Ohhh no....this wil/has become a the orignal vs the current thread....
All the Dota fanbois screaming "Dota is soo much more difficult/hardcore!" and the LoL fans going "Its way more fun and very deep!". Not to mention Moba fans are some of the nastiest fans around, this will get ugly
LoL has many more players because its much more appealing to the newbiesll.
People say that, and while it amy be true that Dota has a bit mroe complexity then LoL, i don't think that's the reason less people play it. I simply think that it's because of the f2p moel that LoL took off. It's an extremely fun game that isn't as much of a Dota clone as HoN was. And maybe a professional LoL player can answer your questions about whether Dota is better than LoL (This guy used to play Dota).
Not only is DotA more complex than LoL, it requires much more skill. You can't just stack items and have your skills 2-shot the enemy. There are more item mechanics, and items are much harder to come by. Also, you're describing it as "extremely fun", but honestly, I don't see anything LoL has that DotA doesn't in terms of gameplay. LoL is just easier, and therefore the people who are new to the MOBA genre that try it first will stick with LoL, and the majority of people who try DotA first will then migrate to LoL.
On the subject of HSGG, don't you think even after playing 4 years of DotA, if you're in the competetive scene, you'll have somewhat of a biased opinion? For example, if you ask someone in the CLG LoL team, or the TSM LoL team, they'll likely say that LoL is a better game. However, if you ask someone from the Na'Vi DotA team, or the EHome DotA team, they would probably say DotA is better.
Are we defining the best moba as the one that is the hardest to play? In that case, i'd have to say that Super Monday Night Combat is the best, as it has probably the highest learning curve out of any in this genre. However, i don't think that's a good standerd to set games too. I look for enjoyability far more than complexity. I think LoL has hit a very good balance in complexity and beginner friendlyness. It's not so daunting that it makes you quit the game, and yet the game in itself is still very tactical.
And you sort of repeated yourself, if a game is more complex, of course it takes more skill And maybe you haven't played LoL very much, but the only time anyone could two shot an enemy is if they were extremely fed. That isn't really supposed to happen.
Its funny beacause lol is in the first place. I can bet that most of people didint even tried Dota 2 Hope this change in the future. Because dota 2 is th game that is really great... With its little things that makes the whole game look unique
LoL has many more players because its much more appealing to the newbiesll.
People say that, and while it amy be true that Dota has a bit mroe complexity then LoL, i don't think that's the reason less people play it. I simply think that it's because of the f2p moel that LoL took off. It's an extremely fun game that isn't as much of a Dota clone as HoN was. And maybe a professional LoL player can answer your questions about whether Dota is better than LoL (This guy used to play Dota).
Not only is DotA more complex than LoL, it requires much more skill. You can't just stack items and have your skills 2-shot the enemy. There are more item mechanics, and items are much harder to come by. Also, you're describing it as "extremely fun", but honestly, I don't see anything LoL has that DotA doesn't in terms of gameplay. LoL is just easier, and therefore the people who are new to the MOBA genre that try it first will stick with LoL, and the majority of people who try DotA first will then migrate to LoL.
On the subject of HSGG, don't you think even after playing 4 years of DotA, if you're in the competetive scene, you'll have somewhat of a biased opinion? For example, if you ask someone in the CLG LoL team, or the TSM LoL team, they'll likely say that LoL is a better game. However, if you ask someone from the Na'Vi DotA team, or the EHome DotA team, they would probably say DotA is better.
Are we defining the best moba as the one that is the hardest to play? In that case, i'd have to say that Super Monday Night Combat is the best, as it has probably the highest learning curve out of any in this genre. However, i don't think that's a good standerd to set games too. I look for enjoyability far more than complexity. I think LoL has hit a very good balance in complexity and beginner friendlyness. It's not so daunting that it makes you quit the game, and yet the game in itself is still very tactical.
And you sort of repeated yourself, if a game is more complex, of course it takes more skill And maybe you haven't played LoL very much, but the only time anyone could two shot an enemy is if they were extremely fed. That isn't really supposed to happen.
Did I say that the best MOBA is hardest? No, I didn't. I said that pros on each game are likely to be biased. When in my post did I ever say that one game was harder, and therefore better, than the other?
Even if you don't two shot the enemy, my point still stands. LoL's ridiculous scaling system is much more geared toward newbies/noobs, as builds are standard and generic.
LoL has many more players because its much more appealing to the newbiesll.
People say that, and while it amy be true that Dota has a bit mroe complexity then LoL, i don't think that's the reason less people play it. I simply think that it's because of the f2p moel that LoL took off. It's an extremely fun game that isn't as much of a Dota clone as HoN was. And maybe a professional LoL player can answer your questions about whether Dota is better than LoL (This guy used to play Dota).
Not only is DotA more complex than LoL, it requires much more skill. You can't just stack items and have your skills 2-shot the enemy. There are more item mechanics, and items are much harder to come by. Also, you're describing it as "extremely fun", but honestly, I don't see anything LoL has that DotA doesn't in terms of gameplay. LoL is just easier, and therefore the people who are new to the MOBA genre that try it first will stick with LoL, and the majority of people who try DotA first will then migrate to LoL.
On the subject of HSGG, don't you think even after playing 4 years of DotA, if you're in the competetive scene, you'll have somewhat of a biased opinion? For example, if you ask someone in the CLG LoL team, or the TSM LoL team, they'll likely say that LoL is a better game. However, if you ask someone from the Na'Vi DotA team, or the EHome DotA team, they would probably say DotA is better.
Are we defining the best moba as the one that is the hardest to play? In that case, i'd have to say that Super Monday Night Combat is the best, as it has probably the highest learning curve out of any in this genre. However, i don't think that's a good standerd to set games too. I look for enjoyability far more than complexity. I think LoL has hit a very good balance in complexity and beginner friendlyness. It's not so daunting that it makes you quit the game, and yet the game in itself is still very tactical.
And you sort of repeated yourself, if a game is more complex, of course it takes more skill And maybe you haven't played LoL very much, but the only time anyone could two shot an enemy is if they were extremely fed. That isn't really supposed to happen.
Did I say that the best MOBA is hardest? No, I didn't. I said that pros on each game are likely to be biased. When in my post did I ever say that one game was harder, and therefore better, than the other?
Even if you don't two shot the enemy, my point still stands. LoL's ridiculous scaling system is much more geared toward newbies/noobs, as builds are standard and generic.
Well, using basic reasoning, i assumed that since you were using an arguement based around game difficulty to counter my post, you were trying to imply that that game is better. This thread is about the Best Moba game, so it makes sense for me to think that you're trying to outline reasons for your choice of best game. If that isn't the case, then tell me why Dota 2 is better than LoL?
LoL has many more players because its much more appealing to the newbiesll.
People say that, and while it amy be true that Dota has a bit mroe complexity then LoL, i don't think that's the reason less people play it. I simply think that it's because of the f2p moel that LoL took off. It's an extremely fun game that isn't as much of a Dota clone as HoN was. And maybe a professional LoL player can answer your questions about whether Dota is better than LoL (This guy used to play Dota).
Not only is DotA more complex than LoL, it requires much more skill. You can't just stack items and have your skills 2-shot the enemy. There are more item mechanics, and items are much harder to come by. Also, you're describing it as "extremely fun", but honestly, I don't see anything LoL has that DotA doesn't in terms of gameplay. LoL is just easier, and therefore the people who are new to the MOBA genre that try it first will stick with LoL, and the majority of people who try DotA first will then migrate to LoL.
On the subject of HSGG, don't you think even after playing 4 years of DotA, if you're in the competetive scene, you'll have somewhat of a biased opinion? For example, if you ask someone in the CLG LoL team, or the TSM LoL team, they'll likely say that LoL is a better game. However, if you ask someone from the Na'Vi DotA team, or the EHome DotA team, they would probably say DotA is better.
Are we defining the best moba as the one that is the hardest to play? In that case, i'd have to say that Super Monday Night Combat is the best, as it has probably the highest learning curve out of any in this genre. However, i don't think that's a good standerd to set games too. I look for enjoyability far more than complexity. I think LoL has hit a very good balance in complexity and beginner friendlyness. It's not so daunting that it makes you quit the game, and yet the game in itself is still very tactical.
And you sort of repeated yourself, if a game is more complex, of course it takes more skill And maybe you haven't played LoL very much, but the only time anyone could two shot an enemy is if they were extremely fed. That isn't really supposed to happen.
Did I say that the best MOBA is hardest? No, I didn't. I said that pros on each game are likely to be biased. When in my post did I ever say that one game was harder, and therefore better, than the other?
Even if you don't two shot the enemy, my point still stands. LoL's ridiculous scaling system is much more geared toward newbies/noobs, as builds are standard and generic.
Well, using basic reasoning, i assumed that since you were using an arguement based around game difficulty to counter my post, you were trying to imply that that game is better. This thread is about the Best Moba game, so it makes sense for me to think that you're trying to outline reasons for your choice of best game. If that isn't the case, then tell me why Dota 2 is better than LoL?
Even if you don't two shot the enemy, my point still stands. LoL's ridiculous scaling system is much more geared toward newbies/noobs, as builds are standard and generic.
That's a stupid argument to use call a game noob friendly. I could just as easily call DotA a noob game because heroes are designed with fewer active skills than LoL. That would be stupid because directly comparing specific mechanics in complex games like MOBAs proves very little. The scaling issue in particular is stupid because builds aren't just standard, they need to be tailored to counter your opponents pretty much every game.
If I wanted to do the same for LoL I'd talk about how the map is smaller promoting more action. How mana pools are larger, mana costs lower, cooldowns lower and mana regen higher promoting the usage of skills. How the jungle and map objectives are more predictable ensuring advantage goes to the team better able to predict and control them. How there are more skillshots. How there are more position manipulation abilities.
I've never known a game to come under as much fire by people that have barely played it and don't understand it than League of Legends. Loved the guy who said DotA was better because you had to control gold flow, gank and ward your lane. I'm sorry, that's clearly someone who has absolutely no idea about the game, as ALL of those things are vital in the laning phase of LoL. You just achieve them in slightly different ways.
LoL might be easier to get into, but it's no less deep at the elite level. This has actually been statistically proven. (read posts by Jacob)
Just for the record, I think the degree of depth in both games is very similar. Neither game is particularly hard to master mechanically, and both have a huge burden of knowledge which is tough for the new player. The games require you to focus on different things, but losing focus in a game of LoL will get you killed just as quickly as it does in DotA. DotA has more hidden mechanics, a much more rigid role system and a couple of very difficult heroes to master, but combat in LoL is more dynamic and fast paced, with a less rigid role system for champions and a scaling system that allows for more creativity in how you play, and therefore how you counter. They're simply different and your opinion is likely going to be based solely to which one you're used to. DotA fanboys just need to lose the attitude that their game is hardcore because it has denying. Sorry dudes, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise it's still just a watered down RTS.
Originally posted by Amarok44 Loved the guy who said DotA was better because you had to control gold flow, gank and ward your lane. I'm sorry, that's clearly someone who has absolutely no idea about the game, as ALL of those things are vital in the laning phase of LoL. You just achieve them in slightly different ways.
There is only one way in LoL to prevent the opponent in your lane from gaining XP and gold, and that is to be agressive enough to keep them far away. However it is still easy to acquire gold and EXP, and you receive no loss upon death. Whereas in DOTA 2, the early stage of the game is centered around preventing the opponent from making the most gold possibly through creep and tower denies (and the much more rare hero denies), as well heavy ganking. The lanes in DOTA 2 aren't as clear cut as they are in LoL, giving players a lot possibilities on how to play which can make a world of difference (Trilanes, Roamer, etc).
As for Warding, unless it's changed, in LoL you can put an insane amount of wards across the map, at a fairly low price (given the fact that you can't lose gold). In DOTA 2 you can only have up to 4 Observer Wards up at anytime (because they have a 6 minutes cooldown at the merchant) so they must be used much more wisely to both gain sight to help your team, to prevent countering, or to prevent creep pulling.
I know that these exist in LoL, and that they are "vital", but you have a lot more leeway with it then you do in DOTA 2 because there are no losses upon death, and you cannot be prevented from finishing a creep. These changes are not "slightly different", they have massive impact on the metagame.
Originally posted by MadnessRealm There is only one way in LoL to prevent the opponent in your lane from gaining XP and gold, and that is to be agressive enough to keep them far away. However it is still easy to acquire gold and EXP, and you receive no loss upon death. Whereas in DOTA 2, the early stage of the game is centered around preventing the opponent from making the most gold possibly through creep and tower denies (and the much more rare hero denies), as well heavy ganking. The lanes in DOTA 2 aren't as clear cut as they are in LoL, giving players a lot possibilities on how to play which can make a world of difference (Trilanes, Roamer, etc).As for Warding, unless it's changed, in LoL you can put an insane amount of wards across the map, at a fairly low price (given the fact that you can't lose gold). In DOTA 2 you can only have up to 4 Observer Wards up at anytime (because they have a 6 minutes cooldown at the merchant) so they must be used much more wisely to both gain sight to help your team, to prevent countering, or to prevent creep pulling.I know that these exist in LoL, and that they are "vital", but you have a lot more leeway with it then you do in DOTA 2 because there are no losses upon death, and you cannot be prevented from finishing a creep. These changes are not "slightly different", they have massive impact on the metagame.
I have read your previous posts and I find it interesting... In fact all you said about DOTA2 can be found in HON as well and the game is out for quite a time already. Still you say "HON can be ignored", that is weird. Why?
What is about DOTA2 making it so much better than HON when both have pretty much same design and features? Just a personal bias?
Note: I have not played DOTA2 yet so keep it in mind
Dota 2 / Dota Wc3 : More balance, more punishing more rewarding
Lol :SINGLE META ORIENTED, i have play more than 1,5k games, and the same meta over and over again(1 top, 1 mid, 1 jungle , 2 bot)
Dumbed down !! why? Ever since the dodge removal (they given the community a very stupid excuses " because its not fun "), A dedicated healer for the carry ( yes this is so stupid ). The developer tends to help noobs ( ex: when the red buff being nerf)
for those asking why dota 2 (or dota wc3 itself ) is better than hon, its not bias. Dota is far more balanced and the champ are unique, while at first hon was copying dota's heroes and but they make it imbalance (devourer hookshoot 1000 range on lvl 1 ?). and their own created heroes is rather crappy designed
Originally posted by Amarok44 Loved the guy who said DotA was better because you had to control gold flow, gank and ward your lane. I'm sorry, that's clearly someone who has absolutely no idea about the game, as ALL of those things are vital in the laning phase of LoL. You just achieve them in slightly different ways.
There is only one way in LoL to prevent the opponent in your lane from gaining XP and gold, and that is to be agressive enough to keep them far away. However it is still easy to acquire gold and EXP, and you receive no loss upon death. Whereas in DOTA 2, the early stage of the game is centered around preventing the opponent from making the most gold possibly through creep and tower denies (and the much more rare hero denies), as well heavy ganking. The lanes in DOTA 2 aren't as clear cut as they are in LoL, giving players a lot possibilities on how to play which can make a world of difference (Trilanes, Roamer, etc).
As for Warding, unless it's changed, in LoL you can put an insane amount of wards across the map, at a fairly low price (given the fact that you can't lose gold). In DOTA 2 you can only have up to 4 Observer Wards up at anytime (because they have a 6 minutes cooldown at the merchant) so they must be used much more wisely to both gain sight to help your team, to prevent countering, or to prevent creep pulling.
I know that these exist in LoL, and that they are "vital", but you have a lot more leeway with it then you do in DOTA 2 because there are no losses upon death, and you cannot be prevented from finishing a creep. These changes are not "slightly different", they have massive impact on the metagame.
You treat denying focused around forcing a player out of a lane (or playing passively) like it's somehow inferior to last hitting your own minions. That doesn't make sense at all. In the end the exact same mix of judgement, mind games, timing, skill and counter picking goes in to the laning phase of DotA. The interaction is just isn't focused around the minions.
Gold loss on death is another mechanic that isn't really understood. At the end of the day, both games confer an advantage on a hero kill. That doesn't make securing that kill more or less difficult, and it doesn't really change the motivation because it's obviously huge in both games. The difference comes from the degree of snowballing that occurs with the two systems. Snowballs are already too prevalent in the genre, and LoL not snowballing as hard is a good thing. The game is more interesting when you're behind (because your opponents won't be as far ahead), and you have to be much more careful when you're in front (because a comeback is more easily achieved).
Achieving advantage by rewarding rather than punishing in itself doesn't make the game any less deep either. Lets say player A kills player B. You want player A to have a 300 gold advantage over player B. There are two options you can use to achieve this.
1. Player A gets 200g. Player B loses 100g.
2. Player A gets 300g. Player B loses nothing.
The exact sameadvantage is being conferred in both scenarios. However in scenario 1 both players have less money to play with, meaning they have fewer strategic choices item wise. That makes the experience worse for both players. In scenario 2 the opposite is happening, with both players having more to interaction with the game. It's not a matter of punishing bad play (because player B is at the same disadvantage in both scenarios), scenario 2 is simply better design.
Warding is easier in LoL, but that's as much due to the smaller map as it is anything else. There's simply less area you need to ward. Excessive warding is also a trade off. LoL is still a game about making more money than your opponent, and wards cost money (although they are rarely useless, some wards are more useful than others). Ganks are still vitally important, and happen regularly.
In these arguments most DotA fans always put up points about why DotA is more difficult as proof that it's a deeper game. Difficulty isn't the same as depth and difficulty isn't the same as fun.
Lol :SINGLE META ORIENTED, i have play more than 1,5k games, and the same meta over and over again(1 top, 1 mid, 1 jungle , 2 bot)
Dumbed down !! why? Ever since the dodge removal (they given the community a very stupid excuses " because its not fun "), A dedicated healer for the carry ( yes this is so stupid ). The developer tends to help noobs ( ex: when the red buff being nerf)
They actually gave the community a very good explaination of the dodge removal which you clearly didn't understand.
It didn't effect the game in the slightest. Jax can still dodge (new Jax >>>>>>>>>>>> old Jax) and you can still build defenses against attack damage that aren't so streaky.
Carries don't have healers. They have supports. Supports need to be able to survive with minimal farm and they need to be able to fit into a team. Supports are actually able to be picked very creatively (outside high level), and can include anything from healers (Sona, Soraka) to tanks (Ali, Nunu, Leona) to DPS (GP, Teemo). You can experiment and try wacky shit (I've been having fun with support Volibear) or turn bottom lane in to a kill lane (Pantheon support hurts badly) or do so many different things. Jungle and top also have a huge number of champions viable in different situations, it's just mid and bot carry that are stuck. There's a bit more creativity possible in DotAs meta to be fair, but LoLs isn't anywhere near that bad.
Originally posted by Geeves 1. Player A gets 200g. Player B loses 100g. 2. Player A gets 300g. Player B loses nothing.The exact sameadvantage is being conferred in both scenarios.
As long as 200g < 300g, they are not the same.
Option 1 is obviously a better design as it gives greater diversity between income of 2 teams, therefore more dynamics and more options.
1. LoL has a fairly low skill cap compared to DOTA/HON
Here we go, people. Let's break it down.
This above statement is true. However, none of you come remotely close to the skill cap of either game. It doesn't matter if DotA requires more skill than LoL - none of you are 2k+, none of you have won any serious tournaments, and you're not signed by serious teams.
When you say 'skill cap' like it matters, you're basing it on the assumption that you have reached it. Which you haven't. And since none of you have reached it (and will ever reach it), the 'skill cap' of a game should be the last consideration if you're trying to decide between both games.
If you're a top ten player, then I'll definitely listen to what you have to say about the skill cap of your chosen game. Hell, I might even listen to you if you were at least plat.
Here is my 2 balls, dota2 is more skill based than the others i have played. So i gravitate to dota2 for that. Hon as my favorite art direction of the gerne. With that said, i have been having a blast in smite beta. It isnt as skill based as dota 2 but its hella fun. That is my 2 balls.
Originally posted by Geeves 1. Player A gets 200g. Player B loses 100g. 2. Player A gets 300g. Player B loses nothing.The exact sameadvantage is being conferred in both scenarios.
As long as 200g < 300g, they are not the same.
Option 1 is obviously a better design as it gives greater diversity between income of 2 teams, therefore more dynamics and more options.
No. That's flat out wrong and you either didn't read my post or you didn't understand it. The "diversity in income" is identical in both scenarios. It's 300. There is actually potential for LESS "diversity in income" in option 1 if the player being killed has less than 100g.
You really don't understand games if you think that "diversity in income" creates more "dynamics and options". It creates greater snowballs, makes comebacks less likely and makes the game less fun to play and watch because the outcome is more easily predicted.
1. LoL has a fairly low skill cap compared to DOTA/HON
Here we go, people. Let's break it down.
This above statement is true. However, none of you come remotely close to the skill cap of either game. It doesn't matter if DotA requires more skill than LoL - none of you are 2k+, none of you have won any serious tournaments, and you're not signed by serious teams.
When you say 'skill cap' like it matters, you're basing it on the assumption that you have reached it. Which you haven't. And since none of you have reached it (and will ever reach it), the 'skill cap' of a game should be the last consideration if you're trying to decide between both games.
If you're a top ten player, then I'll definitely listen to what you have to say about the skill cap of your chosen game. Hell, I might even listen to you if you were at least plat.
The quoted statement is actually not true (click the link I posted earlier for a statistical explanation of why that is), but ignoring that for a moment.
What makes it particularly hilarious is that DotA players were originally WC3 players who couldn't handle a more challenging, strategically deep game with WC3 melée. They played the RTS lite DotA, a game that required half the apm and didn't track your statistics. I often think the masochistic posing that goes with these LoL/DotA arguments comes from a deep sense of inadequacy that they couldn't handle a real RTS. If difficulty is the only thing that matters when judging a game then why aren't they playing WC3 or SC2?
Originally posted by Geeves That's flat out wrong and you either didn't read my post or you didn't understand it.
So you still insist that 200g = 300g math is correct...
I did read your post, understand it but you still fail (hard) at math and make no sense - if both scenarios are the same how one can be less diverse and makes greater snowballs and harder comebacks? This is what diversion and dynamics mean...you don't like it, fine but there is no point in denying.
Greater snowballs? Eh, I guess by your logic we could as well remove respawn timers, last hitting, creep waves and all that stuff entirely because it makes the comebacks less likely...
While you see those "less likely comeback" mechanics as more ways how to get owned, there are others who enjoy to exploit them because some people do like depth and options in their games.
That's flat out wrong and you either didn't read my post or you didn't understand it.
So you still insist that 200g = 300g math is correct...
I did read your post, understand it but you still fail (hard) at math and make no sense - if both scenarios are the same how one can be less diverse and makes greater snowballs and harder comebacks? This is what diversion and dynamics mean...you don't like it, fine but there is no point in denying.
Greater snowballs? Eh, I guess by your logic we could as well remove respawn timers, last hitting, creep waves and all that stuff entirely because it makes the comebacks less likely...
While you see those "less likely comeback" mechanics as more ways how to get owned, there are others who enjoy to exploit them because some people do like depth and options in their games.
Who the hell is talking about 200 = 300? You're the one that keeps bringing that up. My math is that 200+100 is the same as 300 + 0. Are you honestly trying to argue that that isn't the case?
My second point wasn't that the either of the above scenarios produces greater snowballs (they can't because the "diversity in income is the same in both scenarios), my point was that diversity in income isn't in itself a good thing in these games because it produces greater snowballs. Depth in games can produce snowballs, but reducing the effect wherever possible produces a more exciting spectacle. It's a balancing act, and honestly I feel LoL has it better balanced than DotA.
The example with the two scenarios was simply there to demonstrate that gold loss on death doesn't really add anything, because the same advantage can be achieved by simply giving the killer more gold. That gives both the killer and the killed more options, more to do and makes the game more fun for both parties.
Don't try and second guess "my logic". You're not very good at it.
Originally posted by Geeves Who the hell is talking about 200 = 300?
You...
Originally posted by Geeves The example with the two scenarios was simply there to demonstrate that gold loss on death doesn't really add anything, because the same advantage can be achieved by simply giving the killer more gold. That gives both the killer and the killed more options, more to do and makes the game more fun for both parties.
You almost got the point why there is a gold loss. What you fail to grasp is that you losing 100g is not the same as me gaining equal amount - you will not buy anything for gold you do not have.
You propose only gains without loss but it is the loss adding the consequences.
It is the death penalty giving the game depth and options. Without any death penalty, you would be instantly respawning and rushing back to battle without any actual consequence for dying over and over. With death penalties tho, and harsher they are, every each death is crucial and can decide the outcome of entire match.
This can be easily seen in late games when single battle can be a difference between lost or won game, and that is only because of death penalty in form of respawn timer.
Gold loss upon death does the same, it provides more options, more consequences since early game.
Have your easy game and play LoL, if you want something more challenging though, you have to seek elsewhere.
The example with the two scenarios was simply there to demonstrate that gold loss on death doesn't really add anything, because the same advantage can be achieved by simply giving the killer more gold. That gives both the killer and the killed more options, more to do and makes the game more fun for both parties.
You almost got the point why there is a gold loss. What you fail to grasp is that you losing 100g is not the same as me gaining equal amount - you will not buy anything for gold you do not have.
You propose only gains without loss but it is the loss adding the consequences.
It is the death penalty giving the game depth and options. Without any death penalty, you would be instantly respawning and rushing back to battle without any actual consequence for dying over and over. With death penalties tho, and harsher they are, every each death is crucial and can decide the outcome of entire match.
This can be easily seen in late games when single battle can be a difference between lost or won game, and that is only because of death penalty in form of respawn timer.
Gold loss upon death does the same, it provides more options, more consequences since early game.
Have your easy game and play LoL, if you want something more challenging though, you have to seek elsewhere.
Meh. I can't be bothered explaining again how and why you're missing the point.
LoL has an extremely high skillcap. That's actually a verifiable fact. I notice you (and every other DotA fanboy) is unwilling (unable) to have a go at disproving the below. (credit to Jacob in below thread)
The only substantial argument that isn't obviously fallacious presented in this topic that lends to the conclusion that DOTA is a more difficult game to play than LOL is that you get punished more for your mistakes in DOTA.
However, claiming that being punished more for mistakes makes the game more difficult is a fallacious argument as well. Let's show that by an analogous example:
If you miss a specific question on your first quiz in class A, you fail the class. The passing grade for the class overall is 70%. If you miss a specific question on your first quiz in class B, nothing happens. The passing grade for the class overall is 70%.
Have we determined that class A is harder than class B? Not at all. Class A could be first grade math requiring you to learn addition to pass the first grade, class B could be Multivariate calculus. There is no correlation between punishing mistakes and difficulty. Without correlation, there can exist no causation. QED.
Now, in terms of LOL and DOTA what does it mean that DOTA punishes more for mistakes than LOL? It means the game is over at an earlier stage, it means a single enemy mistake can win you the game as long as you don't make a mistake serious enough to compensate for the first mistake. In LOL, you have to actively win a series of engagements over time to win. you have to beat your enemy repeatedly to win the game.
In mathematical terms, a larger sample size of teamfights/engagements directly determining the outcome of the game means you have to prove yourself more consistently better to win a game in LOL than in DOTA.
Now over the scale of a tournament, that means the winners of a LOL tournament have to more consistently show they are better than their opponents to win. luck is a lesser factor (mathematically speaking, on average). consistently showing that you are better than your opponents seems to comply with a definition of skill.
It is absurd to assess the difficulty level of a game based on anything but the difficulty it takes to master the game. (You cannot say Skyrim is easier than The Witcher 2, because beating Skyrim on Easy requires less skill than beating The Witcher 2 on the difficulty labelled easy. You have to compare their hardest difficulties for any comparison to make sense).
Again, let us turn to statistics. Platinum in season 1 was the top 0.2% of the population. That corresponds to the third standard deviation above the mean. You have to be better than platinum to be able to play competitively in any sense. That is to say, you have to be better than 99.8% of the population to be a competitive player. The skillcap of lol is thus proven to be extremely high compared to the skill-level of its player-base average. With how the elo system works, there is no mathematical reason why the ratings required for platinum were not reached by 10% of the community, if 10% of the community did actually reach the skillcap of lol.
Compared to the size of its player-base, lol is an extremely difficult game to master, i.e. the skillcap is extremely high. Anyone claiming otherwise does not understand mathematics.
does this make lol harder than dota or dota harder than lol? None of this shows comparatively one way or another. However, the myth that lol has a low skill-cap can be dismissed. It's simply not true.
The burden of evidence now lies with the DOTA crowd. can you prove less than 0.2% of the dota-population have mastered dota on a competitive level? Or rather, if you prefer absolute terms, can you prove that less than about 300 people can play DOTA at a competitive tournament level?
Originally posted by Geeves Meh. I can't be bothered explaining again how and why you're missing the point.
Good, because you are no good at it, neither is your friend and his circular, fallacious reasoning - class B CANNOT have same passing grade as class A.
Comments
Ohhh no....this wil/has become a the orignal vs the current thread....
All the Dota fanbois screaming "Dota is soo much more difficult/hardcore!" and the LoL fans going "Its way more fun and very deep!". Not to mention Moba fans are some of the nastiest fans around, this will get ugly
Are we defining the best moba as the one that is the hardest to play? In that case, i'd have to say that Super Monday Night Combat is the best, as it has probably the highest learning curve out of any in this genre. However, i don't think that's a good standerd to set games too. I look for enjoyability far more than complexity. I think LoL has hit a very good balance in complexity and beginner friendlyness. It's not so daunting that it makes you quit the game, and yet the game in itself is still very tactical.
And you sort of repeated yourself, if a game is more complex, of course it takes more skill
And maybe you haven't played LoL very much, but the only time anyone could two shot an enemy is if they were extremely fed. That isn't really supposed to happen.
Its funny beacause lol is in the first place. I can bet that most of people didint even tried Dota 2
Hope this change in the future. Because dota 2 is th game that is really great... With its little things that makes the whole game look unique
And where is DOTA wc3 mod?
Did I say that the best MOBA is hardest? No, I didn't. I said that pros on each game are likely to be biased. When in my post did I ever say that one game was harder, and therefore better, than the other?
Even if you don't two shot the enemy, my point still stands. LoL's ridiculous scaling system is much more geared toward newbies/noobs, as builds are standard and generic.
Well, using basic reasoning, i assumed that since you were using an arguement based around game difficulty to counter my post, you were trying to imply that that game is better. This thread is about the Best Moba game, so it makes sense for me to think that you're trying to outline reasons for your choice of best game. If that isn't the case, then tell me why Dota 2 is better than LoL?
Well, using basic reasoning, i assumed that since you were using an arguement based around game difficulty to counter my post, you were trying to imply that that game is better. This thread is about the Best Moba game, so it makes sense for me to think that you're trying to outline reasons for your choice of best game. If that isn't the case, then tell me why Dota 2 is better than LoL?
That's a stupid argument to use call a game noob friendly. I could just as easily call DotA a noob game because heroes are designed with fewer active skills than LoL. That would be stupid because directly comparing specific mechanics in complex games like MOBAs proves very little. The scaling issue in particular is stupid because builds aren't just standard, they need to be tailored to counter your opponents pretty much every game.
If I wanted to do the same for LoL I'd talk about how the map is smaller promoting more action. How mana pools are larger, mana costs lower, cooldowns lower and mana regen higher promoting the usage of skills. How the jungle and map objectives are more predictable ensuring advantage goes to the team better able to predict and control them. How there are more skillshots. How there are more position manipulation abilities.
I've never known a game to come under as much fire by people that have barely played it and don't understand it than League of Legends. Loved the guy who said DotA was better because you had to control gold flow, gank and ward your lane. I'm sorry, that's clearly someone who has absolutely no idea about the game, as ALL of those things are vital in the laning phase of LoL. You just achieve them in slightly different ways.
LoL might be easier to get into, but it's no less deep at the elite level. This has actually been statistically proven. (read posts by Jacob)
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=1503678&page=31
Just for the record, I think the degree of depth in both games is very similar. Neither game is particularly hard to master mechanically, and both have a huge burden of knowledge which is tough for the new player. The games require you to focus on different things, but losing focus in a game of LoL will get you killed just as quickly as it does in DotA. DotA has more hidden mechanics, a much more rigid role system and a couple of very difficult heroes to master, but combat in LoL is more dynamic and fast paced, with a less rigid role system for champions and a scaling system that allows for more creativity in how you play, and therefore how you counter. They're simply different and your opinion is likely going to be based solely to which one you're used to. DotA fanboys just need to lose the attitude that their game is hardcore because it has denying. Sorry dudes, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise it's still just a watered down RTS.
MUNDO!!
There is only one way in LoL to prevent the opponent in your lane from gaining XP and gold, and that is to be agressive enough to keep them far away. However it is still easy to acquire gold and EXP, and you receive no loss upon death. Whereas in DOTA 2, the early stage of the game is centered around preventing the opponent from making the most gold possibly through creep and tower denies (and the much more rare hero denies), as well heavy ganking. The lanes in DOTA 2 aren't as clear cut as they are in LoL, giving players a lot possibilities on how to play which can make a world of difference (Trilanes, Roamer, etc).
As for Warding, unless it's changed, in LoL you can put an insane amount of wards across the map, at a fairly low price (given the fact that you can't lose gold). In DOTA 2 you can only have up to 4 Observer Wards up at anytime (because they have a 6 minutes cooldown at the merchant) so they must be used much more wisely to both gain sight to help your team, to prevent countering, or to prevent creep pulling.
I know that these exist in LoL, and that they are "vital", but you have a lot more leeway with it then you do in DOTA 2 because there are no losses upon death, and you cannot be prevented from finishing a creep. These changes are not "slightly different", they have massive impact on the metagame.
I have read your previous posts and I find it interesting... In fact all you said about DOTA2 can be found in HON as well and the game is out for quite a time already. Still you say "HON can be ignored", that is weird. Why?
What is about DOTA2 making it so much better than HON when both have pretty much same design and features? Just a personal bias?
Note: I have not played DOTA2 yet so keep it in mind
Dota 2 / Dota Wc3 : More balance, more punishing more rewarding
Lol :SINGLE META ORIENTED, i have play more than 1,5k games, and the same meta over and over again(1 top, 1 mid, 1 jungle , 2 bot)
Dumbed down !! why? Ever since the dodge removal (they given the community a very stupid excuses " because its not fun "), A dedicated healer for the carry ( yes this is so stupid ). The developer tends to help noobs ( ex: when the red buff being nerf)
for those asking why dota 2 (or dota wc3 itself ) is better than hon, its not bias. Dota is far more balanced and the champ are unique, while at first hon was copying dota's heroes and but they make it imbalance (devourer hookshoot 1000 range on lvl 1 ?). and their own created heroes is rather crappy designed
You treat denying focused around forcing a player out of a lane (or playing passively) like it's somehow inferior to last hitting your own minions. That doesn't make sense at all. In the end the exact same mix of judgement, mind games, timing, skill and counter picking goes in to the laning phase of DotA. The interaction is just isn't focused around the minions.
Gold loss on death is another mechanic that isn't really understood. At the end of the day, both games confer an advantage on a hero kill. That doesn't make securing that kill more or less difficult, and it doesn't really change the motivation because it's obviously huge in both games. The difference comes from the degree of snowballing that occurs with the two systems. Snowballs are already too prevalent in the genre, and LoL not snowballing as hard is a good thing. The game is more interesting when you're behind (because your opponents won't be as far ahead), and you have to be much more careful when you're in front (because a comeback is more easily achieved).
Achieving advantage by rewarding rather than punishing in itself doesn't make the game any less deep either. Lets say player A kills player B. You want player A to have a 300 gold advantage over player B. There are two options you can use to achieve this.
1. Player A gets 200g. Player B loses 100g.
2. Player A gets 300g. Player B loses nothing.
The exact sameadvantage is being conferred in both scenarios. However in scenario 1 both players have less money to play with, meaning they have fewer strategic choices item wise. That makes the experience worse for both players. In scenario 2 the opposite is happening, with both players having more to interaction with the game. It's not a matter of punishing bad play (because player B is at the same disadvantage in both scenarios), scenario 2 is simply better design.
Warding is easier in LoL, but that's as much due to the smaller map as it is anything else. There's simply less area you need to ward. Excessive warding is also a trade off. LoL is still a game about making more money than your opponent, and wards cost money (although they are rarely useless, some wards are more useful than others). Ganks are still vitally important, and happen regularly.
In these arguments most DotA fans always put up points about why DotA is more difficult as proof that it's a deeper game. Difficulty isn't the same as depth and difficulty isn't the same as fun.
MUNDO!!
They actually gave the community a very good explaination of the dodge removal which you clearly didn't understand.
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/news/inside-design-dodge
It didn't effect the game in the slightest. Jax can still dodge (new Jax >>>>>>>>>>>> old Jax) and you can still build defenses against attack damage that aren't so streaky.
Carries don't have healers. They have supports. Supports need to be able to survive with minimal farm and they need to be able to fit into a team. Supports are actually able to be picked very creatively (outside high level), and can include anything from healers (Sona, Soraka) to tanks (Ali, Nunu, Leona) to DPS (GP, Teemo). You can experiment and try wacky shit (I've been having fun with support Volibear) or turn bottom lane in to a kill lane (Pantheon support hurts badly) or do so many different things. Jungle and top also have a huge number of champions viable in different situations, it's just mid and bot carry that are stuck. There's a bit more creativity possible in DotAs meta to be fair, but LoLs isn't anywhere near that bad.
MUNDO!!
I think League of Legends because its the most popular, therefore it gets more money and can keep ahead of the competition.
As long as 200g < 300g, they are not the same.
Option 1 is obviously a better design as it gives greater diversity between income of 2 teams, therefore more dynamics and more options.
Here we go, people. Let's break it down.
This above statement is true. However, none of you come remotely close to the skill cap of either game. It doesn't matter if DotA requires more skill than LoL - none of you are 2k+, none of you have won any serious tournaments, and you're not signed by serious teams.
When you say 'skill cap' like it matters, you're basing it on the assumption that you have reached it. Which you haven't. And since none of you have reached it (and will ever reach it), the 'skill cap' of a game should be the last consideration if you're trying to decide between both games.
If you're a top ten player, then I'll definitely listen to what you have to say about the skill cap of your chosen game. Hell, I might even listen to you if you were at least plat.
As long as 200g < 300g, they are not the same.
Option 1 is obviously a better design as it gives greater diversity between income of 2 teams, therefore more dynamics and more options.
No. That's flat out wrong and you either didn't read my post or you didn't understand it. The "diversity in income" is identical in both scenarios. It's 300. There is actually potential for LESS "diversity in income" in option 1 if the player being killed has less than 100g.
You really don't understand games if you think that "diversity in income" creates more "dynamics and options". It creates greater snowballs, makes comebacks less likely and makes the game less fun to play and watch because the outcome is more easily predicted.
MUNDO!!
Here we go, people. Let's break it down.
This above statement is true. However, none of you come remotely close to the skill cap of either game. It doesn't matter if DotA requires more skill than LoL - none of you are 2k+, none of you have won any serious tournaments, and you're not signed by serious teams.
When you say 'skill cap' like it matters, you're basing it on the assumption that you have reached it. Which you haven't. And since none of you have reached it (and will ever reach it), the 'skill cap' of a game should be the last consideration if you're trying to decide between both games.
If you're a top ten player, then I'll definitely listen to what you have to say about the skill cap of your chosen game. Hell, I might even listen to you if you were at least plat.
The quoted statement is actually not true (click the link I posted earlier for a statistical explanation of why that is), but ignoring that for a moment.
What makes it particularly hilarious is that DotA players were originally WC3 players who couldn't handle a more challenging, strategically deep game with WC3 melée. They played the RTS lite DotA, a game that required half the apm and didn't track your statistics. I often think the masochistic posing that goes with these LoL/DotA arguments comes from a deep sense of inadequacy that they couldn't handle a real RTS. If difficulty is the only thing that matters when judging a game then why aren't they playing WC3 or SC2?
MUNDO!!
So you still insist that 200g = 300g math is correct...
I did read your post, understand it but you still fail (hard) at math and make no sense - if both scenarios are the same how one can be less diverse and makes greater snowballs and harder comebacks? This is what diversion and dynamics mean...you don't like it, fine but there is no point in denying.
Greater snowballs? Eh, I guess by your logic we could as well remove respawn timers, last hitting, creep waves and all that stuff entirely because it makes the comebacks less likely...
While you see those "less likely comeback" mechanics as more ways how to get owned, there are others who enjoy to exploit them because some people do like depth and options in their games.
SMNC
Who the hell is talking about 200 = 300? You're the one that keeps bringing that up. My math is that 200+100 is the same as 300 + 0. Are you honestly trying to argue that that isn't the case?
My second point wasn't that the either of the above scenarios produces greater snowballs (they can't because the "diversity in income is the same in both scenarios), my point was that diversity in income isn't in itself a good thing in these games because it produces greater snowballs. Depth in games can produce snowballs, but reducing the effect wherever possible produces a more exciting spectacle. It's a balancing act, and honestly I feel LoL has it better balanced than DotA.
The example with the two scenarios was simply there to demonstrate that gold loss on death doesn't really add anything, because the same advantage can be achieved by simply giving the killer more gold. That gives both the killer and the killed more options, more to do and makes the game more fun for both parties.
Don't try and second guess "my logic". You're not very good at it.
MUNDO!!
League of Legends is the most popular one with 35+ million accounts.
That dwarfs every MOBA out there and generates tons of streaming / discussion etc.
I tried HoN but just couldn't get into it so I'm playing LoL.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
You...
You almost got the point why there is a gold loss. What you fail to grasp is that you losing 100g is not the same as me gaining equal amount - you will not buy anything for gold you do not have.
You propose only gains without loss but it is the loss adding the consequences.
It is the death penalty giving the game depth and options. Without any death penalty, you would be instantly respawning and rushing back to battle without any actual consequence for dying over and over. With death penalties tho, and harsher they are, every each death is crucial and can decide the outcome of entire match.
This can be easily seen in late games when single battle can be a difference between lost or won game, and that is only because of death penalty in form of respawn timer.
Gold loss upon death does the same, it provides more options, more consequences since early game.
Have your easy game and play LoL, if you want something more challenging though, you have to seek elsewhere.
Meh. I can't be bothered explaining again how and why you're missing the point.
LoL has an extremely high skillcap. That's actually a verifiable fact. I notice you (and every other DotA fanboy) is unwilling (unable) to have a go at disproving the below. (credit to Jacob in below thread)
http://na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=1503678&page=31
----
The only substantial argument that isn't obviously fallacious presented in this topic that lends to the conclusion that DOTA is a more difficult game to play than LOL is that you get punished more for your mistakes in DOTA.
However, claiming that being punished more for mistakes makes the game more difficult is a fallacious argument as well. Let's show that by an analogous example:
If you miss a specific question on your first quiz in class A, you fail the class. The passing grade for the class overall is 70%.
If you miss a specific question on your first quiz in class B, nothing happens. The passing grade for the class overall is 70%.
Have we determined that class A is harder than class B? Not at all. Class A could be first grade math requiring you to learn addition to pass the first grade, class B could be Multivariate calculus. There is no correlation between punishing mistakes and difficulty. Without correlation, there can exist no causation. QED.
Now, in terms of LOL and DOTA what does it mean that DOTA punishes more for mistakes than LOL? It means the game is over at an earlier stage, it means a single enemy mistake can win you the game as long as you don't make a mistake serious enough to compensate for the first mistake. In LOL, you have to actively win a series of engagements over time to win. you have to beat your enemy repeatedly to win the game.
In mathematical terms, a larger sample size of teamfights/engagements directly determining the outcome of the game means you have to prove yourself more consistently better to win a game in LOL than in DOTA.
Now over the scale of a tournament, that means the winners of a LOL tournament have to more consistently show they are better than their opponents to win. luck is a lesser factor (mathematically speaking, on average). consistently showing that you are better than your opponents seems to comply with a definition of skill.
It is absurd to assess the difficulty level of a game based on anything but the difficulty it takes to master the game. (You cannot say Skyrim is easier than The Witcher 2, because beating Skyrim on Easy requires less skill than beating The Witcher 2 on the difficulty labelled easy. You have to compare their hardest difficulties for any comparison to make sense).
Again, let us turn to statistics. Platinum in season 1 was the top 0.2% of the population. That corresponds to the third standard deviation above the mean. You have to be better than platinum to be able to play competitively in any sense. That is to say, you have to be better than 99.8% of the population to be a competitive player. The skillcap of lol is thus proven to be extremely high compared to the skill-level of its player-base average. With how the elo system works, there is no mathematical reason why the ratings required for platinum were not reached by 10% of the community, if 10% of the community did actually reach the skillcap of lol.
Compared to the size of its player-base, lol is an extremely difficult game to master, i.e. the skillcap is extremely high. Anyone claiming otherwise does not understand mathematics.
does this make lol harder than dota or dota harder than lol? None of this shows comparatively one way or another. However, the myth that lol has a low skill-cap can be dismissed. It's simply not true.
The burden of evidence now lies with the DOTA crowd. can you prove less than 0.2% of the dota-population have mastered dota on a competitive level? Or rather, if you prefer absolute terms, can you prove that less than about 300 people can play DOTA at a competitive tournament level?
----
MUNDO!!
Good, because you are no good at it, neither is your friend and his circular, fallacious reasoning - class B CANNOT have same passing grade as class A.