1. #3741
    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.
    Win and live. Lose and die.
    Rule of life. No change rule.
    Running worse than losing.
    Random casual stuff now


  2. #3742
    Quote Originally Posted by Lysah View Post
    So far so good I suppose. Now if he can just get the queue times under fifteen minutes for me...
    Damn.. I only queue for europe and I never get over 5min queue. Earlier today I got it instant even. O_o

  3. #3743
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterOfInvocation View Post
    Damn.. I only queue for europe and I never get over 5min queue. Earlier today I got it instant even. O_o
    When I solo queue I usually get 3-5 min, that's okay I guess. When I queue with friends the system gets confused or something because we never get a game until the search range is maxed at 10 minutes.
    Win and live. Lose and die.
    Rule of life. No change rule.
    Running worse than losing.
    Random casual stuff now


  4. #3744
    Titan PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    11,451
    Quote Originally Posted by Lysah View Post
    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.
    Riot pumps out new heroes because it's the basis of their income scheme. Valve doesn't have to do that because you can buy hats and couriers and tournament tickets.

    The difficulty is there because they want to push Dota 2 as a competitive eSport as well as make it a cash cow for more casual players. The issue is that Dota requires an enormous amount of information and experience for you to do even semi-well at, which makes it hostile to newcomers almost by default.

    Tutorials will be able to handle this, but honestly... there's an extent to which tutorials can do anything. I was teaching a buddy about Dota and we spent six hours straight playing botmatches and focusing on different things in each match and I still didn't think he was anywhere near ready to play against other players. Maybe playing with other players against bots, but not against other players.

    That's a frankly ridiculous kind of time investment to not even be at the bottom level of performance, and since pub Dota especially is almost purely based on who has the most games played... it's gonna be a very tough challenge to make the game truly interesting to newbies. I expect most people will try it since it'll be F2P and abandon it when it becomes obvious they can't spend 30 minutes in tutorials and come out knowing how to play.
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/PizzaSHARK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Cailan Ebonheart View Post
    The best you people can do is throw insults and lay your perspective on what a real adult is onto me but I will continue to reject them. And you will try and try again, force me into submission but I will continue to press on.
    MMOC IRC!

  5. #3745
    Quote Originally Posted by Longview View Post
    win rates alone say nothing important.
    That's exactly what I was trying to say. Win rates provide little for analysis if you do not consider other relevant information. Also before first pick there are 3 bans and dire has two picks straight. It just increases the strategy cap imo. First pick of radiant comes into mind but I really doubt that is the reason behind such difference. Actually it may be the case but proving it would require so much computation(that is only applicable if heroes are truely balanced and both team, somehow, have equal skill). I'll just call it luck.


    Why do I talk about proving? Since we are talking about numbers and statistics proving some sort of claim would require the reliability of provided information. Especially if its in numeric form. Since there is no way to prove relevancy of such claims with some poor statistics(unless you prove it mathematically which can not be the case). I just do not consider any of these websites as a usable source of information for in-game analysis.

    Balancing the game for casuals would ruin my experience imo. This is a personal choice. I just take DotA 2 seriously and try to improve myself. In the end, I have enough experience to counter current and future pub stomping heroes like Ursa or Lycan and I can't imagine the state of Lycan or Ursa balanced for pubs. They would be somehow underpowered. I do think that this game may eventually be shaped by non-competitive scene because if you can't(not bad players) keep casuals happy, you just can't get enough profit. This may not be the case as well because DotA has a strong non-casual(at the same time non pro) player base.

    Time will tell.
    Last edited by Kuntantee; 2012-11-26 at 12:30 PM.

  6. #3746
    @pizza
    I agree, will be interesting to see how it plays out. LoL is definitely friendlier to newbies.

    Also, as far as radiant vs dire win rate goes, the map is not a mirror and I believe the radiant side is slightly stronger than dire.
    Win and live. Lose and die.
    Rule of life. No change rule.
    Running worse than losing.
    Random casual stuff now


  7. #3747
    Titan PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    11,451
    Quote Originally Posted by Lysah View Post
    @pizza
    I agree, will be interesting to see how it plays out. LoL is definitely friendlier to newbies.

    Also, as far as radiant vs dire win rate goes, the map is not a mirror and I believe the radiant side is slightly stronger than dire.
    I've been told Dire's jungle is better, and they definitely get easier access to Rosh. What major advantages does Radiant get that can more than make up for those kinds of advantages?
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/PizzaSHARK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Cailan Ebonheart View Post
    The best you people can do is throw insults and lay your perspective on what a real adult is onto me but I will continue to reject them. And you will try and try again, force me into submission but I will continue to press on.
    MMOC IRC!

  8. #3748
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    What major advantages does Radiant get that can more than make up for those kinds of advantages?
    middle lane pulling

    but i was under impression that dire side of the map is better
    afaik dire always had higher w/l ratio (although by very small margin)

  9. #3749
    I am Murloc! Grading's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Senkai
    Posts
    5,331
    Ugh... what is with all the new people and russians I get on my team in PvP? I mean, I can see why, if I've won a lot of matches, I would get some newbies on my team, but in that case the other team should as well.

    So far I've already had a couple of matches where I had feeding mids who never gank, "pre-made" two-man teams who don't call miss and the other team roaming and killing everything. Their side? Oh, they know what they're doing, every time.

    I guess, like LoL, that whenever I play a PvP match, I'll have to take it with a grain of salt and get used to 3-4 random carries who are basically useless.

  10. #3750
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    I've been told Dire's jungle is better, and they definitely get easier access to Rosh. What major advantages does Radiant get that can more than make up for those kinds of advantages?
    Dire has:

    Better pulling from easy lane. (Actually three potential places)
    Huge rosh advantage.
    Easier ancient stacking stacking for off-laner.
    Ancient pulling to lane with certain heros(Venomancer atleast).

    Radiant has:

    Pulling from mid lane.
    The one pull they get in easy lane is more effective, but overall worse than what dire can do. You can pull the creep wave into three camps and get more xp, while dire takes out two camps max. per pull, but can clear 4 camps total with 2 pulls
    Two safe jungle camps. What I mean is the big and small camps towards middle lane are pretty much always safe to farm until both tier 2 mid/bot goes down.
    Ancient stacking from middle laner, while still being viable to stack from off-lane, but a lot more of hassle than for the dire side.
    Off-laner can creep pull into dire jungle.

    Probably more stuff, but this off the top of my head :P
    Last edited by MasterOfInvocation; 2012-11-26 at 08:14 PM.

  11. #3751
    Quote Originally Posted by Kuntantee View Post
    That's exactly what I was trying to say. Win rates provide little for analysis if you do not consider other relevant information. Also before first pick there are 3 bans and dire has two picks straight. It just increases the strategy cap imo. First pick of radiant comes into mind but I really doubt that is the reason behind such difference. Actually it may be the case but proving it would require so much computation(that is only applicable if heroes are truely balanced and both team, somehow, have equal skill). I'll just call it luck.
    Since 6.75, there are two bans in the first phase of drafting for each side. Not three.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kuntantee View Post
    Why do I talk about proving? Since we are talking about numbers and statistics proving some sort of claim would require the reliability of provided information. Especially if its in numeric form. Since there is no way to prove relevancy of such claims with some poor statistics(unless you prove it mathematically which can not be the case). I just do not consider any of these websites as a usable source of information for in-game analysis.
    If you perform a simple chi square test, you will find that there is a significant difference since 6.75 (p<0.01). Before the patch, win rates were lined right up at 50/50. You could always argue that there are too many random variables, but you can take any 30 day period prior to 6.75, and find the win rates be 50/50. Suddenly there's one side winning 10% more games than what the other side is. But you just call this luck, right?

    If we, for the sake of the argument, assume that this is not random - the question becomes: why? I do not see any other reason than first pick being that much more potent. The team that has second pick always get their strong two, and the seldom used surprise last pick. I personally prefer drafting as first pick, it feels like our draft end up better than theirs more often than not. But that's just what I feel. Are there any other reasons bar luck and firstpick being that good for the sudden burst of Radiant wins? Aegis six minute fade?
    Last edited by Longview; 2012-11-26 at 08:42 PM.

  12. #3752
    Radiant has a safer jungle, Dire is easier to invade because of the location of their wards and the vision they get from them. Radiant can cover every entrance with one ward and Dire cannot. Dire has to cross the river to place offensive wards to protect their jungle and Radiant does not. Both teams have about equal jungle pulling, Radiant can pull mid and can also triple pull bot VERY easily, double/triple pulling dire is a lot harder and uses the small camp which is not as useful exp/gold wise.

    Biggest difference for me is ancients. Radiant can protect their ancient camp much more easily than Dire due to proximity to mid. You can call it balance that Dire's ancients are harder to invade due to vision, however, radiant doesn't have to fight uphill the same way Dire would if they tried to stop a stack. Dire certainly gets an easier roshan - does this make up for the weakness of their jungle, I'm not sure. These differences aren't game breaking, but they exist. When I played DotA1 I recall Sentinel having a slightly higher winrate pretty much always, Dire being stronger in dota2 is news to me. I would be willing to bet Roshan is the difference here, as many professional players win and lose games around this now when he wasn't really a big factor in dota1.
    Win and live. Lose and die.
    Rule of life. No change rule.
    Running worse than losing.
    Random casual stuff now


  13. #3753
    On the contrary, jungling inside of the Dire jungle is more efficient, and their top T2 tower is much more difficult to bring down than the Radiant counterpart. You'd think the win-rates would even out as people adapted to 6.75, but if you filter more recent games - they're even more skewed.

  14. #3754
    I'm not big on the strength of individual towers, half the time towers die without being defend regardless unless we're only looking at top of the line games. I'll give you that dire jungle is faster, I tried to beat Ursa to roshan as Lycan and was several minutes behind, my best experience.
    Win and live. Lose and die.
    Rule of life. No change rule.
    Running worse than losing.
    Random casual stuff now


  15. #3755
    sometimes I love playing dota, when games are smooth, interesting, not one-sided battles.
    and sometimes I focking hate those shit-heads picking 2-3 carries, no tank, no cc, asking mid for riki with boots etc etc.
    /end morning rant

  16. #3756
    Titan PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    11,451
    Quote Originally Posted by Storm the Sorrow View Post
    sometimes I love playing dota, when games are smooth, interesting, not one-sided battles.
    and sometimes I focking hate those shit-heads picking 2-3 carries, no tank, no cc, asking mid for riki with boots etc etc.
    /end morning rant
    Now you know one of the reasons I stopped playing! The game's still interesting to talk about and occasionally watch, but play? Nah... not if you're gonna be doing anything less than a full five stack.
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/PizzaSHARK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Cailan Ebonheart View Post
    The best you people can do is throw insults and lay your perspective on what a real adult is onto me but I will continue to reject them. And you will try and try again, force me into submission but I will continue to press on.
    MMOC IRC!

  17. #3757
    Quote Originally Posted by Longview View Post
    If you perform a simple chi square test, you will find that there is a significant difference since 6.75 (p<0.01). Before the patch, win rates were lined right up at 50/50. You could always argue that there are too many random variables, but you can take any 30 day period prior to 6.75, and find the win rates be 50/50. Suddenly there's one side winning 10% more games than what the other side is. But you just call this luck, right?
    while you are assuming(or somehow acting like that) every pro player has same skill, I just call that luck because I believe even in competitive scene the skill level is different, consider fallowing "ability" or skill of players:

    -decision making
    -strategical thinking
    -team play
    -timing

    given that DotA is "fairly" balanced game then skill is way way more effective than some minor differences on map when it comes deciding winning side.There are differences of course but are they that much effective? I don't think so. At this point its all personal preference because we both can not prove anything. You can believe it, which I can understand why, but I think they are overestimated.

    side note: You can not apply statistical methods if there is too much variable. You mentioned it as well in your post.
    Last edited by Kuntantee; 2012-11-27 at 10:38 AM.

  18. #3758
    Quote Originally Posted by PizzaSHARK View Post
    Now you know one of the reasons I stopped playing! The game's still interesting to talk about and occasionally watch, but play? Nah... not if you're gonna be doing anything less than a full five stack.
    The thing is, you must hate every team game in existence. This is in no way limited to DotA.

    I hate WoW when I get a bad group in LFG (When dungeons were harder at least).
    I hate playing Battlefield 3 when everyone are just camping the jets waiting for "their turn", or no one picks a appropriate class kit for the situtation.
    .. etc


    And this was a "issue" in DotA 1, so I have no idea why people expected it to be different? LoL+HoN obviously have the same "issues" as well.

  19. #3759
    Titan PizzaSHARK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    11,451
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterOfInvocation View Post
    The thing is, you must hate every team game in existence. This is in no way limited to DotA.

    I hate WoW when I get a bad group in LFG (When dungeons were harder at least).
    I hate playing Battlefield 3 when everyone are just camping the jets waiting for "their turn", or no one picks a appropriate class kit for the situtation.
    .. etc


    And this was a "issue" in DotA 1, so I have no idea why people expected it to be different? LoL+HoN obviously have the same "issues" as well.
    WoW facilitates quick creation of groups with in-game tools and the whole guild thing. Battlefield 3 is a dedicated server game; you can make your own server and make your own rules.

    I was just hoping people would've figured out a better solo queue system by now... but then again, I can't come up with anything that wouldn't be seen as being a little bit draconian from the viewpoint of most people.
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/PizzaSHARK
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryan Cailan Ebonheart View Post
    The best you people can do is throw insults and lay your perspective on what a real adult is onto me but I will continue to reject them. And you will try and try again, force me into submission but I will continue to press on.
    MMOC IRC!

  20. #3760
    Quote Originally Posted by Kuntantee View Post
    while you are assuming(or somehow acting like that) every pro player has same skill, I just call that luck because I believe even in competitive scene the skill level is different, consider fallowing "ability" or skill of players:

    -decision making
    -strategical thinking
    -team play
    -timing

    given that DotA is "fairly" balanced game then skill is way way more effective than some minor differences on map when it comes deciding winning side.There are differences of course but are they that much effective? I don't think so. At this point its all personal preference because we both can not prove anything. You can believe it, which I can understand why, but I think they are overestimated.

    side note: You can not apply statistical methods if there is too much variable. You mentioned it as well in your post.
    I'm not assuming that every professional player has equal skill/teamwork/drafting whatever, not at all. You're missing the point. Sides are decided on coin-toss (randomly) in each tournament. Assuming a balance between the Dire and the Radiant, win rates should equal close to 50/50 once the sample rate is high enough. It wouldn't matter if there were only two professional teams of different skill level. The better team would statistically play Dire 50% and Radiant 50%. This has been the case in every observable time period thus far in Dota 2. Since 6.75, the win rates largely favour the Radiant. With a sample rate of 298, the win rates are - for the first time in Dota 2 - at a 10% difference.

    What tilted the balance? The map did not change, so it has nothing to do with it (the only possibility I see is the Aegis having a shorter lifetime, which in theory gives the Dire a very very slight nerf).

    As for the side note, most if not all of the variables are largely dismissible on the basis that sides are random. I'm not targeting you specifically, but do you still think this is all random? That there is no specific cause for one side suddenly winning more games?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •