taterdactyl Posted June 5, 2014 Nice job! I love playing support. Lich can be fun, but have you played any Witch Doctor? He's one of my absolute favorite supports to play. Even if I'm having a bad game, I still feel super useful. And when I'm having a great game, it's just so much fun. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BobbyBesar Posted June 5, 2014 Nice job! I love playing support. Lich can be fun, but have you played any Witch Doctor? He's one of my absolute favorite supports to play. Even if I'm having a bad game, I still feel super useful. And when I'm having a great game, it's just so much fun. The podcast guys are big on the "first taste" that keeps you coming back for more. Getting a really good Witch Doctor cask-chain is one of those things that's pretty easy to do and feels reeeeeeally good. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sproutella Posted June 5, 2014 Basically what annoyed people I think was just how non-confrontational the game was. It wasn't just a game where one team has a lycan pushing down towers with a necrobook, it was a game where nothing happened for an hour and then VP finally just went for a push instead of defending and lost a base race. Yeah I think that game is the extreme of rat dota. However, the average pub player/ twitch chatter would probably call it rat dota whenever a furion takes a tower instead of joining a teamfight right away. I find it frustrating that the community uses these kind of hyperbolic juvenile terms.Split-pushing is a completely legitimate strategy that Alliance utilized to full effect at TI3, but by referring to it as "rat dota" it makes it sound cheap, sneaky or unfair. By extension the "real" way to play would be to teamfight ("manfight", perhaps), betraying the bullshit alpha male mentality behind this attitude. In the same way, I've seen commenters refer to lords as "trash tier", instead of saying "not viable for competitive play" or something like this. On a similar note, Riot has banned two professional LoL players because of their toxicity when matchmaking. I wonder if Valve would have the stones to do the same? I feel I've watched streams from pro players that behaved like real jerks. I wasn't using the term offensively when I first mentioned it, Like I said I have an affinity for the playstyle especially when playing without a stack. I think it is generally used negatively by most people because it can be frustrating to play against, and some think it a boring style to watch when spectating. It's obviously a legit strategy because it wins games, this is a game about killing buildings not necessarily the people protecting them. I'm in no way surprised that people respond to the strategy so negatively though, think about your average pub player. They care about getting kills, getting cool items, about "feeling Epic" by the end of the game. No one wants to come out ahead in a teamfight, and realize you actually came out behind because you lost a racks during it (forgetting of course that it was a strategically poor fight to take and no one was carrying a tp scroll). I don't think it's really an 'alpha male mentality', but rather those people not wanting to accept that this game is still very much a strategy game on many levels, and not purely defined by your twitch skills (the integration of the two aspects makes the game so great in my opinion). In regard to people calling it out when spectating it's for similar reasons, that twitch teamfight skills (something Alliance had it spades at TI3 btw) should be the decider of games and not strategic choices. Beyond that teamfights are generally more exciting than the times when another team is trying to counter a split push (I still find this fun to watch, not everyones cup of tea). Although base-races are a product of the second which in my opinion are the most exciting events in comp dota. Valve would/could never ban pros from competitive Dota, they don't own the players/tournaments like Riot does (contractually). RTZ and EE still get put in low prio queue like the rest of the flaming/abandoning masses, they could get their steam banned (not sure if this is ever a punishment?). If they were REALLLY bad (like really racist or something) in games on on stream (or their pub game voice/text chat was made public) they would get kicked out by their teams first (worse publicity for them than valve). Valve could pressure a team to drop a player(saying they wont invite x team to TI4 b/c x player is toxic), but it would never come to that b/c the team would always react to public outcry 1st. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sproutella Posted June 5, 2014 The podcast guys are big on the "first taste" that keeps you coming back for more. Getting a really good Witch Doctor cask-chain is one of those things that's pretty easy to do and feels reeeeeeally good. My first taste was as lich, porting into the tier one middle tower where two enemies were pushing right next to each other, and just dropping my ulti on em. Oh so satisfying, something about the bounces man... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dibs Posted June 5, 2014 My first taste was as lich, porting into the tier one middle tower where two enemies were pushing right next to each other, and just dropping my ulti on em. Oh so satisfying, something about the bounces man... I always feel like a good Lich Ult moves in slow motion so you have ample time to zoom your face in on the screen to watch it slowly devour your enemies. When i started playing first I played a lot of lich and i must have been in with lots of beginners, caus i so so often hit level six, walked up to the enemies who were standing on top of each other and unleashed. That happens a lot less these days. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
taterdactyl Posted June 5, 2014 The podcast guys are big on the "first taste" that keeps you coming back for more. Getting a really good Witch Doctor cask-chain is one of those things that's pretty easy to do and feels reeeeeeally good. And it really sucks when someone does it to you. I had a horrible game yesterday because the other team's WD kept getting awesome cask/death ward combos. I died *at least* three times from being cask-effed with one other person while WD danced around shooting his dumb ol' death ward. Being on the receiving end is no bueno. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
undermind9 Posted June 5, 2014 this WD love/love-to-hate go makes me really happy. in my 5-stack my brother (happens to be all family) has some 400+ games as WD and a 3.13 kda, Also typically goes middle and frequently wins his lane, gets a rune and will help take a tower or clear a side @ lvl6 anyways, my point, i love that a lord that is mostly played hard-support/ancillary damage can be taken to the next level with practice. I love playing with (not so much against) rando's who have play any lord atypically & dominates because they break the norm/meta with their style (eg http://tinyurl.com/ptkv3u8 this guy went No-Bear sylla and tore us up split pushing) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Henroid Posted June 8, 2014 You folks are educated about this sorta thing: Why isn't there a freaking forfeit function in this game? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cleinhun Posted June 8, 2014 You folks are educated about this sorta thing: Why isn't there a freaking forfeit function in this game? That is a can that contains more worms than I think you realize, but the short answer is that some people seem to think that teams will always surrender as soon as they start losing instead of trying for a comeback, despite there being no evidence that they would do this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BusbyBerkeley Posted June 8, 2014 That is a can that contains more worms than I think you realize, but the short answer is that some people seem to think that teams will always surrender as soon as they start losing instead of trying for a comeback, despite there being no evidence that they would do this. To dive head fucking first into this gross, wormy can, The surrender function in LoL was used a LOT back when I played a few years ago. You could surrender at like 20 minutes and it seemed like someone almost always tried it every game. It really just sucks for both teams, removes most possibilities of fun comebacks and isn't fun to win against and blows when you don't want to give up. It sucked even to see the vote pop up. I'm really glad valve isn't adding a forfeit feature. It's kind of different because LoL has a much more steady power curve than dota and it is really snowball-y, so there are less comebacks in general. But yeah, if you're playing a carry and the pudge calls for a ff because it's ten minutes in and he died a couple times it would be awful. one guy with a lot of farm can easily swing the match. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cleinhun Posted June 8, 2014 To dive head fucking first into this gross, wormy can, The surrender function in LoL was used a LOT back when I played a few years ago. I also played LoL a few years ago, and that wasn't really my experience. I mean, yeah, it wasn't uncommon for somebody to get mad and call a surrender vote when the game was still winnable, but everyone else would vote against it, because people like winning. If I remember correctly it as actually more frustrating to pass a vote when you were clearly lost because of one guy who refuses to admit defeat. I don't want to say that your experience was wrong, maybe at your elo it was different. But when I played I don't remember it ever being a problem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dibs Posted June 8, 2014 I think The LoL community has matured somewhat on the surrender vote. I see a lot of votes being denied compared to a few years ago, and less whining about the vote being denied. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
undermind9 Posted June 8, 2014 it was in HoN as well, 15:01 minutes in the surrender would pop if there was the chance of the game being lopsided. some days id like a dota surrender...but im generally glad there is not, i just won a game this morning that was heavy in the other team's favor we came back from... all it took was a 30minute blink on our batrider...then a followup 40minute vanguard =D Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BFrank Posted June 8, 2014 When I switched from LoL to Dota2, the lack of a surrender option was definitely part of my thinking. In my experience, it wasted more of my time than it saved and encouraged people to bail out of games with matchups they didn't approve of. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted June 8, 2014 Again, the solution to all these problems is making it require a unanimous vote. Anyone who feeds or performs some other malicious behavior over not getting the surrender they wanted was going to make you lose anyway. Such an easy solution to a big problem. I'm so smart! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njoos Posted June 8, 2014 It was like that in HoN. Needed 5 votes. Then they did some clowny shit with only needing 4 votes after 40minutes. It was awful always, and a source of flaming and griefing. People (me) would vote yes just to not have to play with quitters. It is shit. You get battlepoints anyway so why do you give a shit. I rarely have games where we get badly stomped anyway. Good matchmaking over surrender function! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted June 8, 2014 Better question: who gives a shit about battlepoints? Is that really your counterargument? Please. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BusbyBerkeley Posted June 8, 2014 People (me) would vote yes just to not have to play with quitters. It is shit. You didn't want to play with quitters so you voted to quit. I am losing SO MANY fucking games lately. I am not this bad I don't think Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njoos Posted June 9, 2014 All problems solved by a surrender option is solved better by other systems is my argument. Anyway. Here is Merlini and Fnatic.h4nni in a bath tub. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Henroid Posted June 9, 2014 There should be multiple layers of qualifiers for a forfeit vote. It shouldn't be unanimous; 4 out of 5 should do it. Requiring that 5th vote is an easy "haha trolled" moment. There should also be a timer on last time your team killed someone on the enemy team. If it's been a while, then forfeiting should be allowed. Not all teams that are in a clearly winning scenario press to win - a lot of them drag shit out to get higher scores. So that should be taken into consideration. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
undermind9 Posted June 9, 2014 I think xp or gold gap would be a better qualifier. Like >15k gold and option comes up... And team gets one try at it. One of the most aggravating parts of a concede button is when it gets flamed from the moment available until either the throne pops or team gives up Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted June 9, 2014 Add a cooldown to the vote. Five minutes, or even ten or fifteen minutes. No longer spammable. BOOSH. Problem solved.Unanimity is a requirement. Getting trolled every once in a blue moon is much better than being forced to concede because of a bad team fight.Surrender solves problems that nothing else could solve. Teams prolonging the game (unintentionally out of fear or intentionally because they're douchebags - the latter of which I believe happens more than the former, which is terrible) is the number one reason we need the surrender option. Games lasting fifteen or twenty or thirty minutes longer than they need to is fucking stupid and a waste of my time. I don't care if the enemy team is having fun. My team is not. We're sitting there playing with out own shit waiting for the enemy to actually push for once in their fucking life because we can't leave the base or we die, we can't farm the creeps that come up to our tower or we die, and even if we could, they control more than two thirds of the map which guarantees they'll stay ahead in farm. And then they go get rosh and deny the aegis because that's so funny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
undermind9 Posted June 9, 2014 Better question: who gives a shit about battlepoints? Is that really your counterargument? Please. I think it still gave out the in game currency, just a portion of a complete game. Wasting 30-40 minutes to end in a forfeit is pretty aggravating if you are saving to buy a new skin, announcer, or the new Lord of the week... Which in the quasi play-to-win model getting the new hero before the riff raff could lead to good mmr boosts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted June 9, 2014 I don't know what any of that means. I thought we were talking about Dota! Are they called battlepoints in HoN, too? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
