Long Ass-game (big pix)

[nightmare 101]

I guess DOTA2 doesn't have a meta game to it though, right? That's what I really enjoy about LoL.

How could any competitive strategy game like DoTA not have a metagame? The list of heroes that people consider to be top-tier or even viable picks is constantly shifting as teams experiment with new heroes, item builds and strategies in general. Take Tiny for example. He was added to the beta a long time ago, and teams haven't started really adapting their strategies to fit him until recent

That's not what I mean. Every game has strategy involved - and if it's being actively developed that proposes a challenge. I should have been more specific in my wording. What I meant, was, "Dota2 doesn't have outside factors that influence the game though, right? Like LoL has runes and masteries - Hell, many RPGS do the same sort of thing - though usually specific to classes and not in general. It puts a point of balance in the game which is variable to play style, and is accessible to all, so it's to be expected that someone might be stronger in a certain way off the bat."

So I'm not talking about the interaction between characters in an active game environment.

[Avvatar]

Indeed it does. Commendations, reporting and coaching are all likely to affect games. What with players being generally more polite to each other and new players having more experienced ones whispering in their ears.

[MindFlayer]

That's not what I mean. Every game has strategy involved - and if it's being actively developed that proposes a challenge. I should have been more specific in my wording. What I meant, was, "Dota2 doesn't have outside factors that influence the game though, right? Like LoL has runes and masteries - Hell, many RPGS do the same sort of thing - though usually specific to classes and not in general. It puts a point of balance in the game which is variable to play style, and is accessible to all, so it's to be expected that someone might be stronger in a certain way off the bat."

Dota 2 is not an RPG, nor is it is not intended to be an RPG. It is intended to be a competitive strategy game a la Starcraft 2. Imagine if Starcraft 2 had persistent "bonuses" that carried over through matches i.e. your units get persistently stronger, wouldn't that be ridiculously imbalanced? I don't understand why anyone would want to see these kinds of elements in this genre. The only reason it exists in League is for RIOT to get stupid rich from little kids, it definitely has no positive effect on the gameplay (and their balance team goes on and on and on about their fucking stupid philosphies of "anti-fun" and whatnot).

How does it "put a point of balance" in the game in any way? The heroes need to be balanced around each other, the map needs to be balanced around the gameplay and the items need to be balanced so that they do not interact with any particular hero in any unintended way. We don't need persistent "+1% to crit chance" bonuses for the game to be balanced, in fact it seems directly opposed to any form of balancing.

[nightmare 101]

That's not what I mean. Every game has strategy involved - and if it's being actively developed that proposes a challenge. I should have been more specific in my wording. What I meant, was, "Dota2 doesn't have outside factors that influence the game though, right? Like LoL has runes and masteries - Hell, many RPGS do the same sort of thing - though usually specific to classes and not in general. It puts a point of balance in the game which is variable to play style, and is accessible to all, so it's to be expected that someone might be stronger in a certain way off the bat."

Dota 2 is not an RPG, nor is it is not intended to be an RPG. It is intended to be a competitive strategy game a la Starcraft 2. Imagine if Starcraft 2 had persistent "bonuses" that carried over through matches i.e. your units get persistently stronger, wouldn't that be ridiculously imbalanced? I don't understand why anyone would want to see these kinds of elements in this genre. The only reason it exists in League is for RIOT to get stupid rich from little kids, it definitely has no positive effect on the gameplay (and their balance team goes on and on and on about their fucking stupid philosphies of "anti-fun" and whatnot).

How does it "put a point of balance" in the game in any way? The heroes need to be balanced around each other, the map needs to be balanced around the gameplay and the items need to be balanced so that they do not interact with any particular hero in any unintended way. We don't need persistent "+1% to crit chance" bonuses for the game to be balanced, in fact it seems directly opposed to any form of balancing.

I prefer +flat armor and damage types. With a choice of builds it changes the dynamic of team play depending on the way which you build your character. While I agree about riot including it for money and to keep people playing, it adds an element to game philosophy which wouldn't have been there before. IMO %chance doesn't belong in these kinds of games.

[MindFlayer]

Even flat bonuses are a ridiculous concept to me, I don't understand how any sort of buff that persists from game to game could ever be considered balanced in a game like this. You should be able to have the same chance at the game as any other player on the map, and new players certainly shouldn't be punished by more experienced players who not only have more skill than them but more buffs to their hero.

As for philosophy of the game, there's already tons of that in item builds, skill builds, laning, hero picks, bans, etc. I just don't see why one team should have any immediate advantage already going into the game.

[bh :)]

Even flat bonuses are a ridiculous concept to me, I don't understand how any sort of buff that persists from game to game could ever be considered balanced in a game like this. You should be able to have the same chance at the game as any other player on the map, and new players certainly shouldn't be punished by more experienced players who not only have more skill than them but more buffs to their hero.

As for philosophy of the game, there's already tons of that in item builds, skill builds, laning, hero picks, bans, etc. I just don't see why one team should have any immediate advantage already going into the game.

rune/masteries aren't money related so i don't understand how you guys consider that. considering you cant buy runes with RP and masteries are delivered every level up, you can't "buy power" nor could you ever. is it dumb to have? yes. but is it some kind of greedy scam? not really. i'd be more worried about 6.3k ip champs than rune/masteries

not to say i agree with runes/masteries. rather dumb.

[NightFantom]

i do agree with runes/masteries, at lv 30 everyone should be getting top-tier runesets for their favorite champs asap
a friend of mine is trying out some rune combinations which may sound ridiculous but every game he plays to the maximum potential of his runes (e.g with AP kog'maw, he's used movement quints = epic escape ability "HAHA KEEP CHASING SUCKAS", mana regen quints = permanent harass "LET'S PLAY A GAME, IT'S CALLED TANK THE DAMAGE", flat ap quints = huge damage "BOOOOM! U DEAD, BRO?" etc)
runes imo add to the skillcap of a game, and since you can't buy runes (on of the few things riot did out of love for the game and not for money) it's not pay-to-win in any way
and with the ELO system (well, how it's intended anyway, it looks kinda broken at some times..) you should always be fighting people your own skill level (being your true skill with the champ you're playing, the runes/masteries you're using and the champs your team picks / bans, the champs the enemy team picks / bans, summoner spells, item choices, positioning, ...)
and for runes being an advantage, it's only a straight advantage if the enemy champ is too stupid to buy/use runes themselves
before lv 30 skill is all that matters, runes barely change a thing, and at lv 30 runes are obligatory
how you use them however is up to you, if you use them better, that's a straight advantage based on skill, not on runes

the stat system in dota2 is a bit different from lol though, and the fact that basically everything "special" you can do is an active item makes dota2 radically different, dota's gameplay is a lot more item-dependent, meaning you can make or break a build (or even a team) with 1 item (imo, i haven't played dota2 enough to form an expert opinion)

note: those quotes were based on actual quotes

[nightmare 101]

The reason i agreed somewhat about the greediness was the existence of IP boosts for purchase with RP. Yes, you still have to play games, but you can get your page much quicker with them. It's still only a slight money-making factor to it.

And you said exactly what I was thinking, nightfantom.

[MindFlayer]

Honestly, if you want to play League of Legends, go play League of Legends. But don't bother arguing for the inclusion of runes and masteries in Dota 2 because that's never going to happen (nor should it).

[nightmare 101]

I'm not arguing for it. I'm just wondering if they decided to go the straight style of DOTA and HON or if they actually innovated the genre. From what I have seen, DOTA2 is to DOTA as CS:S is to CS 1.6 - They're essentially the same game.

[Adam]

They've said they aren't going to change anything until they finish porting all of the original Dota over. LoL is newer and its comparatively bland so hopefully Valve's first innovation will be a f2p model that brings in the money without harming the game. Meanwhile a bunch of MOBAs are coming out soon that do things wildly different from both lol and dota.