---

Originally posted by Geeves

You do realize that shallow games are mastered by more than 0.2% of the playerbase don't you?

---

And you do not realize that you can still pick up 0.2% among those who have mastered said shallow game...

Truly pointless discussion :)

Example:

You have a sample of 100k MOBA players and you are about to organize a competition. You cannot invite all 100k of them but you only invite TOP 1000, which is 1% of your total sample...or you can invite TOP 500 only, which is 0.5%...or TOP 100 which is 0.1%...

Now do the same with different samples sizes. See, means about just nothing.

Geeves, the thread said this:

"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?"

In the end, this comparison means nothing.  The value '0.2%' takes into account all the autists in 'elo hell', so why would I compare DotA players to it?  You say that we're only talking about people that play competitively, but the thread is directly comparing percentages that take into account all LoL players.  Proving that 200 people play DotA competitively means nothing, especially if the base game requires more skill to perform at an equivalent level.  Just because you compare well to a bunch of autists who play Evelynn doesn't mean that you're good.

It comes down to one thing.  Which requires more skill?

Last-hitting enemy creeps

Last-hitting enemy creeps while last-hitting your own at the same time, with the added threat of having your enemies stealing your kills

The answer's pretty clear.  (And let's be honest - most games are won by the participation and protection of carries / heroes that scale well with farm, so farming is probably the single most important mechanic to master in the game).

Originally posted by Gdemami

---

Originally posted by Geeves

You do realize that shallow games are mastered by more than 0.2% of the playerbase don't you?

---

And you do not realize that you can still pick up 0.2% among those who have mastered said shallow game...

Truly pointless discussion :)

Example:

You have a sample of 100k MOBA players and you are about to organize a competition. You cannot invite all 100k of them but you only invite TOP 1000, which is 1% of your total sample...or you can invite TOP 500 only, which is 0.5%...or TOP 100 which is 0.1%...

Now do the same with different samples sizes. See, means about just nothing.

The point is that in a shallow game you wouldn't be able to differentiate between your top .5 or top 1%. Who's the worlds best tic tac toe player? LoL is able to provide that level of differentiation because there is depth that can be exploited by the best of the best.

---

Originally posted by Geeves

The point is that in a shallow game you wouldn't be able to differentiate between your top .5 or top 1%.

---

Sure I can and I even provided an example how it is done. It is in fact done same way in any competitive play or selection process - you have to draw an artificial line somewhere and then % you get is only a matter of sample size.

Same as answer above.

---

Originally posted by Khaeros

It comes down to one thing.  Which requires more skill?

 

Last-hitting enemy creeps

Last-hitting enemy creeps while last-hitting your own at the same time, with the added threat of having your enemies stealing your kills

 

The answer's pretty clear.  (And let's be honest - most games are won by the participation and protection of carries / heroes that scale well with farm, so farming is probably the single most important mechanic to master in the game).

---

It is not only that. You need to consider 2 other major factors - gold loss upon death, hero design and balance.

There are no heroes in LoL that can "1-hit" you at 7-8 min mark which means more dynamics in early game as well as more emphasis on team work.

Originally posted by Khaeros

Geeves, the thread said this:

 

"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?"

 

In the end, this comparison means nothing.  The value '0.2%' takes into account all the autists in 'elo hell', so why would I compare DotA players to it?  You say that we're only talking about people that play competitively, but the thread is directly comparing percentages that take into account all LoL players.  Proving that 200 people play DotA competitively means nothing, especially if the base game requires more skill to perform at an equivalent level.  Just because you compare well to a bunch of autists who play Evelynn doesn't mean that you're good.

 

It comes down to one thing.  Which requires more skill?

 

Last-hitting enemy creeps

Last-hitting enemy creeps while last-hitting your own at the same time, with the added threat of having your enemies stealing your kills

 

The answer's pretty clear.  (And let's be honest - most games are won by the participation and protection of carries / heroes that scale well with farm, so farming is probably the single most important mechanic to master in the game).

I should have been more clear. The thread said nothing about comparing LoL to DotA (which is what you're doing). The line before was the critical one...

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.

That's all I was trying to disprove. LoL is a shallow game for noobs. It's not. That's a fact.

The comments about the LoL community are pure anecdotal rubbish. There are bads in both games. The playerbase being lower skilled in LoL isn't something you're ever going to be able to come close to proving. It's just a mantra DotA fans like to repeat.

If you think the entire game (genre) boils down to last hitting creeps it probably explains why you don't like LoL. Not trying to be snide either. LoL places less emphasis on that part of the game. I like that because I think the mechanical act of last hitting is the most boring part of a MOBA. I find manipulating space to get my character into position to successfully fulfil a role for my team the enjoyable part of the genre. For me, LoL does that better because...

• There are more skillshots
• There are more active abilities (every champion bar one has 4 active ablities)
• There are more position manipulation abilities
• Cooldowns and mana costs are lower meaning those abilities are used more often
• Most abilities that are interesting and engaging for both player and opponent
• All of the above combines for dynamic, satisfying combat. The slower snowballs make that combat more interesting for longer periods

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Geeves

 

The point is that in a shallow game you wouldn't be able to differentiate between your top .5 or top 1%.

---

 

Sure I can and I even provided an example how it is done. It is in fact done same way in any competitive play or selection process - you have to draw an artificial line somewhere and then % you get is only a matter of sample size.

Same as answer above.

Dude it's not an ARBITRARY line at all. It's the top .2% repeatedly beating the shit out of those below them. It's not some random line in the sand drawn by Riot, they're better players because the game facilitates that level of depth.

It's not rocket science honestly!

PS. Going to bed.

---

Originally posted by Geeves

It's not rocket science honestly!

---

Yep, it indeed isn't and that's what makes it mind boggling how you can keep failing at grasping such simple principle :/

---

Originally posted by Geeves

All of the above combines for dynamic, satisfying combat. The slower snowballs make that combat more interesting for longer periods

---

No, in fact it is what makes the game stale as there is no reason in engaging your enemy before you are both farmed up.

And that is not an opinion, that is a fact - in LoL there is little point in early ganks as the enemy just comes back without losing anything. There is no way to win a game at 15 min mark, you just have to sit there, farm and see how the game turns out.

I have no issue with your personal preference, up to each own, but saying that LoL is more or equally complex and dynamic is just silly and untrue.

Originally posted by Geeves

Originally posted by Tonin109

i dont know this kind of game , is it like Warcraft III ? like you make a hero and soldiers to fight another hero?

i watched some videos on youtube but kinda confused only videos of guys fighting each other

DotA, HoN and LoL are similar to WC3 except you don't control the units, just a singular hero. The genre takes the RPG aspect of WC3 and expands on it while greatly reducing the required level of micromanagement.

thanks for the explanation, i will stick with Warcraft III :)

Ive really been enjoying Smite :)

Originally posted by Chase187666

Ive really been enjoying Smite :)

dont bother !the others are busy(as usual)arguing on semantic!but i do agree,in the lol genre?smite and smnc are the two i like in that genre of gaming!

This is kind hard to answer since most of the MOBA genre share quite a few features in some cases to an extent that it is pure cloning.

With that said LoL would prolly be best for a new gamer to the genre because it is very noobie friendly and the skill cap is lower, less item customizations, no gold penalty upon death and the like.

For a competitive player of the ones i have tried with i admit arent that many Dota would be the best bet, there are many more elements that affect game play which makes difference in skill between players really show.

Also i got say im amazed at the dude defending that LoL has the same skill cap as Dota thats such an ignorant statment that im suprised anyone bothered replying.

Originally posted by xdemonhunter

Also i got say im amazed at the dude defending that LoL has the same skill cap as Dota thats such an ignorant statment that im suprised anyone bothered replying.

I said the two weren't comparable, but LoL was a deeper game than anyone gave it credit for. Got anything useful to add?

LoL is a casual three lane action rpg that is easy to get into.

Dota2 is an unforgiving thee lane Dota Style game. If you arent good to begin with, you will be hard pressed to continue playing.

The best comparison I have ever heard: 

"LoL is like Call of Duty, easy to get into, very forgiving, player base consists of many casual and pro players alike.

Dota and Dota2 are like Counter-Strike. Harder to get into, unforgiving to new players, most of the player base is "wanna be pros" and pros, with far less casual players than the previous". 

This leads to more casual players (Majority) enjoying "LoL" and more competetive (Minority) players enjoying "Dota1/2"

Of course there are always exceptions 

HoN for Life <3!

I will explain why laterz(too tired now)...

Originally posted by Ecoces

i voted LoL but i think Smite will be my choice once they add more gods, its just much more fun for me playing in third person mode and getting into the combat than games like LoL or Dota.

 

sorry but im not going to beat my chest like an ape because game A is more Tedious than game B to prove my manhood. I play games to have fun and DOTA was just plain tedious. I mean I could watch grass grown but that doesn't mean i want to do it or should brag about it.

 

so congrats you play DOTA 2 and enjoy it, doesn't mean you are a better gamer, doesn't mean you have more self worth than someone who plays LoL it means you play a different video game.

 

at the end of the day were both losers who to the rest of the non gaming world can't believe we would spend so much time wasting our lives sitting in front of the computer screen

 

Could'nt agree with you more. I voted for Smite though, LoL was my game of choice in the past. 

Originally posted by Geeves

-snip-

• There are more skillshots
• There are more active abilities (every champion bar one has 4 active ablities)
• There are more position manipulation abilities
• Cooldowns and mana costs are lower meaning those abilities are used more often
• Most abilities that are interesting and engaging for both player and opponent
• All of the above combines for dynamic, satisfying combat. The slower snowballs make that combat more interesting for longer periods

Much of that is true for DotA as well of course, but then one could say the same about last hitting in LoL. It's an element that's more important in DotA than LoL (and there are others, repeated often and loudly by DotA fans). The bullet points are the things that LoL excels at. After that it just becomes the type of depth you prefer. In other words, it's just an opinion.

I usually won't touch this argument, as its based on player preferences, but what I completely disagree with is that abilities that cost less mana and have shorter cool downs make the game more interesting or engaging. To me, it removes the strategy part of the game, for example, missing a skill shot is less penalized if the cool downs are short or that they do not cost that much mana.

And I personally voted for Dota 2. I couldn't really get interested in LoL, even though I had friends playing the game, because after all the years in Dota 1, LoL felt like dumped down version of Dota, really.

As for "LoL being the largest", we will have to see how the market shifts when Dota 2 is out (Its not even released yet, and it will be a free-to-play game as well).