Given the dev team's current knowledge of DotA...

I've played Dota. I loathed it.

I played Demigod, I loved it.

Thats just my view of course, but that's my openion so far

Good thing there's enough love in my heart for DotA AND Demigod. And let me tell you, Demigod is FAR more forgiving than DotA is.

That's one thing that I like about Demigod right now. Nobody knows too much.

First, I love dota.

I think its a very complex game, and thats why its interesting, even after playing it for a while. It never gets old. Theres just too many things that can happen.

So, when I heard about demigod, I was pretty excited. I tought the concept of the game could be pushed farther, because the game wouldnt be "held back" by the WC3 engine and the Bnet infrastructure.

But after reading a few posts here, I'm not sure anymore : a lot of posts are from people that seem to hate dota (because it was too hard/complex) but absolutely love DG. That gave me the impression (I didnt play yet, so I might be wrong. I hope I'm wrong) that DG is like a dumbed-down version of DoTa, a game made "for the masses", to appeal to casual players. I have nothing against that, but thats just not my cup of tea. (Instead of a more complex game, I would get a game made for players that cant handle dota. Again, this isnt bad, DG may be a fantastic game, but if dota is more complex / have more options, I'll pass.)

I do, however, understand that the game is still in beta and may still change drastically.

Allow me t ostress that we've recently hada large influc of new people who haven't even played the game yet. I imagine a lot of us who have played, are spreading the word and it is paying off. But, keep in mind that even those of us who have played the game - haven't really played the full game, or even a fraction of what the game really is. So do not assume that by reading posts here, you really have a full understadning what this game is and what it can do. The only way to truly have a complete understanding is to play it yourself.

Demigod and DotA are two different games, and DotA fans need to understand it's not going to become more like DotA despite their desire to see it that way. The biggest argument I've seen is this Last Hitting nonsense, which doesn't make any sense in Demigod. For starters, your Grunts, not Creeps, arn't just a complete midness Zerg. They are an ever present source of income and power for both teams while at the same time being the measure of strength of your own team. The performance of your Grunts is a reflection of your performance as a Demigod.

There is a lot of back and forth that'll be taking place, frankly you won't have time to think about Last Hitting, were it even in place. Too much is already going on, and you've gotta keep a sharp eye out in large games. Because when you got ten Demigods on the field, and five of them are you enemy, you're going to busy-busy-busy trying to hold them back and ensure your Grunts are making a forward push.

We haven't even had the options to customize our Grunts yet, but we soon will.

When I argue for a game for more casual players, I do not mean in the gameplay itself. The gameplay is pretty intense as it is, and we've had very little to work with. I've always felt casual versus hardcore should always been handled in the multiplayer realm, and ensuring those two areas are devided. Both can play the same game, but you know good and well they both play the same game very differently.

Beta didn't have anything really, so expect the game to already be changing drastically come Beta 2.

There's a difference between complexity and depth. DotA's "complexity" are design flaws and engine limitations to which the hardcore player got so used to that they began to saw them as "good".

It happens all the time in the circles that like to call themselves "pro" - see how the "pro" players want bugs like clipping from Starcraft to remain in Starcraft 2, or the oft mentioned Last hitting, which is really just an engine limitation that was so omnipresent that people got used to it and tried to justify the flaw by calling it intentional.

OrleanKnight, I know you mean well, but your comment really gives away how little you understand about Dota.  Dota also has 10 active heroes, 5 of which are your enemy.  For beginners, there's "too much already going on" as you put it, which is why beginners have troubles with the game.  They blame the engine or their own flaws for the game being poor.  "It's not me, it's the game"

Pros need to be constantly aware of the following in Dota:

-getting last hits

-exp/creep deny

-harassing

-knowing where all enemies are (to consider if you might get ganked or if you should go gank someone) - this also includes scouting with wards

-knowing where all your teammates are, for the same reason

-knowing the respawn timers of the neutral creeps and knowing how to farm them effectively

-knowing how to counter neutral creep farm (called counter jungling)

-what items everyone on both sides are getting

-what builds everyone on both sides are doing

-team synergy comboes

Clearly, there is TONS of information pros need to be able to intuitively and immediately parse in their head.  I'm not saying I'm a pro, but at least I'm aware of skill it takes.  In fact, I haven't played for years, so the game most likely has evolved since then.

My point is, JuicyFruits was worried Demigod is a dumbed down Dota for the masses.  Your argument on how last hits shouldn't be important because it makes the game too complex is actually reinforcing that statement.  I'm not going to say if demigod is really dumbed down or not, I believe I said enough in the other threads.  Like Frogboy said, beta2 isn't out yet and they haven't communicated all the changes to us.

Although last hits were born because of the way wc3 treats creep kills, saying it's purely an engine limitation is strawman.  Last hits are a reward for being precise and controlling your character with skill.  The alternative to "last hits" would be having the creeps distribute a lot of exp to everyone upon death, making last hits unecessary.  Removing features which require skill and practice to get good at is basically dumbing down the game.  Don't take offense to this - this is not always a bad thing.  In this case, it may make demigod more appealing to the masses who aren't of the same calibur (or don't have the time to invest to get the skills) as the 'pro gamers'.  This levels the playing field a bit because it limits how far you can excel with pure skill.

Oh I love that one. That's precisely the "bu...but it's a FEATURE!" reply that I've come to expect.

"If we remove the bugs, there won't be anything left to distinguish good players from bad ones!" - Wrong. It will only change the difference from people who can exploit better than others to people can PLAY better than others.

"This levels the playing field a bit because it limits how far you can excel with pure skill."

This one get's thrown around almost all the time so let me tackle it specifically:

A better UI/engine does not lower the skill ceiling - there is no skill ceiling. It raises the floor, meaning there's more people higher up - but it doesn't limit how much higher they can go. Unless you think "skill" is clicking faster - if you do, you shouldn't be taken seriously anyway.

Have you played GunZ? Basically, its an online shooter that was released with some bugs : it was possible to "cancel" animations with other animations. I didnt play for a while, but if i recall correctly : shoot-take melee weapon-dash-slash-change back to gun was QUICKER than shoot-reload-shoot.  Also slash-side dash-slash was quicker than slash-slash. Basically, those bugs made the game MORE interesting... because you had to know what to do instead of just spamming. Gunz2 is in developpement and they are letting those bugs in the game.

So yes, something unintended can be a great addition to a game. Dota would be very boring without last hits / denies... and its not even engine limitation : the gold from towers is shared if the AI creeps gets the last hit : it could be the same with creep kills... but last hits are still in the game for a reason : it makes the game more interesting than simply spamming A (difference between someone spamming attack and someone actively last hitting is HUGE. and that is a GOOD thing.).

By the way, when "pros" like a feature that beginners dont like, its a good indication to me that its a good feature. Playing a game where everything is too easy isnt fun.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it, you dont even need to attack to get gold/xp, right (just stay in range)? So... why attack? Wouldnt it be a good idea purposely attack LESS than the ennemy untill you are  close to your base, giving you an advantage?

Basically, my question is, is there a mechanic that prevent doing that? Because right now it seems that the guy that attack more will be at more risk, and will have gained nothing. (Or maybe theres something I missed, I'm a DG newbie )

@ Jinx,

I understand your perspective, and I'm glad you include the caveat that we haven't seen Beta 2.  No one wants a "dumbed down DoTA," not you, not me, and certainly not the devs. 

There are seeds even in the Demigod engine test we have played so far of interesting and deep capabilities and mechanics.  Whether those seeds reach fruition is (ideally) in a large part up to us and I think the coming Betas will really make or break the game...

One thing I'm thinking is that it is possible to have deep gameplay mechanics in this game that are different from those found in DoTA.  Of course meta-skills like awareness must be relevant, but it seems too early to judge the lack of true skill components, as it seems like so far the devs have been careful to keep them out of our hands.  We haven't seen the game yet.  As the OP says, and I really share this: 

Edit: Juicyfuits - DG incorporates a bunch of secondary objectives represented by flags.  If you play defense and let your opponents grab the all flags then you will get steamrolled.  This is still pretty crude in beta 1, but it makes gameplay dynamic...

Again, strawman argument.  Starcraft's concept of micro was born from the engine and ui limitations.  It's become the defining attribute of starcraft and from what I've seen, the foundation for starcraft 2.  Other games also try to copy this, but they haven't been as successful as starcraft.  Sometimes games evolve differently than how they were originally conceived and new ideas and strategies are born out of it.  You're bullishness is suggesting that anything that wasn't intentionally created is in actuality a flaw.  That's absurd.

You didn't tackle anything.  Underlining, bolding, italicising, or capitalizing something, doesn't make it true.  

The main point of last hits is that if you managed to time your attack properly to score the last hit, you get the cash reward.  Your argument is that "a better ui/engine" will do away with this to "raise the floor".  Couple problems in your argument.

1 - this is no longer something that's a "good or bad ui/engine".  This is a design consideration, especially for future games.  It's asking the question:

"do we reward players who get the last hit by giving them the money?" 

vs.

"should we reward all players in the vicinity with money regardless who kills it"

UI/engine has nothing to do with this at all.  The buttons on your screen are completely unrelated to last hits.  A scripted engine can opt for either the first or second point, it's up to the design. 

By bringing up "skill clicking", you're just making yourself look foolish that you have to resort to petty suggestive insults.

2 - you assume that there's never a skill cap.  If counterstrike did away with headshots, it would be a vastly different game and a lot less popular.  Head shots are something that define counterstrike.  Being able to reliably score lots of headshots is a skill you need to be a pro - in addition to great team work, etc.  Removing headshots would be removing something in the game that takes concious effort and skill to pull off well.  It allows people to rise above other who aren't as good at that.  Same concept with last hits.  They are the "headshots" of DoTA.  Removing them lowers the ceiling because there's suddenly less skill required to be a pro (there are less things to think about and worry about ingame).  I'm giving arguments as to why it lowers the ceiling.  

You're just flat out denying it and saying I'm wrong.  If you want to debate, back up your case.

The option to turn Health Bars on all grunts and targets on the field is already in the game. Pressing the ~ buttom on the far left of your keyboard, beanth the ESC key allows you to cycle through various health bars on different targets to suit your play focus.

Thanks a lot.

So last hits arent in.. what about denies?

Is it possible to deny a creep/grunt ? Is it possible to kill a demigod from your own team to prevent the ennemy team from getting gold /xp ?

When people talk about last hits, they are generally implying both last hits as well as denies.  Stardock /GPG hasn't made any official stance on the subject as far as I can tell so let's just see what Beta2 has in store.

Didn't know that, thanks. However my point was that it is one of the downsides of last hitting, because to do it effectivly you need to know the healths of all the grunts all the time, which just adds visual 'noise'.

Horrible Analogy - Last hitting is not the "headshots" of the game, unless CS had a mechanic that would deny the TEAM points if a single member of said team was getting a headshot.

To quote the SC2 Project Lead: "Starcraft 2 is going to be a game my mother can play". They're intentionally removing the bugs of the first game, something that has the "pro community" up in arms. Incidentally, they're also up in arms about better pathfinding (they want worse), and a variety of other things that were limitations at the time that they got used to. Sound familiar? Yeah it's the DotA arguement.

And no, the success of Starcraft has nothing to do with it's engine and ui limitations - it was pure and utter luck. They happened to release a mulitplayer game and a semi-stable online service at the same time Korea had just gone through a massive online infrastructure build-up. Couple that with their lack of nation sport, and their desire to have said sport, and you get a one in a billion success. Starcraft is a statistical outlier - not something you can seriously consider any debate about what is "successful".

You're wrong. You attack because it means your own army has less resistance, which means you have more cover from the enemies tower and thus deal more damage to them (and their demigods). If you let the enemy attack you, you're giving them xp, gold, and the health of your structures, which is something you can't get back.

No, it's a good indication that the feature simply has an overwhelming physical component, something you can get "good at" by training it, Not that it is good for the game.

I also love that you brought up GunZ - a game that pretty much everyone considers unplayable for precisely the reason you stated you liked it.

Alright, you're clearly neither a fan or DoTA and I doubt you're very good at it either.  If you were, you'd know how central last hits and creep denies are.  Last hits and creep deny is so integreal to the game that the advantage you get from being godly at it is similar to the advantage you get from being godly at headshots.  If your team is a poor team, and their's is good, no amount of last hit/creep deny (or headshots in CS) will save you.

CS and DoTA are different games, but they have some things in common:

-you need to know the map extremely well

-you need to have excellent teamwork and team strategy

-they both have a practiced skill component - aiming and headshots for CS, last hits and creep deny for DoTA.  

In your rebuttal you're trying to put words in my mouth and saying they're literally the same because CS doesn't have "a mechanic that would deny the TEAM points if a single member of said team was getting a headshot.".  You're not even arguing the same point as I am, you're just grasping.

Obviously Blizzard is trying to make the game more accessible and approachable.  That's what everyone does.  Despite your wild claims and the speculation of many people, Blizzard is not stupid.  They know what catapulted SC into the forefront of Korean gaming.  Why do you think they held their announcement in Korea?  Korea is filled with hardcore competitive gamers.  Making the game easier to do the basic micro, doesn't mean you still can't do advanced micro.  Now, if you have high apm, you'll be able to properly control MORE units than in regular SC because they're 'smarter'.  Nothing wrong with this.  They're not removing micro from the game, they're just making the basics more accessible for people.

You state this is though it were solid facts and everything is just so simple.  You've only spouted conjectures with the only proof being factual coincidence.  SC succeeded because it was a good game.  It was already EXTREMELY popular before the concept of micro had taken shape and then later heralded it (accidentally, imo).  There were many other games that had semi-stable online services and were also fun.  by your reasoning, why didn't they also succeed?  

Oh right, because SC had "pure and utter luck" and through the power and will of the loins of Zeus that it became a hit.

TA was released just months before SC.  I remember because i was really in to TA and tried to convert my SC friends to TA.  That game ended up being completely and utterly eclipsed by SC.  Do you honestly still think SC's success was purely luck?

edit: and i'm quite certain the entire "pro-community" as you put it, is "up in arms" about SC2 removing bugs.  SC is being partly designed by the pro-community.  Of course there's going to be people who are upset, but a handful of guys on the forums doesn't represent the entire pro community.  Thinking that some online forums represent an entire demographic is a fallacy I often see people make.  It's living in a bubble.

Actually, Starcraft became the juggernaught it was due to a stable, easy to use multiplayer matchmaking, and it's "use map settings" games.

I understand what you mean, but wouldnt it just be better to stay away from the ennemy tower completely, and stay at the cover of YOUR tower? (Not indefinitely, only for a while.)

I would gladly trade some structure HP for being safer. The ennemy also dont get more money and XP than me, because (duh duh duh) last hitting is irrelevant, I can just stand back and leech money/xp while doing nothing.

Well, luckily for us it seems that with the flag system this wont be much of a problem.

 So you can get better by training it... isnt that the whole point of playing games? (And no its not exploiting, it has nothing to do with it. The devs themselve decided to not fix the bugs because they thought it added depth/complexity to the game)

And overwhelming for who? I'm no "hardcore gamer", but the basic moves (slashshot and butterfly ) in GunZ werent that complicated. A simple "search" on the forums would get you to dozens of threads explaining how to do them, step by step. All you had to do was practice a bit. Its the same for Dota really... some ppl try it, they get destroyed and instead of researching on the game they say "fuck this, this game suck", even if its not that hard to play decent. In the end, I have no desire to play with those people anyway, so I guess its all good.

Anyway... remove frameskipping from gunz and you get a boring game IMO : I played it a while back, before hacks became rampant, and it was seriously the most fun I ever had in an online shooter. More than Quake, CS, even more than UT. Because yes, GunZ is unplayable because of the massive ammount of exploits / hacks / trainers / aimbots / you name it. NOT because of the frameskipping.

the problem with denying (the amount of denying which is already in Demigod is too much already imo) is that it is so horribly illogic to kill own units that could still damage the enemy just because of the Dota game rules. I prefer games where I must keep my units alive, not where I have to destroy them. And I prefer games where I need to prevent overkill instead of dealing 150 on a creep with 5 hp left just because I need to do that to get the money. I wouldn't ever compare denying/last hitting to head shots in UT or even railgun hits in Quake, its mostly a (I admit hard to learn) timing thing without much player-player interaction while the anticipation of enemy movement is decisive for headshots/railgun hits.

 I think that microing 10-20 Minions will take enough skill even without last-hitting and denying.

And if you think they didn't remove those things because they add depth and complexity, why do you think they're removing them for the sequel? According to you " Making the game easier to do the basic micro, doesn't mean you still can't do advanced micro" - yet those things add complexity and they're not removed of that. Which is it? If making the game easier doesn't impact advanced micro, how come you're defending the bugs of the first game?

Nope - while you are loosing an irreplaceable resource, your structures hp, your enemy is not loosing any irreplaceable resources. As for XP and money gain - they are, at best identical. So if XP and money gain is identical, the team that's NOT pushing is still loosing more.

Complete and utter luck. You can read up on Korean history and you'll find about their net revolution. TA didn't take off because it didn't have as stable a multiplayer platform, and was too complicated for the time.

Also, I hope you're not seriously trying to claim that Starcraft invented micro. Micro is an inherent part of RTS, not something that's been "heralded" by any game.

In any case, this is rather pointless and circular anyway. We'll see the results of this a few months after release. Also, I reserve the right to say "I told you so" when LoL utterly bombs.

OK, i love DotA, allways have, but Demigod is different enough to hold my attention. The one thing that im not convinced it has that DotA does is a high enough skill roof for high level tournament play.

I'll wait to decide after Beta 2.

I definately agree with your problem of denying and I also think it's illogical.  However, it's still something you can do to actively block your enemy's progress.  When a lane is 1v1, both people are trying to get as much last hits as possible, as much creep denies as possible, and as much harassing as possible.  It's not just based on luck, there's a lot of guessing what your opponent will do.  For example, while I'm working on a creep, if I know you're going to try to run in at the last second to get a creep deny, I'll stop 2 shots before the killing blow and take the last one after you attempt to deny.  On the other end, if you're trying to get the hit, I know what you're thinking and can plan my moves accordingly.  Knowing what your enemy is thinking and what their immdiate goal is makes the game pretty interesting.  

Now, headshots definately do require substantial more practice to get extremely good at them, but my point is that they are a practiced skill which is inherent to the game.  Last hits and denies aren't just purely about timing.  It WOULD be purely about timing if you had no enemy players.  However, you do - and they have the same objective as you.  So it becomes a little like a psychological rock paper scissors match.

No, I'm not claiming sc "invented" it.  That would be absurd.  It was always somethign people did but it didn't actually become a term people would use to describe that skill until SC came out.  When people started playing SC very competitively, terms like apm surfaced and people started measuring their skill level with that number.  However, SC had no automatic spell casting or anything to facilitate easier control.  So if you wanted to say psystorm an area, you had to click one high templar to do it (rather than a group of high templars).  Because of this old-school somewhat clunky interface, people started becoming really aware of micro.  It became a spectacle when people could micro an army of units to dance around the enemy, just out of their range.

What I'm trying to say, is that micro and apm were skills that were really thrust into the forefront during the SC era.  People became highly aware of it, instead of just intuitively doing it.  It became the syntax that defined rts skill.

Now in SC2, I have no doubt they'll make things easier to do the basic stuff.  If you have a group of spellcasters, I'd expect that a group selection would only cast the spell once, rather than have everyone cast it.  However, by eliminating some of this basic unecessary micro, I'm sure they'll be putting in ways to do micro but on a higher level - one where you don't feel like the UI is working against you.  Thus, extremely high apm will still beat low apm, provided they have equal macro skill.

Is it hard to breathe with your nose pointed so high up?  I've never said LoL is going to blow away demigod, but I do respect their devs as some of the major influences on DoTA.  I haven't played their game yet - hell, it could be another hellgate for all I know.  I'm just saying that those designers understand a lot of what makes DoTA so fun/special.  Whether they can execute is another story.  Furthermore, wouldn't you want both demigod and LoL to succeed?  It's in your best interests if that happens.  Then the rts/rpg/dota-clone genre will evolve faster.

I think the generals-type of units will be the ones who they hope appeal to the hardcore apm folk with high skill levels. 

However, if that's the case, that would suggest an inherent imbalance between the assassin and general.

Basically this is how I am seeing it right now.

General scale better with high apm and micro skills

Assassins don't really have anything that requires high skill.

Now, that means the following:

if two equally super skilled players square off, one with a general and one with an assassin, who do you think would win?

If the assassin wins, that might suggest that the general is underpowered because while it requires tons of skill to play, the assassin doesn't and the assassin still wins.

If the general wins, that might suggest that the general is the only viable unit for pros.

I probably didn't explain my point very well, but I hope you understood what I'm trying to say.  By combining the genres, they need to make sure that the assassin benefits JUST AS MUCH from high apm and micro as the general.  Otherwise, you're going to have an extremely imbalanced game.

Supposing a pro doesn't want to play any of the generals simply because they don't like the gameplay?

Hopefully the assassin class won't be generalized as a "noob" class simply because it requires less micromanagement of units.

Or that the general class would be generalized as the "pro" class because it takes more micromanagement to do well.

I've enjoyed hearing what all of you guys have to say so far. Carry on. But my statement still stands. Most of the dev team does not know enough about DotA to realize what this game is going to turn into without a higher skill ceiling. Something that takes practice and intuition to master.