next »

[Nillo]

From a flavor/story perspective, I think all DOTA-clones ultimately fail because they allow a hero to fight on any side of the conflict. It really doesn't make sense for someone like Lich to be fighting on the Radiant side, and then switch over to Dire for the next game, then back to Radiant. We just allow it because it's convenient for gameplay purposes.

I was talking to a friend who played "Infinite Crisis", which is apparently a DOTA-clone based on the DC universe. Justice League fighting against the Legion of Doom. Heroes fighting villains. Simple enough... except again it lets you pick any character for any side, totally ruining the story. Why is Superman fighting Batman now? No explanation given.

I think what they *could* have done to resolve this problem without harming the gameplay is to design a "good" and a "bad" side of each character. Let's say you pick Superman and take the Justice side. Then you play as regular Superman. But if you pick Superman and join the Legion of Doom, you play as an evil Superman with a different appearance and personality - a more menacing man, who only cares about himself. That would have been cool. But things like that take too much effort, I guess.

[Blademasterbobo]

dont comic book heroes / villains switch sides all the time

think about this for a second: you're saying that something should be as coherent as superhero comic books

[Nillo]

dont comic book heroes / villains switch sides all the time

think about this for a second: you're saying that something should be as coherent as superhero comic books

Honestly, I haven't read a superhero comic book since I was in elementary school, so I probably shouldn't speak about their coherence or their lack of it.

Infinite Crisis looks to me like a very low-effort attempt to cash in on famous character designs. I'm not convinced that there is any valid reason to play it.

[Pandara_RA!]

Hello 4k MMR here, descending into the thread to talk about why your post  about Sven is so frustrating.

A Fed Sven will kill anyone before his stun ends, at least with his team, his ulti will double his DMG and a Daedalus quadruple it, that is about 1000> DMG with a crit and 500 without

At this point in the game in higher mmr, there are normally at least 1-2 force staffs in the game. They will force staff and mek the stunned guy away and CC you...because you dont have a BKB remember.

, enough to kill any support or high damage dealers, agility based heroes and supports which will mostly be your threat as I think Sven is the str hero with the most damage out there and a fed one can kill mostly all right clickers who try to 1v1

Not even remotely true. In a 1vs1, the following heros beat sven with equal gold/exp. Troll warlord, Faceless void, Slark, Phantom lancer, Naga, Razor, Windrunner

The following beat sven without BkB with equal gold/exp. Brewmaster, Viper, Ursa, Tiny...also all heros with strong disables.

If you see that your stun ends earlier you can get a skull basher to get those ministuns just to finish your opponent

Skul basher is one of the least cost effective items early game. Also no attack speed to proc it.

[starsrift]

Does anyone really read/like the flavor texts on hero descriptions / abilities?
They never did anything for me. Unlike in games like MTG where I actually cared and was slowly drawn into a story, Dota's attempt at storytelling feels... just lame.

I just wish they were less vague hints and more fleshed out. I mean there's a lot of characters there, they could've woven together at least a few stories.
I guess nobody really cares for a multiplayer-only game.

[Nillo]

I just wish they were less vague hints and more fleshed out. I mean there's a lot of characters there, they could've woven together at least a few stories.
I guess nobody really cares for a multiplayer-only game.

For all the money that Valve rakes in on Steam, they seem to be an unusually small company. It's a shame, but I think they just don't have the time to think about all that stuff.

[bitserum]

Hello 4k MMR here...

Speaking of which what is everyone's MMR around here?
Mine (solo) is constantly around 2800-3000

[Nillo]

Speaking of which what is everyone's MMR around here?

Well, I don't play ranked, so. Is it even possible to see your normal MMR?

I don't like to compare ratings in games, because I feel that it tends to stifle the discussion of them. It's often used as a crutch to say that someone's opinion is more valuable than others - but if you are truly highly ranked, you should be able to explain your points in a convincing manner without having to rely on your rating to back it up.

Unless we're talking about players below 2k rating, of course. They are literally garbage and people should pay no attention to them. /s

[bitserum]

No idea about the normal MMR, The only reason I'm playing ranked is to push myself to play a bit safer and improve all around; also players are less inclined to leave. I don't like the available modes much though.

As for "values of opinions" I can see that being a crutch, though it really shouldn't faze anyone. After all opinions are like... well you know

[Nillo]

I just looked at my logged matches on Dotabuff, and it seems like some of them are marked as "high skill" or "very high skill". So that's kind of cool, I guess? It seems to shift from game to game, apparently at random.

[bitserum]

Judging by my mostly normal skill you should be above 4k... I think

I don't get Dota buff, why do some matches have no skill rating descriptor?

[Nillo]

Nillo, I want to know why you think lower skilled players are of equal value. Also if the discussion is existing in a realm where the limits and potential isn't understood then it's really not of much worth. Even simple concepts like, whats a good number of last hits by 10minutes won't be something some people are aware of below ~3k mmr, which would be pretty important in discussion about item builds and potential timings.

In general the understanding of how the game works gets worse the lower you go, it shouldn't really come as a surprise as thats basically what the MMR is for.

MMR is a pretty good approximation of how skilled a player is, yes, and it is worth considering in discussions about the game. I'm just saying that I don't like it when people show off their MMR and then use it to validate whatever opinions they have.

If MMR was a perfect measure of knowledge and skill, then there would be no need to have a discussion at all. You would simply find out who is the player with the highest MMR and then accept their statements as fact. In truth, highly ranked players can be wrong about things. A player at the highest level of matchmaking may be unfamiliar with a certain hero, or a certain item. It's entirely possible to get to the top of the ranks while only experiencing a tenth of what the game has to offer.

[Rat Casket]

Hello 4k MMR here...

Speaking of which what is everyone's MMR around here?
Mine (solo) is constantly around 2800-3000

Calibrated at 3.4k solo and 3.5k party.

Not good enough to carry 4 people every game so I'm down to 2.9k solo and 3.1k party.

Just started playing ranked again and I'm starting to climb back up.

[Whiteclaws]

I've came back after 2 years of hiatus (i have no idea what that means but it sounded cool) i found out my last mmr was 1100

but i became better, i promise (I can 30-2 meepo now and carry my team)

[starsrift]

Nillo, I want to know why you think lower skilled players are of equal value. Also if the discussion is existing in a realm where the limits and potential isn't understood then it's really not of much worth. Even simple concepts like, whats a good number of last hits by 10minutes won't be something some people are aware of below ~3k mmr, which would be pretty important in discussion about item builds and potential timings.

In general the understanding of how the game works gets worse the lower you go, it shouldn't really come as a surprise as thats basically what the MMR is for.

As a game designer, I can't help but notice that DotA is one of those games that require multiple skillsets, dominantly both strategic choice and timely play. As a statistic, MMR is a valuable tool after hundreds of games, in evaluating a player's mastery of all involved skills, including general ability to mesh with teammates.

You should be able to observe that when discussing strategy, a player's ability for timely play and teamwork is not necessarily of value. The pro gamers know this, of course; most captains do not play 1st or even 2nd position. One doesn't need the ability to react with a blink-dodge in an instant to create a good draft and call plays. Similarly, many 'casters of games have an encyclopaedic knowledge of what works, and what doesn't, and yet their MMR is shit because they can't work well with others or don't have those split-second teen/early 20's reflexes that seems to be a requirement for those high MMR brackets.
As a game designer (one assumes since you're on tigsource), this should be triply known to you; we usually aren't the best players of our games, whether we're a tiny garage indie or GabeN, even though we fucking designed it, worked on it, and know it inside and out.

Personally, I've only played one ranked DotA2 game, ever. I dislike the AP game mode, and though we won the game and my team loved me for my Enigma play, I didn't find it fun - everyone was taking it too serious. I am perfectly happy in trusting the MMR system to try and find matches the challenge me and get a near 50% winrate, and need to know no more.

tl;dr: Take your elitism and shove it.

[bitserum]

I think you underestimate how low down 2800-3000 MMR is relative to competence to play the game and it might be the people in that range that think they have weight behind their words that need to get their arrogance in check.

as 2800-3000 I just started understanding how to pick heroes that combo "better" with others and when and what to counter-pick (and I do it poorly often). And I still often suck in picking proper items for the game at hand.
Purge makes it all seem so easy  

Anyway yeah, ranked is taken too seriously and I find myself muting 1-2 people every game. I don't play to own with heroes I know how to play, I play to have fun and learn new stuff. So what if I just fluked Zeus with 1-10
I just want a ranking number so I can evaluate myself according to something, and MMR is great for that.

But... I haven't noticed anything less in normal matches. There's "pro-elitism" all around. Maybe least in AR matches, at least that's my experience. That would also be my fav mode, except it feels that it can create crazily unbalanced teams... as a designer I would like to see a more controlled version of AR. Like - don't give us a team of 5 hard carries while the opposition gets all nukers/disablers :S

[Piranha]

Please add me guys, don't have enough TIGS on my friends list.

Steam ID: piranha0

I've played enough Dota now to not be entirely awful!

[Pandara_RA!]

Speaking of which what is everyone's MMR around here?

Well, I don't play ranked, so. Is it even possible to see your normal MMR?

I don't like to compare ratings in games, because I feel that it tends to stifle the discussion of them. It's often used as a crutch to say that someone's opinion is more valuable than others - but if you are truly highly ranked, you should be able to explain your points in a convincing manner without having to rely on your rating to back it up.

Unless we're talking about players below 2k rating, of course. They are literally garbage and people should pay no attention to them. /s

Here is why I mentioned my MMR. People in 4k MMR buy force staffs...along with lot of other utility items. My point is that the build mentioned depends on the enemy not being forced away, enemy building euls etc etc.

My point is bringing the angle that the build will not properly scale into higher MMR because of factors that werent accounted for...the main one being that the people in your MMR are less likely to be buying supportive items, where as in mine is much more likely, making the build more risky.

[PowRTocH]

"i was counterpicked, couldn't do anything!" - meepo



I've been playing some inhouse (random draft) games because I'm so sick of getting paired with shitters and I don't have many people to play with. My average game quality is about 2-4x better. This was my last attempt at solo queue. Probably will be my last attempt because holy fuck.

[starsrift]

Correct me if im wrong, but there seems to be a general consensus that being the idea guy in games without having designed one is a bit of a touchy subject too, right? It makes sense though as there are a lot of things that are better experienced/playtested than written in a design document and certain outcomes are unexpected. But thats completely besides the point.

Not doing something and doing something badly are two different things.

Don't mistake elitism for practicality, theres no need to get emotionally invested in this but it seems i've hit a sore spot. I'm only really talking about the application of a lower skilled players theory crafting and how it exists in a strange fantasy world that is mostly redundant, there are probably people that spend longer discussing theory than playing the game. What or who is this gameplay/theory for?, why do they give it so much thought when they play the game so little. None of this adds up in my mind.

You've hit no sore spot. I'm just adverse to 'you must be x good to even talk about the subject' elitism. A forum isn't a ferris wheel, someone's not going to go flying from their seat at altitude to bonebreaking injury if they aren't tall enough. Elitism sucks and there's no reason to do it here.

Also just to clear up some misconceptions you seem to have about casters, most of them are higher rated than anyone here or on reddit. Icefrog is the main designer for DOTA and he consults the professional players a lot, I wonder why he values their opinion over reddits, it seems he has it all misunderstood. I'm not quite sure of what to take away from your take on game designers, are we talking big picture or comparitively? In the grand scheme of things the designers of said game will be better than the majority at their game, sure you'll be worse than people that go onto speedrun it but thats not a slight against the developers. I think you underestimate how low down 2800-3000 MMR is relative to competence at the game and it might be the people in that range that think they have weight behind their words that need to get their arrogance in check.

You say 2800-3000 MMR, the next guy says 3.5k, the next guy says 4k, etc etc. You wanna see where that ends up, check out the official StarCraft 2 forums. Unless you're a Diamond (or now Master or whatever the top tier is these days) level player, you get insulted for daring to post.
And did you seriously just cite Icefrog asking pro gamers for consults on balance changes and then in the next breath disagree with me saying that developers are not the best players of their games?