Last edited by MasterOfInvocation; 2012-11-25 at 12:20 AM.
That was an insane battle at the end of second game EG vs NTH(I think).
http://dota-academy.com/tournament/68/ is just for this Dreamhack Winter (though the finals aren't uploaded yet) but you can also just filter by date. I don't suggest looking further back than mid-october though.
Excellent finals anyway, especially the last 2 games, hoping Loda carried my fantasyleague to the top50 with his 5th freaking Dreamhack win.
Edit: Here's a short vid of the funny Roshan bait by NTH in game 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJkfnIgXfx4
Edit2: I forgot, short version of EG vs Na´Vi: http://i.imgur.com/pyu2O.gif (the game was already over at that point, but still, Fears Sven was pretty strong that game.)
And to the statistics in over-all competitive games doesn't mean anything either(the link Worer provided). In that morph had 52% winrate together with Naga, who also got nerfed.. Yet treant protector who had 60% winrate got a buff. So these numbers mean shit. You have to divide the competitive scene into tiers, not just EVERYONE in the same pool of statistics.
Edit: According to Worer's link, Morphling had a 61% winrate as a hard carry, and 81% winrate when he was solo mid.
Last edited by MasterOfInvocation; 2012-11-25 at 06:49 PM.
I'm not skipping posts, I'm just not quoting them or responding to them. I suppose that is skipping depending on how you look at it. Anything in specific you would like me personally to respond to? Out of curiosity, what evidence did you provide that shows how stats in public games do not matter? I'm not refuting your point, just interested.
Hermanni's argument was that Morph was fine before since he had 53% winrate in pubs, and now to horrible 38% winrate in pubs. Then I said that AM and Broodmother who are both competitive are actually only right above him with a slightly higher winrate. And just to come with another example, Magnus who won all but two games in DHW has a 48% winrate in pubs.
Then Hermanni said that only Morph was so bad that he is terrible in pubs, and doesn't get to see competitive play(Meaning that either a hero is good in pubs, in compeitive play or both). Then I gave a list of other heros that probably see less competitive play than Morph(who I saw picked in G1 as a serious pick, by Orange I believe?), while still having slightly-to-far less than average 50% winrate in pubs.
And I don't think the morphling stats are legit, since EVERYONE played him as a hard carry, and 80% of the games was solo mid. Then why the low 52% overall winrate, but when on those positions(hard carry, solo mid) he has insane high winrates? Only stats of one game playing as position 2, which he won..There are tons of games missing, unless they only record his role and lane position in some games? Then which? High-end compeitive ones like TI2?
I think the stats are off, that's why I didn't mention it.
To close this off I am actually not saying Morph didn't get nerfed too hard, but I am sticking with he needed a nerf.
Last edited by MasterOfInvocation; 2012-11-25 at 11:49 PM.
Win rates, both in pubs and professional scene, mean nothing. I don't see how that proves anything. Actually that would mean a lot if game run by some sort of AI but, well, it's played by different players with different skills and there is also something called "strategy".
Last edited by Kuntantee; 2012-11-26 at 12:30 AM.
Win rates by specific heroes only matter if you start noticing a trend in first pick win percentage going up. If first pick wins ~51% of the time and loses ~49% of the time, individual heroes probably don't matter so much. If a hero like Magnus ends up having a 95% win rate when picked and you suddenly notice that first pick wins 60-65% of the time, and, oh hey, Magnus was picked first a lot, you have a problem.
They do not mean much individually (I would however really enjoy to see such statistics), but I don't fully agree with the last part of your post. From my (somewhat limited) experience, most heroes are pretty straight forward to play. Sure, they're not all as intuitive as Skeleton King or Ursa, but I wouldn't say there's that many heroes which could not be played to at least a passable degree by your average public player. I guess what I'm trying to say is most of the heroes are fairly easy. Across the board win rates get incredibly skewered when you do not see your average pub stomping heroes in professional games (and vice versa), hence them not being a good indicator of how strong a hero is.
I had this discussion earlier with the captain of my clan, it's interesting. I personally don't think that the game should be entirely balanced around the professional scene, or even the high-tier players at large (hence why captains mode is great imo). I can't speak much for public games, as most games I play are lobbies - and the games I watch are either replays or progames/public games with progamers. It does make sense to balance the game around the most average rating, but also around the highest. I am just happy IceFraud is doing his thing..
So far so good I suppose. Now if he can just get the queue times under fifteen minutes for me...
Trying to keep the game competitive for the spectator sport part of the game and still easy to learn and fair for the entry level players is a hard job, you see this struggle with Riot trying to pump heroes out of the machine every few weeks. How do you keep a hero "shallow" enough that anyone can pick it up and learn it in a few days without making it so easy/good that it changes the entire game? I don't envy that part of design.