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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?