Agree with Potatis, but I'm biased being a Dota player. RNG isn't a negative factor to the game, it's just another mechanic the game has, that LoL doesn't have. The RNG abilities (notably Ogre Magi's Multicast, Phantom Assassin's Crit, Chaos Knight's Chaos Bolt) are random surely, but it's not losing the game or winning the game with one crit. While PA can potentially win a teamfight with lucky crit, or get unlucky and not do enough damage because she doesn't, the persisting fact is that outplaying someone will trump being "lucky", however great or small the impact RNG has on the scenario. Many of the heroes that are reliant on getting lucky to do much aren't even great picks, especially competitively, as they are weak in other areas. And if you are killed because of a lucky Multicast or something, it's your fault entirely for taking the chance that he wasn't going to multicast. Its a core part of the gameplay, and much of the game is balanced around it.
It's not a mechanic that breaks the game, it's just another element of it. I've yet to see one competitive game that was lost because of "luck".
It's not a mechanic that breaks the game, it's just another element of it. I've yet to see one competitive game that was lost because of "luck".
Oh it's not the reason I don't like it, in fact, I think DotA is a fun game. The look and the feel are actually, imo, a lot better than LoL. Also the idea of factions is very fun as well so on that part I like the game. Things I dislike is the amount of different forms RNG takes in DotA; LoL has crit chance and well there's phage. I still think both should be reworked into something that doesn't involve RNG but at least it's something. I'm not sure if it occurs a lot more in LoL than in DotA or if it is the other way around; I only know that DotA implements it in several gameplay aspects and LoL only in two.
Overall I just don't play DotA because I already play LoL and I just don't have the time to become good at it.
Overall I just don't play DotA because I already play LoL and I just don't have the time to become good at it.
Atlas wrote:
Agree with Potatis, but I'm biased being a Dota player. RNG isn't a negative factor to the game, it's just another mechanic the game has, that LoL doesn't have. The RNG abilities (notably Ogre Magi's Multicast, Phantom Assassin's Crit, Chaos Knight's Chaos Bolt) are random surely, but it's not losing the game or winning the game with one crit. While PA can potentially win a teamfight with lucky crit, or get unlucky and not do enough damage because she doesn't, the persisting fact is that outplaying someone will trump being "lucky", however great or small the impact RNG has on the scenario. Many of the heroes that are reliant on getting lucky to do much aren't even great picks, especially competitively, as they are weak in other areas. And if you are killed because of a lucky Multicast or something, it's your fault entirely for taking the chance that he wasn't going to multicast. Its a core part of the gameplay, and much of the game is balanced around it.
It's not a mechanic that breaks the game, it's just another element of it. I've yet to see one competitive game that was lost because of "luck".
I'm not saying that it changes entire games or w/e but it's such an oxymoron to implement luck-based skills into a strategy game. Neither the player who uses the skill nor the player who is the victim of it can make an appropriate plan based on it which is frustrating. Remember when LoL had Dodge? Most players utterly hated the mechanic, why? Because it had nothing to do with individual skill or even strategic aspects. Players just survived or won specific fights because the RNG decided to give them a dodge.
I don't like crit either and I do think it should be reworked but the reason it hasn't been is because it's not as game-breaking as other aspects. Also, you can influence the chance by buying specific items. If someone has IE and PHD they will have at least 55% which is a fair amount. It also means that you can play on it. Chaos Knight's Chaos Bolt has nothing to it really, you can't influence it and you will never know exactly how long your opponent will be stunned which is frustrating for both players.
Whenever there's RNG involved you will hear the word "lucker"; not that I care about those idiots but it does make you think: "Did I really win because I played it well or just because I happened to get a great dice roll?". If you can actually influence the RNG or make plays based on it, I wouldn't care that much but if it's just so random that you just have to watch it happen and ask yourself "now what?"; that doesn't fit a strategy game imo.
I am personally twisted when it comes to RNG abilities and items.
On one hand it got the: WOW factor that is both great and really anoying. But i do think the possitives of it outweigh it.
I like that i can't prepare for every thing 100% and i gotta take small riskes at time. It adds another depth to it all in my opinion. And considering my best hero pretty much is void. I have alot of experience when it comes to this.
On one hand it got the: WOW factor that is both great and really anoying. But i do think the possitives of it outweigh it.
I like that i can't prepare for every thing 100% and i gotta take small riskes at time. It adds another depth to it all in my opinion. And considering my best hero pretty much is void. I have alot of experience when it comes to this.
PotatisFarfar wrote:
I am personally twisted when it comes to RNG abilities and items.
On one hand it got the: WOW factor that is both great and really anoying. But i do think the possitives of it outweigh it.
I like that i can't prepare for every thing 100% and i gotta take small riskes at time. It adds another depth to it all in my opinion. And considering my best hero pretty much is void. I have alot of experience when it comes to this.
It sometimes reminds me of an archetype in the YuGiOh! card game: Arcana Force. All members work with coin tosses (RNG) which can make you put together a so-called Gamble Deck. That's something I do like but overall it should stay away. My point with this is, if you can still make strategic decisions when it comes to a random event I'm cool with it, but players should be able to anticipate. Also, if there's a character that revolves around random stuff, cool! Go for it, but don't spread it out over the entire game. It creates messy, unpredictable gameplay till a point it just gets annoying.
tl;dr I can see the appeal of RNG but it should be implemented in such a way players can anticipate on it such as in a card game like Poker.
Much like Atlas I might be slightly bias'd since I prefer DotA over LoL but I'll try to be as non-bias'd as possible.
RNG is only a small element in the game that it doesn't factor in much into the actual gameplay and design. For example the King of RNG, Chaos Knight is random as hell but he's not designed nor picked based on that small element. Chaos Knight hits hard regardless of crit, he'll stun regardless of random duration of stun and pushes towers well with his illusions. Chaos Knight's skillset also work well together and has an influence on how he's suppose to be played.
Even though Chaos Knight has an RNG stun, it's a stun none-the-less, whether or not it's 2 seconds or 4, you stun someone and go in for the kill. If it's 4 seconds great, if it's 2 seconds oh well, the design of Chaos Knight is not based on purely an RNG spell. It's the overall skillset of the hero and what that hero can provide with those skills to the team determines their role and this applies to all heroes that are being designed. There's too much emphasis that RNG elements define the events that are set in motion.
What about Pudge that's pretty similar to Blitzcrank? Let's say Pudge randomly throws a hook and hits someone, ok great but this is an example where players tend to put too much emphasis on that "Oh his hook range is long and you can random throw a hook and might hit someone". If that Pudge player played badly the whole game and gets a random good hook, he's still bad, if a fantastic Pudge player that launched good hooks throughout the game and then throws a random hook, he's still consider good even though he did get lucky with that single hook.
Understand what I'm trying to say is, the design of a hero is not based on one element of a spell but the overall skill design of all the abilities the hero and how they're being played.
Blitzcrank has a random element with his ultimate where he'll randomly spark an enemy right? If that small design element on Blitzcrank was removed, would it dramatically change Blitzcrank? No it wouldn't, so elements with RNG wouldn't change a hero since they're not designed or picked based on that.
RNG is only a small element in the game that it doesn't factor in much into the actual gameplay and design. For example the King of RNG, Chaos Knight is random as hell but he's not designed nor picked based on that small element. Chaos Knight hits hard regardless of crit, he'll stun regardless of random duration of stun and pushes towers well with his illusions. Chaos Knight's skillset also work well together and has an influence on how he's suppose to be played.
Even though Chaos Knight has an RNG stun, it's a stun none-the-less, whether or not it's 2 seconds or 4, you stun someone and go in for the kill. If it's 4 seconds great, if it's 2 seconds oh well, the design of Chaos Knight is not based on purely an RNG spell. It's the overall skillset of the hero and what that hero can provide with those skills to the team determines their role and this applies to all heroes that are being designed. There's too much emphasis that RNG elements define the events that are set in motion.
What about Pudge that's pretty similar to
Blitzcrank? Let's say Pudge randomly throws a hook and hits someone, ok great but this is an example where players tend to put too much emphasis on that "Oh his hook range is long and you can random throw a hook and might hit someone". If that Pudge player played badly the whole game and gets a random good hook, he's still bad, if a fantastic Pudge player that launched good hooks throughout the game and then throws a random hook, he's still consider good even though he did get lucky with that single hook.Understand what I'm trying to say is, the design of a hero is not based on one element of a spell but the overall skill design of all the abilities the hero and how they're being played.
Blitzcrank has a random element with his ultimate where he'll randomly spark an enemy right? If that small design element on Blitzcrank was removed, would it dramatically change Blitzcrank? No it wouldn't, so elements with RNG wouldn't change a hero since they're not designed or picked based on that.
The nubtrain just arrived at nubcentral. (somebody had to make that joke)
Even though Chaos Knight has an RNG stun, it's a stun none-the-less, whether or not it's 2 seconds or 4, you stun someone and go in for the kill. If it's 4 seconds great, if it's 2 seconds oh well, the design of Chaos Knight is not based on purely an RNG spell. It's the overall skillset of the hero and what that hero can provide with those skills to the team determines their role and this applies to all heroes that are being designed. There's too much emphasis that RNG elements define the events that are set in motion.
Yes, a stun of variable duration is much better than a chance to stun. Completely RNG Crowd Control like all the Bash-based (the skill in WC3) skills in DotA are TERRIBLE though.
The variation of the skill can make it both amazing and useless, entirely depending on your luck.
That's a toxic game-mechanic if I ever saw one..
But that's an invalid argument in the end, because changing one element could change something into something else entirely.
What if Udyr's Bear Stance had a 30-40% chance to stun on each hit, instead of a stun with cooldown per target?
His way of playing would change significantly, most notably he would be a prime target for Attack Speed builds and maxing Tiger Stance would be pretty much vital.
Agree with Potatis, but I'm biased being a Dota player. RNG isn't a negative factor to the game, it's just another mechanic the game has, that LoL doesn't have. The RNG abilities (notably Ogre Magi's Multicast, Phantom Assassin's Crit, Chaos Knight's Chaos Bolt) are random surely, but it's not losing the game or winning the game with one crit. While PA can potentially win a teamfight with lucky crit, or get unlucky and not do enough damage because she doesn't, the persisting fact is that outplaying someone will trump being "lucky", however great or small the impact RNG has on the scenario. Many of the heroes that are reliant on getting lucky to do much aren't even great picks, especially competitively, as they are weak in other areas. And if you are killed because of a lucky Multicast or something, it's your fault entirely for taking the chance that he wasn't going to multicast. Its a core part of the gameplay, and much of the game is balanced around it.
It's not a mechanic that breaks the game, it's just another element of it. I've yet to see one competitive game that was lost because of "luck".
Winning a teamfight can snowball a team to victory.
Cause and effect is a complicated phenomena that has too many variables to say something with utmost certainty when it comes to games with as many variables as these. But what I can say is that it's very probable that there have been competitive matches that have been decided by chance.
Nubtrain wrote:
Even though Chaos Knight has an RNG stun, it's a stun none-the-less, whether or not it's 2 seconds or 4, you stun someone and go in for the kill. If it's 4 seconds great, if it's 2 seconds oh well, the design of Chaos Knight is not based on purely an RNG spell. It's the overall skillset of the hero and what that hero can provide with those skills to the team determines their role and this applies to all heroes that are being designed. There's too much emphasis that RNG elements define the events that are set in motion.
Yes, a stun of variable duration is much better than a chance to stun. Completely RNG Crowd Control like all the Bash-based (the skill in WC3) skills in DotA are TERRIBLE though.
The variation of the skill can make it both amazing and useless, entirely depending on your luck.
That's a toxic game-mechanic if I ever saw one..
Quoted:
Understand what I'm trying to say is, the design of a hero is not based on one element of a spell but the overall skill design of all the abilities the hero and how they're being played.
Blitzcrank has a random element with his ultimate where he'll randomly spark an enemy right? If that small design element on Blitzcrank was removed, would it dramatically change Blitzcrank? No it wouldn't, so elements with RNG wouldn't change a hero since they're not designed or picked based on that.
Blitzcrank has a random element with his ultimate where he'll randomly spark an enemy right? If that small design element on Blitzcrank was removed, would it dramatically change Blitzcrank? No it wouldn't, so elements with RNG wouldn't change a hero since they're not designed or picked based on that.But that's an invalid argument in the end, because changing one element could change something into something else entirely.
What if Udyr's Bear Stance had a 30-40% chance to stun on each hit, instead of a stun with cooldown per target?
His way of playing would change significantly, most notably he would be a prime target for Attack Speed builds and maxing Tiger Stance would be pretty much vital.
Atlas wrote:
Agree with Potatis, but I'm biased being a Dota player. RNG isn't a negative factor to the game, it's just another mechanic the game has, that LoL doesn't have. The RNG abilities (notably Ogre Magi's Multicast, Phantom Assassin's Crit, Chaos Knight's Chaos Bolt) are random surely, but it's not losing the game or winning the game with one crit. While PA can potentially win a teamfight with lucky crit, or get unlucky and not do enough damage because she doesn't, the persisting fact is that outplaying someone will trump being "lucky", however great or small the impact RNG has on the scenario. Many of the heroes that are reliant on getting lucky to do much aren't even great picks, especially competitively, as they are weak in other areas. And if you are killed because of a lucky Multicast or something, it's your fault entirely for taking the chance that he wasn't going to multicast. Its a core part of the gameplay, and much of the game is balanced around it.
It's not a mechanic that breaks the game, it's just another element of it. I've yet to see one competitive game that was lost because of "luck".
Winning a teamfight can snowball a team to victory.
Cause and effect is a complicated phenomena that has too many variables to say something with utmost certainty when it comes to games with as many variables as these. But what I can say is that it's very probable that there have been competitive matches that have been decided by chance.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens
Searz wrote:
The nubtrain just arrived at nubcentral. (somebody had to make that joke)
:O
Searz wrote:
But that's an invalid argument in the end, because changing one element could change something into something else entirely.
What if Udyr's Bear Stance had a 30-40% chance to stun on each hit, instead of a stun with cooldown per target?
His way of playing would change significantly, most notably he would be a prime target for Attack Speed builds and maxing Tiger Stance would be pretty much vital.
Yeah sorry, came up with a bad example; couldn't think of another champion since I haven't played in awhile but what I'm basically trying to say is you can't put so much emphasis on an element of the game that's so small and rule out other aspects of the gameplay. The minor RNG elements in some abilities are just icing to the cake on the particular heros.
PotatisFarfar wrote:
Yup both is hardcore to any one new to the genre of dota style games. But you gotta be pretty naive to say there is not huge differences between league and Dota. Hence why i am saying you can not really say one is better than the other. Atleast not when it comes to gameplay.
They're both hardcore, period. Don't pollute the definition..
Their skill-ceilings are fairly equal(DotA 2 probably being slightly higher), but as I said: the biggest difference lies in that LoL is easier to learn because of the move towards transparent game mechanics.
Your conclusion has nothing to do with your statements. Being better or worse has nothing to do with the difference in skill-requirements. Especially when the two games are so similar.
Quoted:
And i am not just talking about Guides here, hell not even graphical fedelity. I am talking about basic features like a working replay, spectator and broadcasting system. And last time i checked Dota 1 had a replay system, while League does not, that and you don't have to buy every hero. So i would even go as far to say the original Dota is better in a pure tech way. Oh and not to mention: ADOBE ****ING AIR
That's exactly the kind of features I was talking about.
Ignoring the point regarding LoL and DotA 1(as it isn't relevant): I agree 100% with that.
Quoted:
Clearly the **** players are gonna be griefing *******s. But the funny thing with Dota 2 is. When you start reaching Mid-high+ rankings. People are actually acting like adults. Don't you trust me? Fair enough, but i would bet my life that if you check the replays of the Dota 2 Games and compared them to leagues repla... Ohh nevermind, guess it is a mystery.
Yea, this part of the discussion gets nowhere with the lack of any concrete way to prove a point. Let's leave it at that.
Also, lol at your trashtalking.
Quoted:
But it is a gamemechanic none the less, and who are you to say it is a bad game mechanic when the game is formed around it.
I'm a person? A sentient being?
What a pointless statement to make..
Quoted:
And how it it unclear to never players? Do you expect a person to turn instantly to one side to the other in real life? Does that happen in first person shooters aswell? What you are saying is that players moving from League of legends or a simmuilar Dota style game is used to the system in use there, and find it weird that it works differently.
Don't bring real life into a discussion about games. I'll just make your argument moot by asking how much sense a staff-wielding panda makes.
Quoted:
Just because it is Old doesn't make it bad, it doesn't make it good either mind you. But RNG is still present alot, and considering it is not actually true random, but uses a pseudorandom system, i see no problem in it. Hell, it is not even that many heroes that uses RNG mechanics any way. Can think of like 5 on the top of my head. Way less considering every Hero In League uses it (Critt chance).
Instead of going for the 'old doesn't mean bad' route, how about you focus on why it's not bad?
Psuedo-random is still random, and random is still bad, no matter which game it is being used in.
5? There's a list of 10 heroes and 13 items just here: http://www.dota2wiki.com/wiki/Pseudo-random_distribution
And I'm certain there are more.
Still, crits are minor things compared to CC reliant on chance. Not finding fault with RNG-based CC would entail an intellect only rivaled by garden tools.
Oh, and stop trying to divert attention away from the question at hand to a by defaming the "opposing" game. It's really obvious.
PotatisFarfar wrote:
I am personally twisted when it comes to RNG abilities and items.
On one hand it got the: WOW factor that is both great and really anoying. But i do think the possitives of it outweigh it.
What positives? That 'WOW factor' you mentioned? That's one positive(not plural), which is easily outdone by the other side of the same coin.
Quoted:
I like that i can't prepare for every thing 100% and i gotta take small riskes at time. It adds another depth to it all in my opinion.
Preparing '100%' for anything is impossible, you will always have to take 'small risks' regardless of RNG(i.e: your argument is moot).
RNG does add another level of complexity, but it's a level that players can't affect and as such is a very cheap way of adding complexity. RNG adds fake depth, not depth that is worthwhile for the players.
"He cooked cake." - MrCuddowls
"Oh forget it, I have nothing to hid, I admit it, 12 hours of every single day of my life ever since I was eleven years old have been anal sex with canoes" - MrCuddowls
"Oh forget it, I have nothing to hid, I admit it, 12 hours of every single day of my life ever since I was eleven years old have been anal sex with canoes" - MrCuddowls
You need to log in before commenting.
Just because you don't need them to do the computing algorithms or stuff like that doesn't mean you should not have them. It is a part of the game and it is a mechanic serves to add intresting gameplay options and spell interaction. Sure its origin is old but that says nothing more than it is old.
Dota 2 devs says so. http://www.dota2wiki.com/wiki/Pseudo-random_distribution
With just a pair of spells not utelizingusing it.
Never said you approved of it, just pointed out that there is ALOT and i mean ALOT more RNG in League of legends then Dota.
You make it sound like there is alot of these, when in reality there is only 1 spell with this property. (2 if you count ogre magi).
I just think it is stupid to say you don´t like the game for these incredible small part of the Dota game. It would be like saying you do not like League of legends because you don't like the design of 2 or 3 spells.