's a bad time to delete either.


imo there is no significant difference between core and middle that can't be expressed in tabs. That's the premise the core/support/offlane thing is based on. If we decide that the differences between core and mid are significant enough to warrant separate guides, we may as well scrap the whole thing because your guide numbers balloon right back out.

If you really wanted you could call some core guides "mid" when the hero is exclusively played mid, but I don't think that's necessary.

On March 15 2016 09:51 Nevuk wrote:
Whenever these changes go live you're probably going to want to add a very short definition to core to the guides that got that tag added, as while it is a very common term it isn't ubiquitous and isn't used by valve officially. Something like "Core refers to a hero with high farm priority" as the first line of the guide would probably solve a lot of confusion.

On March 16 2016 07:17 Belisarius wrote:
I agree, I would also prefer to keep earth spirit, myself.

I'm also not sure we do need another prophet, now. In general I think it's better to keep Jungle and non-Jungle guides separate, but prophet skills and builds pretty much the same whether he's laning or not.

The existing guide could probably just be called "Core" with a jungle starting/early tab, provided that is clear enough.

On March 16 2016 07:21 Belisarius wrote:
I think that is a problem in itself. There's no real reason that jungle prophet should get orchid while the other gets mael. I don't even know how a "pusher" core is distinct from a "jungle" core anyway, given the entire guide is for jungle.

Whether or not we split prophet, I would prefer all builds have one clearcut set of post-laning items that work, rather than multiple builds that can be mixed up. This applies to a lot of heroes, like the current BH guide as well.

Earlygame tabs are different because it's clear when they're applicable. You buy mid starting items if you are mid, and safelane starting items if you are safelane. It's much less clear when you might want to buy the "pusher" midgame core or the "roamer" midgame core or whatever, and that leads to confusion and very terrible 1k builds.

On April 03 2016 09:16 Belisarius wrote:
Looking at Furion specifically, I think you could do something like

Starting items: jungle -> tango basi
Starting items: lane -> tango salve RoP gg clarity
(or even -> tango RoP gg gg clarity clarity or something would probably be okay for both)
Earlygame: basi boots stick
Core: phase drums mael (or midas phase orchid if you prefer that build)
Situational: midas shadowblade blink orchid BKB
Extension: deso aghs MKB mjoll daed sheep

And skill like EWEQEREWWWRQQQER (or maybe EWQEER) and that would be fine to cover both.

On April 03 2016 09:23 Belisarius wrote:
Okay sure. That's fine. The fact that you initially left it in after it had been discussed repeatedly made it seem like you either disgreed or didn't feel like it had been covered enough. In either case I felt it would have been more helpful to specifically respond to things from the discussion that you felt you needed more input on.

If you were happy with the conclusions and had just left it in because you forgot/weren't sure, that's fine and removing it is also fine.


There weren't significant differences aside from zues/SB/BH. It was just the fact that we'd discussed everything to death and then suddenly there were a bunch of changes that hadn't come out of the conversation, but also weren't explained.

On April 09 2016 09:10 Velzi wrote:

Perfectly fine, maybe not thaaaat long "iii" at the end but its not a big deal.

Had no time to listen to whole thing right now but i liked the first 30 minutes. Especially the part where u talked about Lina mid guide and the thought process behind e>w @lvl2 and so on.