While LoL is by far the more popular game, I find what Valve is doing with Dota to be more interesting. They're heavily investing in the spectator portion of the sport, and it's paying off in spades. They've added in the ability to watch replays, see instant-replays during live games (especially useful when the casters miss a battle off screen), see post-battle stats, and view player analytics all in-client.
The article mentions that Riot lost money in hosting The World Championship, but during The International (the Dota 2 equivalent), Valve made over $30 million from selling interactive playbills for the tournament. Twitch has become a huge part of the events as well, but I think it's telling that Valve is strategically moving forward with trying to make viewing the game just as important as playing the game. Esports as a spectator sport is definitely going to become much bigger moving forward (LoL's World Championship already has more viewers than baseball's World Series, and in Dota 2 to win more money than a superbowl winner you'd only have to take third place in The International). I suspect that we'll see Esports taking over physical sports in terms of numbers in the next decade or so.
>I suspect that we'll see Esports taking over physical sports in terms of numbers in the next decade or so.
Absolutely not! Sports is heavily fragmented, for E-Sports only the world leagues and a few games in a few countries are that lucrative. In Sports you have much more competition also and tradition that isn't just going away and can keep people from pivoting to pc games, if it doesn't that's kinda sad. Gaming might not have reached it's full potential and it's very accessible in industrial nations, but based on more complex rules the learning curve is also higher, cutting off a lot of the lower base of unprofessional players, the foundation where to foster pro players.
I agree that Riot could do more with the spectator experience, but you should be careful comparing Valve's International profits with Riot's Championship Series. For one, the cost of Riot's esports push encompasses the entire scene, around the world. Riot pays player salaries for the players on every professional team in their sponsored series, which have tournaments and matches pretty much every week throughout the year. They have these series in North America, Europe, South America, SE Asia, Korea, China, and Australia, each with many teams of five players each. So, with an armchair estimation, it's easy to see how just the cost of those salaries without any benefits could be in the tens of millions. Then you have to factor in the support staff, facilities, equipment, travel, and much more. Valve sponsors one single tournament a year, and offsets the cost by selling interactive features. Ultimately, they are just different models and I think both could learn from each other.
On the other hand, Riot's tournaments account for most of the LoL pro scene. There are tournament games of DotA 2 going on almost constantly, but they're being run by independent sponsors, not by Valve.
Are there any reliable reports about size of LoL? All I've seen is Riot-made infographics without any backing. On the other hand http://steamcharts.com/app/570 seems trustworthy.
I've been to LoL HQ and talked to the founders. The offices were fairly dungeon-esque (to be fair I mostly saw the lower levels), but all the employees seemed to be having a blast. I asked one of the founders about LoL being considered a sport, and he argued fairly aggressively in favor of it. He asked me if I considered NASCAR a sport. I said no, and the conversation ended there.
I never considered car racing much of a sport until I drove an indy style car with Mario Andretti Racing Experience. 8 minutes on the track driving 160mph with about 6-7 other cars was mentally and physically exhausting. Had an absolute blast and afterwards a much greater respect for car racing.
There actually is kind of a history with betting and CS; the meme "bet t all" and a picture of a swat policeman petting a cat references this.
Basically pre-round or mid round you could bet some of your in game currency on a side winning. This let you recoup lost money which you could use to buy guns etc. the next round.
I always thought it was just a fun addition to the game but if you did it real time, round by round, with real money it could be cool too.
What I like about LoL is that it combines the right amout of knowledge, skill, tactics and teamwork to be successful. You can get into the game quite quickly and have fun on a lower level but also play it intensivly without reaching any kind of horizon because the game constantly changes. And riot also provides you with an api https://developer.riotgames.com/
Their commitment to community is what really kept me hooked in the early years. Nikita (Nikasaur) interacting with the fan-made material was really cool. Having staff interact with players (ex Shurelia) in a way that isn't constrained (like CCP Games and EVE) also kept me playing unlike any other sort of marketing technique.
It all ultimately inspired me to enter into their first community contest (LoL Logo Lookout photo), and it is the only public contest I've ever entered online. Last I heard those entries are still hanging in the office somewhere.
I no longer play, as I got sensible about my time. But really, their commitment to their community is something I still respect from the opposite coast.
When I was in middle school, I thought SC's trigger-based map editor was the most amazing thing ever. I even built a four-mission mini campaign that I showed my friends, who promptly told me that it sucked. (It was actually pretty terrible, although fun to make.) That, and collecting UMS maps and putting them on my GeoCities page.
The incredible part is, DotA started out as a Warcraft 3 custom map. Hell, there's still a version being maintained by the developers at Valve which largely maintains feature parity with DotA 2.
Oddly enough, battle.net itself is what got me into computers. There was a vibrant hacking community that existed back in the day, and watching all those older kids do cool stuff got me interested in software.
Oh yeah! I don't know about now though, it sure used to be.
I didn't do anything fancy, just some basic bot automation and a couple miscellaneous chatbox-based addons (mostly for spamming) but it got me learning Lua.
I used to play Tibia when I was around 12-15 and I started hosting my own server, since I wanted to make some unique quests for the people that used my server I started modifying Lua files then writing some of my own.
To me it always read like plain English (and English isn't my mother language). In fact I'd say I even learnt some English from reserved words (like If).
I no longer play, but I still watch the pro teams from time to time. One of the things that has impressed me the most about Riot's approach has been their willingness to make dramatic modifications to core game mechanics in an effort to keep games exciting for both players and spectators.
An example that indicates the difference between last year's world championship games and this year's is the ward system. Wards are items that a player can place near their current location, invisible to the enemy team, to gain vision into the fog of war, which is vital for decreasing risk in map-wide coordinated team strategies. Under the old system, pro teams often bogged down during the mid- and late-game phases as they vied for map vision superiority, and the only viable strategy was to purchase as many of the superior ward type (pink, with green being inferior) as possible and equip at least one player with a long-term ability to see invisible elements. Under the new system, both green and pink wards are valuable — the former are invisible to enemies and time-limited, the latter are visible to enemies but can detect invisible elements and are not time-limited — and all players have access to a periodic ability to place an extra ward or shut down enemy wards. As a result, the action in this year's matches has been much more consistent, as teams can still angle for vision control without losing momentum.
Just today, I saw some rough notes (http://boards.pbe.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/champions-gamepla...) on changes being tested in public beta. The scope of changes is massive! Starting stats, behavior of towers, and the range of temporary buffs are all on the table for a major revamp. It would be really easy for Riot to resist improving their game under the excuse of "this is the way we've always done it", but they continue to push and innovate from within. A great example of keeping a startup mentality alive within an established company!
=====
On another note more closely related to the posted article: for anyone that doesn't already watch pro-level League of Legends and is interested based on this article, you can follow the remainder of the current world championship matches through http://na.lolesports.com — the next best-of-five between two Samsung-sponsored teams should be very exciting. Past matches are available via http://na.lolesports.com/vods/league/worlds and I would highly recommend the Fnatic vs. OMG game from the group stages (direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O345c46mFqY).
I don't know if you are familiar with DoTA, but can you comment on why DoTA doesn't seem to have the problem with games stalling as players fight for vision control? I believe the DoTA ward model is very similar to the original LoL ward model.
Dota's wards are pretty different from LoL. The reason League of Legends used to devolve into a vision battle was that both teams could just keep placing wards as long as they had gold. So one team's support player would just go around placing wards and removing any wards they found, while the other team's support player would go around re-placing their destroyed wards and destroying the other team's wards that went up in the same place. Basically, it was a giant vision circle. Dota never offered unlimited vision.
Here's a quick rundown of the three systems:
Dota:
Observer Wards: Invisible, last seven minutes and give vision of a fairly large area, but there are only four available to each team at a given time. Cost 150 gold for a stack of 2.
Sentry Wards: Invisible, last four minutes and reveal invisible things in a fairly large area, but don’t grant vision of an area (so you need to find some other way to get vision of the area where the invisible thing you want to see is). Cost 200 gold for a stack of 2. There is no limit to Sentry Wards.
Old League of Legends:
Sight Wards: Invisible, last three minutes, give vision of a fairly large area, take three hits to destroy. Cost 75 gold. Unlimited.
Vision Wards: Invisible, last three minutes, take three hits to destroy. Give vision of the same area as Sight Wards, and also reveal invisible things in that area. Cost 150 gold. Unlimited.
New League of Legends:
Sight Wards: Invisible, last 3 minutes, give vision of a fairly large area, take 3 hits to destroy. Each player can only place three Sight Wards at a time. Placing a fourth will destroy your oldest ward. Cost 75 gold.
Vision Wards: Visible, last forever until destroyed, give vision of the same area as Sight Wards, reveal invisible things, take 5 hits to destroy. You can only place one Vision Ward. Cost 150 gold.
I'm far less familiar with DotA in this regard (and other regards) but I'll hazard a guess.
My not-at-all-certain observations are that 1) DotA's jungle is more complex and perhaps a bit larger and 2) DotA's terrain behavior is more advanced [tree removal, cliffs overlooking the river]. These factors would probably make it more difficult in DotA to place wards in the jungle in a way that is highly likely to yield solid intel — you can get a fairly good amount of safe coverage with a defensive ward on the cliff near river, as well as along the river exit once you've advanced past the river. To the best of my knowledge, you're just not going to learn as much from jungle wards in DotA, because of the sight lines and the difficulty of enemy jungle invasion (and perhaps because of the random invisibility rune spawns, though I don't know how much of a factor that is). Contrast all of that with LoL: accessing the enemy jungle is comparatively easy, and key ward placements on the enemy side (especially tri-brush, blue buff brush, and river junction at wraith camp) are almost certain to be high-information investments.
Additionally, in LoL you have to teleport to a friendly creep, structure, or ward; the secondary nature of a ward as a rally point is something that increases the stakes of ward superiority. In DotA (if I'm not mistaken) the teleport limitation is not the same, so the pressure is not the same. I'm sure there are also itemization and ability factors that I have no knowledge of whatsoever. If I'm horribly wrong on this, I welcome a more experienced perspective!
EDIT: `chc has more specific intel on the wards themselves. The team-wide limit on observer wards is a distinct difference!
> In DotA (if I'm not mistaken) the teleport limitation is not the same, so the pressure is not the same.
If anything, teleports are more limited in DotA. Teleport scrolls can only target allied buildings, or a small area around them. Boots of Travel can also target allied units, but are rather expensive, and thus typically only seen on certain heroes which particularly benefit from them (especially Tinker).
Vision choices are more limited, access to team stealth is just an item away.
However, I would say that Dota still has a problem with stalling, maybe even more than League of Legends. There are often one-sided games that drag on for quite a long time before the winning team has a decisive enough advantage to actually finish the game. This comes from a few features, foremost 'buyback' which lets players come back from the dead before their timer expires for a fee, which means that even if you kill their entire team inside their base, unless you have the force to kill them all again, you usually cannot take any ground.
DoTA games definitely stall, part of which I think has to do with a desire by the developers to avoid "freak" outcomes- it's rare to be able to win in DoTA with only a small advantage, so even if it is pretty obvious who is going to win they have to build up their advantage to end the game. Most of the time it's frustrating, although the extra time sometimes leads to incredible turnabouts.
I am most curious about the ward aspect, specifically. Are you saying DoTA has less vision choices? And you are referencing smoke?
That's been in flux recently! Patch 6.81, which was active from April 2014 until a few weeks ago, devolved into a "deathball" meta which tended to end games early. (This was responsible for the rather anticlimactic conclusion of The International this past July.) Patch 6.82 introduced some new "comeback" mechanics, which generally enhance the ability of a team that's playing from behind to recover after taking a teamfight, or finding high-value pickoffs. The details are still being tweaked, but so far the result does seem to have been less one-sided games, both in amateur and pro games.
And yes, "team stealth" is referring to Smoke of Deceit. A really interesting item, available in limited quantities, which allows a group of players to become temporarily invisible and sneak around the map -- even under sentry wards, which usually reveal invisible heroes! -- until they close in on enemy heroes or towers.
Which is what I like about Dota, with LoL it's usually blatantly obvious who will win by the 10 minute mark but it's not so much so with Dota. Obviously stomps happen and the team that leads at 10 more often than not wins but it doesn't feel as loop sided as LoL does.
> with LoL it's usually blatantly obvious who will win by the 10 minute mark
maybe in the pro games, but even then that's a pretty iffy statement. a bad engage in a teamfight or surprise gank can swing things pretty hard if the teams know what they're doing. in anything below, say, high diamond there's just too many mistakes to make this claim.
I have heard this view, but is it actually supported by the data? That is, do comebacks happen with any significant frequency in high-level DotA?
For example, in all of the finals of the recent International, there was a leader at 10m who won the game. I'm not going to go through all the games and check, but I'd guess we'd find this to be true the vast majority of the time in professional DotA games, as it is in League games.
Not to make too sweeping of a generalization, but I expect it is inherent in games with an economy and relatively low random factors. On top of the normal expectation that who gains a lead is likely to be more skilled, economies that allow you to build additional strength via the dominance conferred by your current strength reinforce existing leads.
AFAIK the "deathball" strategy recently became really dominant leading up to The International. The most recent balance patch after The International included a lot of measures to swing it back the other direction.
The most recent patch introduced a comeback mechanic that was so powerful that it resulted in comebacks becoming the norm. It got toned down within 2 weeks.
I played long hours of counter strike, warcraft 3, wow, quake, starcraft 2, and I never liked the original dota map nor LoL.
I just think it's a bad mix of several games. The level format doesn't make a lot of sense. It has the disadvantages of a RTS while being some sort of a RPG (little or no persistence), doesn't have a solo mode, and doesn't even allow to control more than 1 unit. It's slow and boring. The content is quite ugly and the gameplay comes straight out of wc3.
The creep system is weird, unusual and just irrational.
LoL is a frank success because other games failed to capitalize on esport. But LoL is not a game I like to play at all.
I wish that in the future companies like id, valve and blizzard will be able to better orient their quality game towards more esport while satisfying gamers from all spectrums: the casual gamers like the one who like to spend time doing matches. Blizzard found a great balance between the two, but to me there's so much more to be done.
One of the reasons people find DOTA-likes so unlikeable is the incredibly steep learning curve. It is often said that you know nothing about LoL or DOTA until you've played 1000 games. At around 45 minutes a pop, that means you've got to commit way more time than most people have available in order to get good.
The games are more like basketball than Quake. 5 on 5, and if 1 player on a team is bad, that team will probably lose. It's why the communities in MOBAs can be so toxic.
Of course, real life sports take tons of practice too before you can have much fun. A total beginner can't just pick up a tennis racquet or basketball and start volleying or shooting hoops.
Making a game/sport that is rewarding at the pro level and also has no learning curve- does such a game even exist, electronic or not?
To be a top notch player, yes. Honestly my brother & I were having a lot of fun the first night we played LoL. Now going back and showing someone new is painful because you realize how much knowledge was accumulated over the years. But either way, it can still be fun.
I have about 3000 hours in Dota/Dota2 combined, I still refuse to play certain heroes because I don't know how to play them effectively yet(Invoker comes to mind). The learning curve for the base game is very high, then you have to consider that each hero is unique and has their own learning curve and when you have 100+ heroes it's very difficult to master.
The worst part is that even if you only like a few heroes, you at least need to be aware of every heroes capabilities or you will not do very well. If you don't know what every hero does you can't be sure that it's safe to engage in a fight.
In Quake you can also have 5v5, e.g. in Team Deathmatch or Capture the Flag. While it's not as much based on tactics, it sure feels a lot closer to basketball in terms of speed, and one superior player can carry a whole team.
And with movement based mods like CPM, Defrag or WSW, the learning curve is also kinda high, with 10 different weapons (ok, 3 major ones) and a movement system that is very involved with the maps.
It's steep if you can consider a tall cliff steep.
Warcraft 3 has a steep learning curve, like RTS games do in general. One mistake can cost you your hero, which can cost you your hero if the death is untimely. (I guess DotA derivatives are more forgiving in that sense.) But there aren't that many units and heroes to learn, so at least after some time you won't be taken completely aback when your hero gets ensnared, critical striked (struck?) hexed and then critical striked again. I mean, it will happen, but the possibility would have already crossed your mind.
There is a ton of finesse and micro to playing a game like WC3, but learning to play the game isn't that hard; there isn't terribly much that you need to memorize, and then you can concentrate on strategy and mechanics. DotA (derivatives), on the other hand, is built in such a way as to be absolutely relentless towards anyone who isn't already experienced.
WC3 is hard to learn, but not unreasonably so for an RTS. It also has a high skill ceiling. DotA (derivatives) are really hard to learn (I won't comment on the skill ceiling, since I don't know). Yet, people - casual players included - have embraced DotA over the humble original game. I just don't understand the attraction, particularly when it comes to the more casual players.
To be any good at WC3, you need major micromanagement skills: Blizzard games are what brought us concepts like actions per second after all. It's a bit easier in that respect than Starcraft, but still, it's really about multitasking and micromanagement.
You need a lot of knowledge to play Dota well, but you do not need that micromanagement: Pick a simple hero, like Wraith King, and you control a single character with a single active ability. Even top pros take less actions per second than an average warcraft player.
This difference in skills means that it's much easier to notice your own progress in DotA than in WC3. I watch a top DotA player, and I can see how I can get to be that good. If I look at a top RTS player, I realize I could not get that good if I spent a hundred years training.
An important attribute of an e-sport is that it should be entertaining to watch. Since LoL is a game where a player controls a single unit, it's easy to follow along for the spectator.
It's a bit different for me as I used to play LoL (stopped 1-2 years ago, ~4-5k games played), but now I only watch the championship and some league games (usually those my favorite team, Fnatic, are involved) without playing the game at all.
LoL was hugely successful long before it eclipsed other esports. It was successful because a very large number of people played it, your dislike for it notwithstanding. I didn't like Twilight, but I can't really question that its popularity is legitimate.
You're right. It's definitely a popular (and I'm sure profitable) game. And I don't think OPs comment really belongs in this thread, but like him, because it's a bad game, I lament (maybe irrationally?) that it's so popular.
I'd play LoL if one player per team could play as the minions... I love RTSs, was ranked in starcraft (a lifetime ago) and prefer setting up and executing clever strategies to microing an enemy to death.
LoL is Starcraft with most of the non-micro elements gone.
> I'd play LoL if one player per team could play as the minions...
DotA has a few heroes you might be interested in! Chen and Enchantress have the ability to take control of jungle creeps and use their abilities. Enigma, Broodmother, Visage, and, to a lesser degree, Lycan, Beastmaster, and Brewmaster have abilities which summon multiple controllable units. Illusion-based heroes like Naga Siren, Terrorblade, and Phantom Lancer which can create temporary copies of themselves. And, of course, there's Meepo.
The interesting thing though: Once you reach the highest point in terms of micro ability, THEN macro comes heavily into play. Seeing players at the highest level be creative with strategy is great. But yeah, at lower levels the learning curve/necessary baseline mechanical skill is definitely an impediment to strategical play.
You should try Savage XR. 3rd person dota-like combat, but with strict RTS conventions. It's old, it's free, not many people play it, but boy is it fun!
http://www.savagexr.com/
LoL is most likely more casual but they are definitely not the same game, they are the same genre and have similar maps and rules but they have extremely different mechanics and meta games and saying the only difference is denying shows that you haven't played both. Yes you are wrong.
Maybe about the casual part but saying that the only difference is denying is complete wrong, they have extremely differing meta games and mechanics. LoL has an MMORPG element to it with character progression(runes, summoner abilities etc.)Dota has no such element, every player is even the second the game begins, prior games do not impact future games.
To be fair, this pretty much ends after you have basic rune pages and hit level 30. I mean, ok, maybe you don't have the perfect runes because mana runes were good on Ryze (and terrible on every other champ) or something, but even with max rune pages, you can't really account for every champ very well (and believe me, I've tried, as I ARAM with everyone...)
That's still a decent time investment, also in league you don't even have access to all the heroes without a huge time/money investment, everything other than player skill is even in dota.
They've talked about reworking runes, but I take it they don't have any good ideas about how to fix things. As you say, many players have a lot of time invested in them. I mean, I'm personally down to only needing crit damage and mana runes, so that should tell you something.
The article mentions that Riot lost money in hosting The World Championship, but during The International (the Dota 2 equivalent), Valve made over $30 million from selling interactive playbills for the tournament. Twitch has become a huge part of the events as well, but I think it's telling that Valve is strategically moving forward with trying to make viewing the game just as important as playing the game. Esports as a spectator sport is definitely going to become much bigger moving forward (LoL's World Championship already has more viewers than baseball's World Series, and in Dota 2 to win more money than a superbowl winner you'd only have to take third place in The International). I suspect that we'll see Esports taking over physical sports in terms of numbers in the next decade or so.