Do you compare orange, apple and banana? They all are not the same.
Tell you friend I was top Diamond, and one of the first Master players when it just came out in SC2. Right now I also play CS and I'm Supreme rank. For dota 2, just check my dotabuff.
i always call the games that i play shittiest games ever
and devs of that game fucking retards cuz lets be real this game could have been so much better if it had competent devs
Most games are kids' games. You release your inner child to compete with other inner children to enjoy your finite existence a bit more, often through reimagining of your blissful past where no obligations were to be had.
Except for Russians and Turks on EU east. Seriously, f*ck those guys, I think most of them are 40 year old pedo r*tard drunkass m*therf*cking idiots.
^ competition can be very mature. Fuckin accept that ur a grown up and like to spend time on ur computer.
YOUR FRIEND IS FUCKING RETARDED, ACTUALLY SC2 IS FOR RETARDS FUCKING BRAINDEAD MOOTHERFUCKER, KILL HIM ASAP FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY
All deep strategy games are turn based because real strategic analysis requires serious thought and time. RTS is primarily about mouse clicking skill (tactics) with some light strategy dusted on top. Dota has added depth over starcraft because it is a team game. But neither have serious strategic depth.
The fact that these games are dominated by tactics does not make them childish. It just makes them more athletic and less nerdy.
eh dota's pretty deep strategically when you draft and what items you choose, but most people gloss over these parts
The draft has strategy... if that determined the game no one would play. The game is always decided on tactics, who outplayed who. No matter the draft its always possible to win games on tactics. Even if its 5 pushiing heroes vs 5 carries... superior execution still decideds the winner.
The heavy emphasis on tactics is the reason you get people who don't know what they are doing at almost any MMR level. Understanding just is not that important in dota. SC2 is the same. Players basically run a handful of the same strategies every game, but some micro better so they win.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stars!
^This is an actual strategy game.
Almost no one likes real strategy, because to normal people it is work... and work so hard they can't even do it, so boring they don't want to hear or think about it. When things are won by strategy, no one even wants to watch. It's not surprising and exciting, its math. Someone solves the puzzle, and they win because they found something with no counter, no weakness.
Using the Atomic bomb to win when the other guy just has guns.... thats a strategic victory. It's not about courage, quickness, skill or honor. It's just math. The path to victory is coldly calculated, then relentlessly executed.
In the movie version of "Last of the Mohicans" the English Colonel is asked what the situation is at his fort and he says, "The situation is that they have bigger guns and more of them." You know when the enemy has secured a strategic victory in Dota 2. It's when you feel like just hiding in the fountain until the game ends. Sure they could throw, but they would have to truly lose on purpose for you to have a chance.
You're differentiating between tactics and strategy while I am lumping them together, but I see your point. I play a lot of strategy games too like civ series and moo series so I get the difference. I just think dota has a lot more depth than rts and majority of video games, though it's no where close to a civ title.
Dota has more depth because of the added Diplomacy, the teamwork is a seperate dimension.
People's emotional decision making has a huge impact on their tactical execution. Tactics, Strategy, Diplomacy, and Logistics are all needed in war. Dota 2 is mostly tactics, and can have a lot of diplomacy if you get the right people. But it has basically zero logistics and strategy is almost all just the draft. I guess if you consider the typical diplomatic failure of every pub dota team games are largely influenced by diplomacy. But I think of that as an abscence rather than a contribution to the game.
You know those games were your team magically has diplomatic chemistry. You all have whatever heroes, but somehow you actually work together because people are connecting... its not the hero synergys. Its the people. Omni-knight and Abaddon based teams do so well so often in pubs because they encourage people to work together.
Holy cow relentless, dats some good stuff, mann you should be coaching lots of them young doto studs mann, add me up so we can theory craft as well mann :D
you don't mean good stuff, you mean 👌👀👌👀👌👀👌👀👌👀 good shit go౦ԁ sHit👌 thats ✔ some good👌👌shit right👌👌th 👌 ere👌👌👌 right✔there ✔✔if i do ƽaү so my selｆ 💯 i say so 💯 thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: ʳᶦᵍʰᵗ ᵗʰᵉʳᵉ) mMMMMᎷМ💯 👌👌 👌НO0ОଠＯOOＯOОଠଠOoooᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒ👌 👌👌 👌 💯 👌 👀 👀 👀 👌👌Good shit
댓글을 작성하시려면 로그인이 필요합니다.
And it doesnt compare to real time strategy games such as starcraft etc etc. which are difficult and complex. Thoughts?