WoW Round I

[SoloZ-]

DOTASG WOW ROUND I

Debate Question:

A change in map/base layout (Eg terrain changes, health/armor of rax altered) if implemented, will affect future DotA gameplay extensively.

Propo: Redeemers
Oppo: Forsaken

Fire away guys!

NB: The whole team must post once first before the next person can post again. This is to encourage active participation by the whole team. Only participants debate post allowed here.

Forgot to mention awards to be given out:
-Most Valuable Debator
This award will be given for each round, and after all 3 rounds have finished, we will announce the person that win the award for the overall competition.

[SG_Lancelot]

TOPIC: A change in map/base layout (Eg terrain changes, health/armor of rax altered) if implemented, will affect future DotA gameplay extensively.


I belief many have been playing DotA-allstars from very long ago. Some even starting from the era before Icefrog took over and started version 6. Well personally, I started from 5.84c. Its been too long since I’ve played on that version, thus, I am not going to quote changes from there.



The TERRAIN of scourge jungle has remained unchanged since the start of version 6 until 6.49c. Yes, you are right. 6.50 is a version with many major changes, but I shall not elaborate on anything other then the terrain.


**


There is only 1 word to describe the somewhat recent changes. DRASTIC. Yes, DRASTIC. Reiterating on the topic, if a change of map/base layout is implemented in the upcoming versions, future DotA gameplay will definitely be affected extensively. Some of the changes already implemented has already proved to affect a lot. I’m quite sure it caused quite a bit of an uproar when the version came out.

Let me explain even further. The changes in Scourge jungle now allows

1.) Creep pulling from behind the tower at top lane.

2.) More accessibility from top part of Scourge forest to Scourge’s middle lane.


Pulling of creeps from Scourge top lane is now POSSIBLE. Last time(6.49c and earlier), top Scourge creeps can only be pulled between the Scourge 1st tower and Sentinel 1st tower. Given a situation when Scourge top is a solo hero, it will result in a “pushed” lane, where creeps always engage near Scourge 1st tower, making it almost impossible to pull. Now with the added creep camp, pulling behind the tower is now possible. You want to stop them from pulling? Plant the ward at the Neutral Creep spawn. This is not necessary at the previous versions.


Regarding the 2nd point that I mentioned, there was more accessibility from top part of Scourge forest to Scourge’s middle lane. Actually, in short, last time, if you were Neutral Creeping at the spawns near the top river rune, opponents at the other side of the jungle(near to Scourge mid) would not be able to see you due to the trees blocking. Now, with the trees removed and a path opened, the slope allows opponents to spot you creeping from a very far distance away.


**


Going back to the topic….

The opposition may argue that, “Hey! The current changes have somehow balanced out the difference between both sides of the Jungle!” I know that the change IS TRYING to balance out the advantages of both jungle.

But, I beg to differ. Think –lm or –xl mode. DotA-allstars on the international; competitive stage doesn’t play –Allpick mode. Meaning it’s Scourge heroes VERSUS Sentinel heroes. It has long been discussed that the advantage of Scourge side BEFORE the terrain changes are:

1.) Scourge gets the first hero pick.

2.) Scourge has stronger hero choices in both late game(Queen of Pain, Shadow Fiend etc), pushing (Pugna etc) and hit-and-run AOE engage heroes. (namely Lich, Magnus, Leviathan etc)


The DISADVANTAGES OF it’s jungle terrain compliments the much ADVANTAGEOUS hero picking.


BY EVEN-ING OUT THE SCOURGE TERRAIN, ISN’T IT TO SAY PLAINLY THAT THE SENTINELS TERRAIN ADVANTAGE IS REMOVED?

I know this more or less doesn’t affect Singapore’s competitive DotA scene(using AP mode drafting) but on the international stage. YES, IT DOES AFFECTS.

I know it is hard to draw the line for BALANCE. Balance issues are the reason why there will always be newer versions of DotA-allstars, as Icefrog makes the game more and more balanced. The changes in DotA-allstars will contribute to making the game more BALANCED. But it comes back to the question. How balanced is balanced?

BALANCE issues will always be the reason why there are changes in DotA. These changes that have been implemented, WILL ALWAYS affect future DotA gamplay extensively.





LaNce - Redeemer signing off~

[DrakaN]

To further explain and give a clearer view on why the gameplay will be extensively affected....

Firstly...
The Scourge Forest has been changed so that the path and vision when going through it is ALOT more visible in the "openings" of the forest area.Meaning that it is alot easier/harder to run away when you see a enemy coming from a distance as opposed to the "twist turn walk through juke spots" or "enemy comes out face to face when jungling in sentinal" area that sentinal forest has.This is a heavy factor on those scourge junglers.

Two Camps to Creep Pull at Top
More over,it is now possible to DOUBLE pull the top scourge neutral camps(with training) due to the changed terrain,also meaning that sentinal team will need to place 2 wards in order to stop top lane creeps from being pulled.

Rune Vison/Travel Time
The changes also mean that is more advantages for scourge middle to pick the rune at top,since vision and travel time is shorter due to the new terrain.
Meaning that Scourge side now has extended vison of BOTH rune vison (if without wards) from the ramp areas.

Location of High level Camps?
Another factor for the gameplay is the location of the high level neutral camps in Scourge.It is more advantages for lets say,a Hero like chen to search for a stunner/clapper/netter more easily then to gang the top lane,wherelse the travel time between the sentinal high level camps is alot bigger.But it might also means the top scourge forest area is nearly a seperate area due to distance of the camps.

Range barracks debuffed armour/buffed HP regen
This Generally means that the range barracks will survive longer and heal faster if its under constant pressure from pushes.(provided TP scrolls on it)
Yes this is my view point since TP Scrolls reduce all attack damage on a building to 1 for the duration the heal rate for the range barracks will affect strained/constant pushing alot.

THESE ARE THE MAIN TERRAIN(+barracks) FACTORS THAT WILL AFFECT THE GAMEPLAY OF DOTA EXTENSIVELY

[Littleman]

Going back to the topic….

The opposition may argue that, “Hey! The current changes have somehow balanced out the difference between both sides of the Jungle!” I know that the change IS TRYING to balance out the advantages of both jungle.

But, I beg to differ. Think –lm or –xl mode. DotA-allstars on the international; competitive stage doesn’t play –Allpick mode. Meaning it’s Scourge heroes VERSUS Sentinel heroes. It has long been discussed that the advantage of Scourge side BEFORE the terrain changes are:

1.) Scourge gets the first hero pick.

2.) Scourge has stronger hero choices in both late game(Queen of Pain, Shadow Fiend etc), pushing (Pugna etc) and hit-and-run AOE engage heroes. (namely Lich, Magnus, Leviathan etc)

Erm one point to take note:
Nobody in the world uses -xl anymore. Even if they do, they will use -apxl.
Pure Scourge vs Sentinel heroes is a thing of the past some 2 years back.

[GenGen.]

Littleman:

On your point, I believe my team member was trying to emphasize the importance of getting a first choice when picking a hero. Rather then how a certain hero is more beneficial to a certain side. (*Sentinel / Scourge)

Once again reverting back to the question, the question is focused towards the base layout of the map rather then internal mechanics such as heroes and items.

My team has brought up numerous points about how balancing the map has created many new forms of gameplay which includes creep-pulling or what we commonly know as foresting. Needless to say, we too have shown that by having changed crucial features in the map such as hills and slopes. The positioning of heroes, wards as well as laning has been drastically affected. All of these points have shown that the overall gameplay has been altered.

Finally, I would like to bring up my own point in this debate. One major change that DotA has undergone was how spells affected towers.

During the 5.84c versions, many heroes were choice picks because of their pushing abilities. Heroes like magnataur with his shockwave dealing a straight up 300 damage to a tower as well as the old silencer with his reign of chaos dealing a massive 450 damage to towers meant huge implications when a pushing strategy was involved. Guinsoo took much note of this and during the 6.xx versions he quickly removed this feature of spells affecting towers to balance the game. By making towers immune to nearly all spells other the (*Based on the latest versions) Pugna's blast, Sniper's scattershot and TS's diabolic. He made sure that the game could carry on to a decent length as well as keeping the so called "Pushers" at a minimum. This has greatly affected the gameplay for a fast strategy as their hero choices had been greatly reduced.

[Ant]

Opposition stand
A change in map/base layout if implemented, will NOT affect future DotA gameplay extensively.

Defining the topic
To begin with, let us define the topic. The issue here is not whether changes in map layout will affect DotA, because that is not debatable. Any change, no matter how small, will affect the game. The opposition believes that the issue revolves around HOW EXTENSIVELY the gameplay of DotA changes when map layout changes, and we believe that how the map layout changes is not and will not be responsible for any extensive gameplay changes in DotA.

To begin with...
While the proposition has stated many examples of how certain map changes have resulted in some changes in what is possible in DotA, they are unable to outline to what extent gameplay in DotA has changed because of map changes. As a matter of fact, while they have stated that the changes have been drastic, the corresponding changes in gameplay have fall far short of extensive. The issue is not whether there have been changes in map layout or whether those are good or bad, but how much those changes will affect DotA gameplay.

As the first speaker (as of writing) of the opposition...
I will begin first by going through what DotA gameplay could be and why it isn't in general affected drastically by terrain changes, and will leave it to other speakers in my team (or my clone) to elaborate more, give specific examples and rebuttals, possibly explain why changes in gameplay aren't brought out by layout changes (both with specific examples and in general theory) and overall say whatever they want to say anyway.

The million dollar question. What is DotA about?

Ignoring the purpose of anything related to emotional gratification, this question is dumbed down into "how does one win at DotA?", which is still an infinitismally difficult question to give one answer to. It is however possible to give the few conventional and probable answers to this riddle. In fact, the general deathmatch philosophy still applies in DotA. "Kill them before they kill you."

The methods of killing and surviving have changed and varied through the years, but have nothing to do with map layout, specific examples will be presented by a future speaker. Regardless of layout, catching is still catching, engaging is still engaging, lane control is still lane control, and pushing is still pushing. The methodology for doing all these have not changed. For four years, regardless of changes in map layout, these basic actions in DotA have been done the same way, and will continue to be. You don't last hit any different because the map layout changes. You don't decide not to catch someone because the map layout changes. Sure, you might catch him somewhere else, and you might have an easier time catching him in another place, but your processes, your gameplay, your actions, essentially remain the same, merely subtle changes in location and timing which are totally non-extensive.

This has been an introductory post to state one point and set the tone for the opposition. The opposition does not reject that there have been changes in layout, nor do we reject the obvious fact that a change in layout will change gameplay, but we do declare that an implemented change in map layout will not affect gameplay EXTENSIVELY.

[onceinawhile]

The TERRAIN of scourge jungle has remained unchanged since the start of version 6 until 6.49c. Yes, you are right. 6.50 is a version with many major changes, but I shall not elaborate on anything other then the terrain.


**

Wrong. Scourge jungle has changed from version 6 to .49c. There's an additional creep camp near the Gnoll creep camp in .49c. Some rocks on the cliffs are removed in the later versions and they could be warded.

==========

Pulling of creeps from Scourge top lane is now POSSIBLE. Last time(6.49c and earlier), top Scourge creeps can only be pulled between the Scourge 1st tower and Sentinel 1st tower. Given a situation when Scourge top is a solo hero, it will result in a “pushed” lane, where creeps always engage near Scourge

1st tower, making it almost impossible to pull. Now with the added creep camp, pulling behind the tower is now possible. You want to stop them from pulling? Plant the ward at the Neutral Creep spawn. This is not necessary at the previous versions.

**

Wrong again. Pulling creeps will also result in a "pushed" lane. The additional area in Scourge top lane in post .50 versions is a symmetrical pulling area, equivalent to the creep camp in Sentinel area. But for Scourge, the area will still be easily creep jacked as compared to pre .50 versions.

Double pulling in Scourge top in post .50 versions is extremely risky. The second creep camp to be pulled is likely to be the Satyrs. If you pull in the day, there is high chances that you will be seen by the enemy. If you pull in the night, you will be purged and taken extra damage if you are not careful; it is also difficult to pull at night because the sight range will be lowered and your allied creeps will not be lured to attack the neutrals.

And if you fail to estimate the damage taken by the neutrals and they die too early or too late, you will miss out gold and EXP. You will also burden your lane partner by exchanging extra risk to you and your partner with little benefits.

That area is also easily accessed by your enemies. They can enter and escape easily compared to the Sentinel's spot. In Sentinel's pulling spot, the puller's lane partner can assist protecting the puller if there's any intruders. The route is much shorter as compared to Scourge's.

It is unnecessary to ward the area. Therefore, the advantage is not that great as many players think to be.

==========


Regarding the 2nd point that I mentioned, there was more accessibility from top part of Scourge forest to Scourge’s middle lane. Actually, in short, last time, if you were Neutral Creeping at the spawns near the top river rune, opponents at the other side of the jungle(near to Scourge mid) would not be able to see you due to the trees blocking. Now, with the trees removed and a path opened, the slope allows opponents to spot you creeping from a very far distance away.


**

Actually in pre .50 versions, you can still scout if your opponents are in the other side of jungle at a point.

The latest versions only makes it slightly more convenient.

===========


But, I beg to differ. Think –lm or –xl mode. DotA-allstars on the international; competitive stage doesn’t play –Allpick mode. Meaning it’s Scourge heroes VERSUS Sentinel heroes.


**

We don't play -xl. We play -ap draft with some similiarties of -xl.

============

Scourge has stronger hero choices in both late game(Queen of Pain, Shadow Fiend etc), pushing (Pugna etc) and hit-and-run AOE engage heroes. (namely Lich, Magnus, Leviathan etc)

It does not matter whether Sentinel or Scourge has Queen of Pain or whatsoever hero since we play -ap.

Whether the future gameplay of DotA will be affected extensively will depend on how much it is changed.

If the changes are ridiculous, the changes in gameplay will be ridiculous as well. But minor changes such as creep camps and terrains will not affect the gameplay extensively. Winning DotA STILL depends on hero skills, timing, player skills, performance, etc. Players will just adapt in another way. Such changes will not make players go a EXTENSIVE actions such as buying totally different item builds just because some parts of them are changed.

[arairiez]

Hi all! I am ArAiriEz representing the opposition to give my stand on the issue:
A change in map/base layout (Eg terrain changes, health/armor of rax altered) if implemented, will affect future DotA gameplay extensively.

So is it true? Firstly, we would have to define certain points stated in the topic.

Changes in map/base layout already been kindly defined by the setter as the changes in terrain and alteration of rax. What that is left undefined would be the “gameplay” with the emphasis on whether it has an “extensive” effect on it. As the proposition have yet to define “gameplay” in their previous 3 posts, the opposition would graciously do them a favour by defining it.

Game play as defined by www.reference.com: Generally, the term gameplay in video game terminology is used to describe the overall experience of playing the game excluding factors like graphics and sound.

Interpreting from the definition provided, game play is the OVERALL experience of playing the game or the essence of the game itself, for example, the game play for soccer would essentially be to try to kick the ball into the goal whereas the game play for basketball would be to try to shoot the ball into the hoop.
This is not to be confused with game mechanics which is a construct of conditions so intended to produce an enjoyable game or game play. (as defined by www.reference.com) Game mechanics would hence be regarded as the conditions in which to achieve/enjoy a game.

Game play as can be seen is vastly different from game mechanics. With that, opposition would like to point out certain flaws in the proposition’s arguments.

1) In Lance’s arguments, he cited that the changes in terrains would be DRASTIC as creep pulling from behind the tower at top lane is allowed and the top part of Scourge forest to Scourge’s middle lane has become more accessible with the recent changes.
But thinking about it, what is the game play of DotA, the overall experience, the essence of it? Anyone can tell that it is to demolish the opponents’ Throne/Tree before they can return the favour.
It is evident that these effects are microscopic with respect to the game play of DotA itself, how much does it affect the aim of the game to crush the opponents Throne/Tree? Negligible! Perhaps it would tilt the balance a little for certain side but won’t the game play remain more or less the same? These effects could have been DRASTIC on game mechanic but not game play.
Drakan basically argued along the line of game mechanics as well.

2) Lance also made a herculean effort to argue on the balance of Scourge and Sentinel, which I find rather irrelavent to the game play and the topic in question. I mean, so what if Scourge has more advantage now? How is it related to the game play of DotA? Balancing a game is to improve the game mechanics, making the game more enjoyable etc, hence, I would urge the opposition to stay focused on the effects on game play instead whether Scourge or Sentinel has a bigger stick with the new changes in place.

3) Lastly, proposition GenGen mentioned that changes “created many new forms of gameplay which includes creep-pulling or what we commonly know as foresting”. Besides the point that creep-pulling has no relation to foresting, I would like to emphasize on his wrong usage of the word “game play”. Strategies or techniques would have been a better substitute for “gameplay” under such circumstance as I feel that neither creep-pulling nor foresting is extensive enough to be considered the “overall experience” of the game. If DotA is all about creep-pulling and foresting to anyone, I would gladly take back my words.

In a nut shell, the opposition tends to overly focus on insignificant details regarding game mechanics, overlooking game play as a wholesome experience of playing the game. Changes in terrain/base layout would hence play a minimal role in affecting game play as compared to game mechanics.

Hence, the OPPOSITION would like to restate our point that a change in map/base layout if implemented, will have NEGLIGIBLE effect on DotA game play.

[GenGen.]

Game play

Well it seems that Ant has brought up a very interesting idea of the objective of DotA, while arairiez has too brought up a broad definition of the word game play.

However, since this topic is on DotA. I would like to clearly reinstate the objective of DotA.

To destroy the opponents ancient

To Ant's statement, its not all about "killing". You could kill a team's heroes a million times and still lose if your Ancient was destroyed.

An idea from arairiez

As arairiez has mentioned, regardless of how the map has changed, the game play has remained constant. I could hardly agree with this.

Firstly, he gave examples of Football and Basketball. If the football field had been reduced to ten by ten meters are you suggesting that 22 players would still have the same experience of game play they would have on a regular-sized football field?

On the same note, if the basketball net was extended ten times its width are you assuming the general game play is the same?

Here, I can discern that you assume that any ball shot into a net is football and any ball thrown into a hoop is basketball. Any sane person could tell you that that is absolutely untrue.

Back to DotA

But since the argument is on DotA, I shan't drift too far. As the question was suggesting a change, I am going to provide this debate with an extreme change. Say the Scourge Throne was given ten times the Health Points of the Sentinel Tree, I am sure many would immediately choose the Scourge side over the Sentinel as it would look to be the favored side to win.

As arairiez would say, "This is focused towards game mechanics." However, I beg to differ, this is doubtlessly game play. The experience people would get from being on the Sentinel side would definitely be an experience of an unfair game, with them being at the losing end. Similarly, the Scourge side would definitely have the experience of having an unfair advantage.

Thats why we have such a thing called balancing. Something my team member SG_Lancelot has pointed out.

Which indeed proves, that by changing the Landscape of DotA through balancing, people's overall experience of the game has definitely changed. Overall, concluding a change in the game play.

P.S.

Game play from my own knowledge is how the game is played, and game mechanics is how the game works.

[Littleman]

Dear Opposition,
(me from team Forsaken: Opposition)

Let me underline some of the key changes made on the terrain, neutrals and other related changes:

1) The new Creep pullable camp near top Scourge tower

Drakan mentioned that the new camp will allow a double-pull. Yes indeed that is true, highly possible with tree-cutting heroes like rexxar or lina to create a path to connect to the nearby Big Creep camp. Sentinel however, can do the same thing. A double pull with tango eating technique on the row of single trees to connect to the top Medium camp. It is far more easier to do so with the Sentinel camp. The only downside is, it is a medium instead of a Big Camp.

In the previous version, did Scourge really lack a pullable camp?

Lance mentioned:
Pulling of creeps from Scourge top lane is now POSSIBLE. Last time(6.49c and earlier), top Scourge creeps can only be pulled between the Scourge 1st tower and Sentinel 1st tower
Scourge had 2 pullable camps actually. One is near the top tower, the other is the Gnoll camps. Take a look at the bigger picture. In truth, the top pullable camp in the old version neither belongs to Scourge nor Sentinel. The side that pushes more are the ones who can pull that camp. That makes Sentinel to have 2 pullable camps too (bottom and top. Scourge is Top and Mid)

Now look back at the Mid tower pulling. You can do a double pull there, akin to Sentinel's bottom pulling. Moreover, you can even execute a triple pull with the camp NorthWest of it.
Aside from pulling, many teams also practice 'free gnolls xp' by using tree-cutting heroes to clear the trees near the tower to allow more xp for the soloing mid hero.

That said, there is no big difference between pullable camps now and then. With the top pullable camp for both sides gone, each side now has effectively 1 pullable camp each. Scourge's Mid lane creep pull has been replaced with a top tower creep pull. The concept of jungling still remains the same. Learn to pull, learn to stack, take note of timings etc.

When it comes to gameplay, nothing about creep-pulling has changed. Although the camps have been altered, the pros and cons on each side still remains balanced.

2. Midas Effectiveness in new version

Many would believe that the new bigger camps and the ease of finding Big creeps will make Midas much more popular. It could even possibly change the way we play the game to a large extent (More midas users in games be it in inhouses, leagues or even tournaments.) Unfortunately, data have shown that Midas effectiveness still remained the same, if not worse as per version 6.48b.

The exact changes for Midas for v6.52c as compared to v6.48b (as compared to 6.51 version)

Satyr Hellcaller ~ 208 from 264 (~235 in 6.52)
Enraged Wildkin ~ 196 from 270 (~260 in 6.52)
Mud Golem ~ 188 (no change)
Dark Troll Warlord ~ 176 from 232 (~180 in 6.52)
Centaur Khan ~ 174 from 216 (~220 in 6.52)
Polar Furbolg Ursa ~ 164 from 230 (~230 in 6.52)
Ogre Magi ~ 160 from 168
Polar Furbolg Champion ~ 154 from 203 (~200 in 6.52)
Druid/Necro ~ 144 (no change) <=== Base reference
Alpha Wolf ~ 142 (no change)
Ghost ~ 138 (no change)
Ogre Mauler ~ 134 (no change)
Treant/Ghoul ~ 134 (no change)
Satyr Soulstealer ~ 128 from 136
Kobold Taskmaster ~ 116 from 132
Gnoll Assassin ~ 114 from 124
Forest Troll Priest ~ 110 (no change)
Giant wolf ~ 108 from 118
Troll Berserker ~ 108 (no change)
Dark Troll ~ 107 (no change)
Fel Beast ~ 103 from 93
Centuar Outrunner ~ 100(no change)
Wildkin ~ 97 (no change)
Kobold ~ 96 from 44
Kobold tunneler ~ 92 (no change)
Satyr trickster ~ 92 from 66

In the past, you will try to target big creeps like Furbolg (230 gold) or Centaur (216 gold). Now, the biggest creep, Satyr Hellcallers, only grants 208 gold. This is much lower what Furbolg gives but given the ease of finding big creeps now in the new map, it somewhats counter-balance it resulting in a near close effectiveness as previously.

And hence, the new camps on Midas will not affect gameplay in any way.

3) The New Camp changes

Old Format -- (There are 1 small, 3 medium ,1 big camps and 1 ancients)
New Format -- (There are 1 small, 2 medium, 2 big camps, 1 ancients)

Also to note: Many of the medium camps in the old version have been downgraded into a small camp. With the additional Big camp now, jungling in the new map version will be much tougher than before (Jungling here is defined as neutral creeping at level 1)

Nevertheless, jungling isn't at all impossible now. You can still practice creep pulls during early levels and gain decent gold and xp. There are plenty of changes affecting jungling, a mix of both nerfs and buffs. In the end, jungling still remains the same. You may not level as fast as before, but 10 mins into the game, you will have earned as much gold and xp as you do in previous versions.

Major teams like SK even suggest using Axe and Dark Seer as junglers in the new version. Arguably, these two heroes are the best junglers in the previous version (6.48b) yet have not seen much appearance in competitive games. Even with tougher camps now, why do they still insist in including these heroes into their line-up?

To them, map terrain changes are the last to be considered when considering how the game is to be played. Other important changes like nerfs and buffs on heroes and item changes takes precedence.


4) The use of Jungle Heroes

Somewhere late last year, Jungling heroes saw a sudden increase in popularity. This phenomenon clearly wasn't the result of changes in map terrain, neutrals, etc. For a long time, eversince the old Aegis era (v.6.42b, the map has remained the same. The period lasted for almost an entire year. So why is it that, out of the blue, a new strategy emerged and completely revolutionized the way the game is played (hence, the gameplay)?

It was the result of teams who dare to try out new strategies such as MyM and their Double-Jungling lineup which popularized jungling in competitive games. Aside from that, new knowledge on how creeps behave like the understanding of creep's spawning regions and pulling techniques has further made jungling into an effective strategy.

For a moment, it was popular. After a few months, jungling strategy somewhat dies out. Take a step back in time, 2-3 months before the jungling craze. There was a time when a triple-lane lineup was popular. Composed of tri-stunners like VS, RK, Lina, Leshrac etc with one of them being an intiator. Once again, at one point in time, it was popular and a few months later, it completely dissapeared from the competitive scene.

This form of gameplay, commonly referred as metagame are constantly changing. The key to the evolving changes in meta-gaming (gameplay) is essentially about coming up with newer strategies to surprise your opponents. Each strategy have a certain lifespan. The more it is used, the more common it becomes and easier to counter.
This explains the sudden dissapearance of such strategies.

Hence, Map changes in terrain and camp placements are not the determining factor in changing the gameplay of the game. It has an influence however, but rather minimal.


5) Terrain Changes in Scourge Forest

Yes indeed there is a major remake on Scourge's forest. There are an additional 2 ramps, less trees for juking and a more 'open' forest. These changes however, will not change gameplay in any way at all. Ganks and chases will still happen there, people will still ward the area, players will still jungle. However, playing in the new jungle will never be the same as before. Players have to learn to adapt to the new terrain.

It is about re-learning.

Find new nice places to ward, find good places for hiding to 'catch' lone heroes, find new interesting places to juke and so on. The new terrain does not, in any way, influence a team's line-up or strategy. Hence gameplay will not change.


------------------

[GenGen.]

Littleman... Your still at the point of game mechanics... Please keep up with your teammates.

[DrakaN]

Regarding what arairiez said,and if so

Arguing along the lines of game mechanics,aside from the minor ones,based on the standard definitions of ""Game mechanics"(a construct of conditions so intended to produce an enjoyable game or game play),I would give a DOTA based example which the argument is primarily based on : Lets say Stun and Slow ablities/effects are removed,which are part of the game mechanics,do you think the gameplay of DOTA as a whole will be extensively affected? I most certainly think so,game mechanics are one of the main things that ""gameplay"(the overall experience of playing the game or the essence of the game itself) is affected and changed on.

Lastly,regarding this
3) Lastly, proposition GenGen mentioned that changes “created many new forms of gameplay which includes creep-pulling or what we commonly know as foresting”. Besides the point that creep-pulling has no relation to foresting, I would like to emphasize on his wrong usage of the word “game play”. Strategies or techniques would have been a better substitute for “gameplay” under such circumstance as I feel that neither creep-pulling nor foresting is extensive enough to be considered the “overall experience” of the game. If DotA is all about creep-pulling and foresting to anyone, I would gladly take back my words.

Defining "Overall Experience" Overall=Whole Thing and Experience=In this case how the game works and feels to you.Don't you think if creep-pulling and foresting is completely not possible in the game,the overall experience of it will be taken away? Strategies and Techniques ARE part of playing this game to the which is THE OVERALL EXPERIENCE OF THE GAME

[Littleman]

I believed what I have argued are in line with what my teamates are thinking.

First of all, the proposition misunderstood by what Ant meant by "Kill them before they kill you". In this context, it essentially translates to: whoever kills the throne/tree first wins.

In his closure, Ant stated:
The opposition does not reject that there have been changes in layout, nor do we reject the obvious fact that a change in layout will change gameplay, but we do declare that an implemented change in map layout will not affect gameplay EXTENSIVELY
By this he means a change in the mechanics of the game (in this context it means the terrain, layout etc) will still have an impact in gameplay. However, the impact is insignificant.

As what Ant mentioned, gameplay in Dota will forever remain the same. Ganks, Pushes, Farming, Lane control are all standard practices in a dota game. Certain changes in mechanics of the game will no doubt affect the overall gameplay of a dota game. Take an example, the impact the new blink dagger in a dota game. It will affect gameplay in that ganking will theoretically be much easier with the use of slows and disables. Fundamentally however, the concept of ganking still remains the same. You need to be subtle, abuse the fog, as well as having good co-ordination with your teammates. To what extent this change affects gameplay however, is beyond the scope of this discussion (this falls under item changes)

Arairiez mentioned
game play is the OVERALL experience of playing the game or the essence of the game itself, for example, the game play for soccer would essentially be to try to kick the ball into the goal
In dota context, a drastic gameplay changes would be something like this:

Icefrog: To speed up the game, I have decided to abolish the -ap system and chose -dm (deathmatch) mode as the standard for every Tournament and Leagues as of today.
Such a change will have a deep impact on gameplay itself in terms of the essence of the game. The ultimate goal will no longer be "Be the first to take out the throne/tree". You now have the choice of either to kill 30 heros in total or destroy the tree/throne to win.

Basic fundamental gameplay (in otherwords, the experience of the game) like 'Ganks, Pushes, Farming, Lane control, Item choices' will change to a large extend. Pushes may become obselete if teams choose to win by the hero elimination method. Farming may be considered of less importance while ganking becomes a common practice. Lane control may stop to exist and item choices will tend to be more generic and non hero-specific. Other factors like length of the game may also be considered as gameplay experience.

This, is our understanding of gameplay.

GenGen posed a question:
Firstly, he gave examples of Football and Basketball. If the football field had been reduced to ten by ten meters are you suggesting that 22 players would still have the same experience of game play they would have on a regular-sized football field?
Certainly, by changing the length of the field will change the mechanics of a football game. We do not deny that mechanics of the game will affect the overall gameplay.


In Araireiz's closure, he pointed out that
In a nut shell, the opposition tends to overly focus on insignificant details regarding game mechanics, overlooking game play as a wholesome experience of playing the game.
Again we do not deny that changes in mechanics of the game will affect gameplay. The proposition however, focused too much on the changes in the mechanics of the game so much so that they fail to explain how it will affect the overall gameplay of the game.

--------

In my previous post, I laid out counter-arguments to several changes which the proposition believed will have change gameplay extensively

First off, I stated that Creep pulling changes will not affect gameplay much.
The techniques still remains the same, only changes made are their locations.
GenGen responded:
My team has brought up numerous points about how balancing the map has created many new forms of gameplay which includes creep-pulling or what we commonly know as foresting
Which is clearly not true because Jungling (a more common term as opposed to foresting) is not a new form of gameplay. Like I already stated, it is a common practice eversince a half a year ago.

Secondly, I stated that there are other important changes aside from terrain/creeps changes that will determine how the game is played in the newer versions. They are mostly item and hero changes. Terrain/Creep changes are the last to be considered and hence brings little influence to how gameplay is affected.

[arairiez]

Hi all im ArAiriEz again from the opposition.

Regarding GenGen's arguement, i believe he has some misconceptions about the defination of game play as detemined by credible website refers to: overall experience of playing the game excluding factors like graphics and sound. Which essentially meant as the overall motive and purpose of the game, which can be considered the essence. This is independent of the size of playing area or whether the game is unfair as even with an unfair game, the players would most probably be going into the game with that same purpose and executing that same line of actions even though the odds are against them.

Football and Basketball. If the football field had been reduced to ten by ten meters are you suggesting that 22 players would still have the same experience of game play they would have on a regular-sized football field?

Yes indeed it would be more cramp but wouldn't they all still be going into the field trying to get that ball into the goal with body parts other than their hands? Perhaps they would come up with some new approaches that work more effectively but the game play would generally be more or less the same. This applies for the basketball example as well.

But since the argument is on DotA, I shan't drift too far. As the question was suggesting a change, I am going to provide this debate with an extreme change. Say the Scourge Throne was given ten times the Health Points of the Sentinel Tree, I am sure many would immediately choose the Scourge side over the Sentinel as it would look to be the favored side to win.

Yes i agree that everyone would choose Scourge if they want to win, but think about what is the whole point of balancing a game? Why bother even to balance a game if you are IceFrog, naturally to make the game more enjoyable for both sides! Imagine going into a game with your hero's HP and damage x5, even by winning will you feel any pride? Now we look at the defination of game mechanics provided by the credible website: construct of conditions so intended to produce an enjoyable game or game play.

If you haven't notice, it coincides perfectly. Making the game balanced is indeed to make the game play more enjoyble, but lets put that aside and evaluate why even with these conditions as you have stated, the game play would be more or less the same.

The experience people would get from being on the Sentinel side would definitely be an experience of an unfair game, with them being at the losing end. Similarly, the Scourge side would definitely have the experience of having an unfair advantage.

As i have mentioned, game play is far more than whether the game is fair or not. Yes, so what if it is unfair, people will still go in the game all the same, knowing that they have to farm, get gold, buy the items they want and eventually crush opponent's Throne/Tree. So what if the Throne is given 10 times that of the Tree it doesn't make much of a difference to how the game is to be play, which follows this line of objectives to eventually win the game.

Let me cite another example, before DotA was famous, there was this game called 3-corridors, which technically had similar game play as DotA, one has to pick a hero, farm up and eventually destroy a designated building of the opponent. Any DotA player can just play the game for the first time and knows what to do. This is what we call similarity in game play and whats more, 3-corridors has much more variation than terrain and base arrangements.

Regarding Drakan's point:
Defining "Overall Experience" Overall=Whole Thing and Experience=In this case how the game works and feels to you.Don't you think if creep-pulling and foresting is completely not possible in the game,the overall experience of it will be taken away? Strategies and Techniques ARE part of playing this game to the which is THE OVERALL EXPERIENCE OF THE GAME

Firstly, i would like to reinstate my team mate Littleman's point that foresting has always been possible since the addition of neutral creeps, in which itself is not a change in terrain. Hence, according to Drakan's arguement, only creep-pulling is an effective result of the changes in terrain. Once again, i would like to emphasize on the word OVERALL. Yes the opposition never objected that there would be an effect on game play, regardless how small, but do you think a mere introduction of creep-pulling can affect the processes and fundamentals of the game significantly? I doublt so. Yes we can see that it affects game mechanics by introducing a new way to gain exp and gold along side with the many other alternatives, but affecting the essence of the game? Long way to go i guess? The game will still function pretty much the same, it just offers 1 alternative to achieving one of the goals in the game.

Hence, the OPPOSITION would like to restate our point that a change in map/base layout if implemented, will have NEGLIGIBLE effect on DotA game play.

[GenGen.]

To littleman, the question is on map terrain. If you do not even believe that that is part of the game mechanics then you have greatly misinterpreted the question to begin with.

And no, Ant was specifically referring to hero maneuvers such as

Quote."The methods of killing and surviving have changed and varied through the years, but have nothing to do with map layout, specific examples will be presented by a future speaker. Regardless of layout, catching is still catching, engaging is still engaging, lane control is still lane control, and pushing is still pushing. The methodology for doing all these have not changed. For four years, regardless of changes in map layout, these basic actions in DotA have been done the same way, and will continue to be. You don't last hit any different because the map layout changes. You don't decide not to catch someone because the map layout changes. Sure, you might catch him somewhere else, and you might have an easier time catching him in another place, but your processes, your gameplay, your actions, essentially remain the same, merely subtle changes in location and timing which are totally non-extensive."

After all, I would like to suggest a clearer view of the question to be, "Would a change in game mechanics affect the overall game play of DotA?"

Now, I believe the question which Ant has cleverly identified from the beginning was the word EXTENSIVELY.

Continuing on Littleman's point, "Which is clearly not true because Jungling (a more common term as opposed to foresting) is not a new form of gameplay. Like I already stated, it is a common practice eversince a half a year ago." Sadly, DotA came up about since the Reign of Chaos versions. Thus, you have definitely agreed that there has been a change in game play since then. The question to begin with wasn't even directed to a recent change. In other words, you statement could be interpreted to be, "A change from before has let to new forms of game play in the recent years"

Arairiez I believe you have actually agreed to a change in game play?

I quote, "Perhaps they would come up with some new approaches that work more effectively"

Isn't this game play?

Oh and on your final point of the unfair and advantageous game play, I was actually referring to the EXPERIENCE people would undergo playing the game and not how the game was played since you SPECIFICALLY mentioned that game play was...

Quote,"Game play as defined by www.reference.com: Generally, the term gameplay in video game terminology is used to describe the overall EXPERIENCEof playing the game excluding factors like graphics and sound."

I personally feel that you are arguing on game mechanics which I believe we should avoid.

[arairiez]

Firstly I would like to question the proposition's intentions in changing the topic altogether.

GenGen:
After all, I would like to suggest a clearer view of the question to be, "Would a change in game mechanics affect the overall game play of DotA?"

That is clearly NOT the question posted by our dear moderator. First up, we only discuss changes in map and base arrangement, which is less than sufficient to be called Game Mechanics, which includes many other factors like hero, skills etc. Secondly, let the opposition remind the floor that the focus of the debate is not on whether it affects but rather whether it affects to a large extent. To date, the proposition have yet to justify HOW large an extent is such examples to the whole experience of the game. By stating that, the opposition would once again like to clarify that the whole experience would refer to the summation of all the ingame experience rather than emotional experience the players would incure. Say if a particular game makes a certain player feel unjust due to balance issues, this is the person's personal experience and not the experience in game and can hardly qualify to be considered game play.

GenGen:
Continuing on Littleman's point, "Which is clearly not true because Jungling (a more common term as opposed to foresting) is not a new form of gameplay. Like I already stated, it is a common practice eversince a half a year ago." Sadly, DotA came up about since the Reign of Chaos versions. Thus, you have definitely agreed that there has been a change in game play since then. The question to begin with wasn't even directed to a recent change. In other words, you statement could be interpreted to be, "A change from before has let to new forms of game play in the recent years"

Another point GenGen brought up was about jungling. He cited that there was a change that brought about jungling, but I find that this argument lack evaluation. Firstly, what changes brought about jungling? Terrain change alone? Certainly not. By saying that terrain change brought about jungling, the proposition is infering that before such terrain changes took place jungling was technically unfeasible. The proposition also overlooked other important factors that could have affected the change, like hero abilities and introduction of bottle and crow, which allows many to be able to practice jungling at a tender level. I believe these are the true causes in the prevalence jungling in early levels.

Arairiez I believe you have actually agreed to a change in game play?

I quote, "Perhaps they would come up with some new approaches that work more effectively"

Isn't this game play?

GenGen conveniently ate up the last part of my sentence, hence, I shall provide the full reference of what i have said.

Perhaps they would come up with some new approaches that work more effectively but the game play would generally be more or less the same.

Yes there are naturally bound to have changes but technically the backbone, the essence of the game would still be the same line of action. The game speeds up and people got to dribble faster, but anyone can identify that this is infact soccer they are playing, what defines soccer? It is not the ball nor the jersey the players are wearing, it is the game play. If people can identify that trying to kick a ball into a goal regardless of the size of the field is soccer, that proves pretty much that the game play is more or less the same.

GenGen:
Oh and on your final point of the unfair and advantageous game play, I was actually referring to the EXPERIENCE people would undergo playing the game and not how the game was played since you SPECIFICALLY mentioned that game play was...

As i have clarified, whether the player himself feels unfair, sad, happy, flabergasted etc is his personal emotional experience and not the game's experience. These emotional experiences would hardly qualify to be considered game play. The ingame experience would essentially mean the things in which he would go through in the game itself.

Once again, i would like to sum up all the points of the oppositions in which the proposition failed to address.

Let me cite another example, before DotA was famous, there was this game called 3-corridors, which technically had similar game play as DotA, one has to pick a hero, farm up and eventually destroy a designated building of the opponent. Any DotA player can just play the game for the first time and knows what to do. This is what we call similarity in game play and whats more, 3-corridors has much more variation than terrain and base arrangements.

1) This itself is a blatant void of the proposition's stand that a change in terrain would result in extensive changes in game play. This is an excellent example of huge variations in terrain but similar game play. The proposition have yet to address this example.

2) The proposition have been busy defending the notion that changes in terrain affects game play that they failed to emphasize on whether such changes would result in an EXTENSIVE change in game play. They also did not attempt to provide supported examples of such changes besides the creep pulling issue, which the opposition found to have minimal effect on game play by itself.

[GenGen.]

Back to the question

If the terrain of DotA is so insignificant to even fall under the category of Game Mechanics then I can comfortably name you a thousand different Warcraft lll scenarios which have HEROES involved, since that is the point you are arguing from.

Furthermore, if you are suggesting that so long as an individual's personal in-game experience remains the same the game is automatically assumed to be DotA? I would offer you to play a game of "Enfos", another one of Warcraft lll many custom maps. A game where 5 heroes are pit against 5 other heroes. Sounds so similar to DotA just that the landscape is totally different. Even though I am quite sure after play the game, one could hardly find the slightest ounce of resemblance to DotA in this map.

An individual's personal experience

If you are suggesting that an individuals emotional experience is hardly relevant, then you are solely mistaken. There is a reason why DotA is the map with the greatest popularity in the Warcraft lll scene. If any other Warcraft lll map could offer the same emotional experience then I can only leave the panel with doubt as to the popularity factor of DotA. You are suggesting that any map so long as played with heroes fighting against each other would generate the same level of emotional surge that DotA gives, this is once again a very weak analysis as it is untrue, DotA definitely has a strong factor of human emotion within it which gives it its uniqueness.

Arairiez's statement

I left out the last part because I felt it was irrelevant to my point , but since you conveniently brought it up I will gladly explain my reasoning behind leaving it out.

You mentioned it was, quote, "...more or less the same" Well, I could say that coke was more or less the same as pepsi, and one could hardly tell them apart but in our current global scene pepsi has someone gone adrift compared to coke. Similar to any Warcraft lll map, I vaguely remember this Chinese made map which had huge resemblance to DotA "uTV", it was an extremely popular map in China. However, DotA eventually stole the scene and with good reason too. Because even though one map may be totally similar to the next, the internal mechanics has definitely changed, and thus the game play too which is in fact why DotA remains the most popular Warcraft lll custom map today.

On a final note

We have constantly shown how drastic an extent a change in map terrain could have affected the overall game play of DotA. Stimulating ideas on foresting, vision, and health points. However, the opposition clearly is still at a level where they are arguing against our views rather then on the question where their stand should be how a change would not being about any extensive changes in DotA.

[arairiez]

Hi all this is ArAiriEz from the opposition.

With regards to GenGen's points

GenGen:
If the terrain of DotA is so insignificant to even fall under the category of Game Mechanics then I can comfortably name you a thousand different Warcraft lll scenarios which have HEROES involved, since that is the point you are arguing from.

I believe the proposition have misunderstood my words. What i said was:

First up, we only discuss changes in map and base arrangement, which is less than sufficient to be called Game Mechanics, which includes many other factors like hero, skills etc.

This meant that map and base arrangement are PART of game mechanics along with other aspects like heros and skills etc. However, the proposition's assumption that game mechanics represents only map and base arrangement is no doublt a fallacy.

Another thing I dont understand about the proposition's argument would be naming a thousand different Warcraft lll scenarios which have HEROES involved, in which i totally cannot comprehend. I would appreciate if the proposition could clarify what he meant.

Furthermore, if you are suggesting that so long as an individual's personal in-game experience remains the same the game is automatically assumed to be DotA? I would offer you to play a game of "Enfos", another one of Warcraft lll many custom maps. A game where 5 heroes are pit against 5 other heroes. Sounds so similar to DotA just that the landscape is totally different. Even though I am quite sure after play the game, one could hardly find the slightest ounce of resemblance to DotA in this map.

The proposition provided an insightful argument on Enfo and DotA. So why does Enfo differ so much from DotA to players? This is because they have totally different game play. From my knowledge, the game play for Enfo is to pick 5 heros and defend against waves of creeps spawned by the opponent with no real contact with opponent heros. You don't have to engage opponent heros nor do you need to push to destroy their central structure. As can be seen, the game play differs GREATLY, obviously people do not find a common ground between Enfo and DotA.
3-Corridors on the other hand follows the same game play as DotA. Players would have to pick a hero, menuever along the 3 lanes to kill opponent creeps and heros to gain gold, get the items they desire and win by destroying the opponent's central structure through a push, hence, people find that these games are similar to a large extent.
Hence, this example provided by the proposition would be invalid and unable to justify that the change in terrain and only terrain result for the difference of the 2 game.

If you are suggesting that an individuals emotional experience is hardly relevant, then you are solely mistaken. There is a reason why DotA is the map with the greatest popularity in the Warcraft lll scene. If any other Warcraft lll map could offer the same emotional experience then I can only leave the panel with doubt as to the popularity factor of DotA. You are suggesting that any map so long as played with heroes fighting against each other would generate the same level of emotional surge that DotA gives, this is once again a very weak analysis as it is untrue, DotA definitely has a strong factor of human emotion within it which gives it its uniqueness.

In response to the proposition's statement, I would like to say that all that the proposition argued was that the emotional experience is relevant to DotA's popularity, which is hardly relavent to the game play and topic itself. The opposition would once again remind the proposition to stay relavent to the notion for we are indeed debating on the effects of terrain changes on the game play and NOT DotA's popularity.

You mentioned it was, quote, "...more or less the same" Well, I could say that coke was more or less the same as pepsi, and one could hardly tell them apart but in our current global scene pepsi has someone gone adrift compared to coke. Similar to any Warcraft lll map, I vaguely remember this Chinese made map which had huge resemblance to DotA "uTV", it was an extremely popular map in China. However, DotA eventually stole the scene and with good reason too. Because even though one map may be totally similar to the next, the internal mechanics has definitely changed, and thus the game play too which is in fact why DotA remains the most popular Warcraft lll custom map today.


Yes so what differentiates coke from pepsi even though they have the same "overall experience" and what differentiates uTV from DotA even though they too had "huge resemblance"?

Firstly I would like to thank the proposition for citing the example of uTV which possess a "huge resemblance" to DotA. The proposition, as how we inteprete it, just agreed that uTV and DotA possess a "huge resemblance" in terms of game play even though the terrain varies significantly.

Secondly, I would like to address the issue on why Pepsi achieve much less success that Coke and why DotA is far more popular than uTV. For Pepsi and Coke, although both provided similar experience to consumers, Coke achieved much more success in terms of advertisement and managed to tie in with other food and breverage firms like McDonald, Burger King etc, hence, ultimately managed to differentiate its product, making demand less cross elastic. The same applies for DotA and uTV. Although both possess similar game play, DotA excelled in terms of game mechanics henced managed to displace uTV eventually. As stated by the defination, game mechanics refers to the conditions that would produce and enjoyable game or game play. Naturally, a more enjoyable form of the game play would be more popular. From this, we can see what differentiates DotA from uTV, game mechanics and not game play.
Hence, even though the game mechanics differ between the 2 games (including terrain and other aspects like heros) game play is more or less the same for uTV and DotA. This showed that a change in terrain would NOT result in a drastic change in game play of DotA.

Regarding the proposition's ending note, I would like to cite a line about the process of debate from www.wikipedia.com

Some of the rules are broad and must be followed in a general way. For example, those in favor of the proposition are

* required to show the need for it to be adopted as it is written, and yet are
* allowed to define the scope of the proposition; i.e. they choose what it will mean if adopted.

To further illustrate the importance of rules, those opposed must destroy these arguments, sufficiently to warrant not adopting the proposition, and are not required to propose any alternative solutions.

Thank you!

[Ant]

Thus far...
The opposition has highlighted the difference between game mechanics and gameplay, which is by no means a trivial difference. Game mechanics is part of gameplay, but not vice versa. A change in gameplay thus can be said to be a much bigger change than a change in game mechanics. I would like to state that the opposition thus far has been yet unable to elaborate on how the changes in game mechanics that they have so specifically highlighted have been able to transcend into affecting gameplay extensively. Once again, the opposition does not question that game mechanics affect gameplay, but that being a component of gameplay, the changing of a game mechanic might not affect gameplay as much.

It is not irrelevant to discuss game mechanics in this context. The changing of map layout, at its root, is a change in game mechanics. Due to the relationship between game mechanics and gameplay, a subtle change in game mechanics cannot bring about a greater change in gameplay, which is why some members of the opposition have highlighted how the change in map layout is not as significant a change in game mechanics as has been highlighted by the proposition.

The opposition's approach...
to this issue will be much different from that of the proposition, that is certain. Much of the opposition's effort will have to be made to nullify the points of the proposition because our work lies in theory, where we try to prove something is NOT, whereas the work of the proposition lies in proving that something is. Nevertheless, the opposition is not restricted to only arguing against the points of the proposition, as I and the speakers after me will demonstrate.

In my given philosophy of DotA, I did include pushing as part of playing DotA, which means that "kill them before they kill you" included killing buildings as well. This point however is not worth debating and was merely to build up the focus of the processes involved in playing DotA.

In my discussion today...
I, as a speaker of the opposition, will discuss how changes in map layout have affected gameplay only trivially, and touch on what really matters in DotA's gameplay. In this post, I will reduce gameplay to the experience of a single person playing DotA, and simplify it to what someone does when playing DotA, since a person's actions are much easier to discuss than his thoughts and feelings, which are reflections or factors of his actions anyway.

So in the first place...
What has changing the map layout done so far? I believe this has been touched on rather extensively by the proposition. Onceinawhile's statement to sumarise the point I'm about to make can be brought up now. "
If the changes are ridiculous, the changes in gameplay will be ridiculous as well. But minor changes such as creep camps and terrains will not affect the gameplay extensively. Winning DotA STILL depends on hero skills, timing, player skills, performance, etc. Players will just adapt in another way. Such changes will not make players go a EXTENSIVE actions such as buying totally different item builds just because some parts of them are changed."

Terrain in DotA affects two things. Accessibility and fog. For a player playing, depending on his surroundings, he might react on a split second level differently depending on the terrain surrounding him. Do his actions differ according to the general map terrain? NO! They differ according to the terrain in his actual location. It is not the change in the map's terrain that has brought about any change in his actions. It is, at that very moment, his actual location in the map. Should the terrain of the map change in another version, the player will still play the same way.

To illustrate this, imagine a QoP being caught in middle lane by the sentinel tower and deciding to blink up to the ancient cliff to escape. In general, anywhere around the map, the QoP would have blinked up a cliff to escape anyway. If there was a terrain change and the QoP was caught in the same position but the ancient cliff was not there, the QoP would no doubt react differently, since she is unable to magically conjure a cliff. The thing is that it is not the terrain change that has brought this difference in how the QoP would play, but rather the actual situation that the QoP is in at that exact moment. Location matters. An actual situation matters, but the map terrain merely acts as a vehicle for these factors to be on. Changing terrain changes nothing in how a player plays DotA.

Pushing, backstabbing, retreating etc. etc. are all decisions made based on the current situation that a player is in. DotA is a game of situations, situations brought about by the opponent, reactions brought about affected by your health, your mana, your reaction time, your location, your items etc. Static factors such as map layout might affect WHAT the situation is, but it does not affect how one reacts to a certain situation, i.e. it does not change how one plays the game, thus does not affect an individual's gameplay.

With of course, the rare exception where the entire map becomes the grounds for a situation, like in late game blink chases, but when this happens, it's factors like timing and damage and faking that come into play, not so much the terrain of the map.

[SG_Lancelot]

[First of all, I would like to thank the opposition for being so gracious with providing us the definition of game play.]



Unfortunately, although they have shown us formidable knowledge on how the game is played, they have rather a skewered sense of how the game is actually created. Therefore, the proposition would like to define real game play and game mechanics as follows:
Game play includes all player experiences during the interaction with game systems, especially formal games. Proper use is coupled with reference to "what the player does".


"The term game play has gained acceptance in popular gaming nomenclature, being the only common phrase describing story quality, ease of play, and overall desirability of a game all in one word. Some gaming reviews give a specific score for game play, along with graphics, sound, and replay value. Many consider "game play" to be the most important indicator of the quality of a game."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gameplay)


"Interconnected networks of game mechanics make up the game as a whole."
http://lostgarden.com/2006/10/what-are-game-mechanicss.html



The opposing camp stated that Game mechanics is part of game play, but not vice versa. We, surprisingly, concur with you on that and only that point. Game mechanics is only just a subset for game play. However, for this game play to even exist, game mechanics has to be defined first. Game play is molded and based on game mechanics, but not vice versa. Instead of comparing those two terms with such crude relativity, we compare them in order of precedence. The opposing camp is unjustifiably reductive that game mechanics will not affect game play extensively because it is only a contributing element to game play. We, however, advocate that this is actually the foundation of your whole game play. Just as our blue planet would cease to exist without its core, the game itself cannot be created without game mechanics. This, I believe, has shed some light on the importance of game mechanics and how this directly, inevitably and of course, indubitably DEFINES GAMEPLAY ITSELF.



It is true that many other elements make up the game mechanics. Therefore, I would like to clarify that map/base layout is under core game mechanics. Core game mechanics is the essential play activity players perform over and over again. In Dota, core game mechanics points to spells/attack and motion(right clicking). Graphics, sounds and anything else Dota might be oozing of, does not belong to core game mechanics. Therefore, for the purpose of this debate we as proposition would use the word ‘game mechanics’ as ‘ map/layout which is under core mechanics’.





-Post 19, 2nd page, Ant’s post-
Dear Ant,

In regards to your 19th post on Friday the 13th, we find you to be at war with yourself – “Location matters. An actual situation matters, but the map terrain merely acts as a vehicle for these factors to be on. Changing terrain changes nothing in how a player plays DotA.”

We, believe that map terrain acts as a foundation and influences the gameplay for those very factors to be even present.

Situation is the way in which something is placed in relation to its surroundings. In short, situation is dependent on location/map/terrain/layout of that place. The stand is defined as “A change in map/base layout (Eg terrain changes, health/armor of rax altered) if implemented, will affect future DotA gameplay extensively.” We, beg you to see that it does not state GENERAL map/layout. Therefore, it is safe to deduce that the mode of actions undertaken by Akasha in your hypothetical will be determined by her location and terrain around her. Allow me to deliberate this further, the location of Akasha and the distance from her friends or foe will decide her fate. The terrain defines her accessibility to safety and underlines her choices of escape. This interaction with game mechanics and game elements to circumscribe her escape is gameplay. Therefore, game play is not only affected, but rather created as the player responds to his terrain and location.

You stated that winning DotA STILL depends on hero skills, timing, player skills, performance, etc.

Timing is relative to motion. Motion is relative to distance. Distance is determined by your location and terrain which might aid or hinder your progress, thus, wasting or saving time.

Timing is very important in pushing, engaging or whatever else you might find yourself doing in DotA. As mentioned above, you would find that this location and terrain might make or break your advantage. If one is to lure an enemy into a pathway which only accommodates one or two heroes, engaging and ganking can be done much more efficiently and swiftly. I'm just giving a somewhat general situation, not one that is specific enough to be used as a point for rebuttal by the opposition.

Skills are the ability to apply knowledge. If one is lacking in the knowledge of the location and terrain, how is it even possible to engage enemy, let alone, defeat them. For example, juking, or clever usage of the Fog of War to escape an enemy pursuit, or hide in that pesky little opening to Teleport away while ur enemy fumes at where u had disappeared to.

Performance is the end result of timing and skills. Executing the correct moves and at the correct time shows ur undeniably good performance in the game; whereas making a silly mistake and getting yourself killed while affect your overall performance and contribution to the team. Yet the position to hide, to set up for the perfect engage, depends on the layout of the map.

Knowledge of Map/base layout filters the professional players from the average Joes in DotA. It's true it doesn't need a professional players to HAVE great knowledge of the map/base layout; but by knowing all these, doesn't it improve ur performance, or better still, the step from defining one as an average player and a experienced and professional player.




All in all, map/base layout scopes the player’s action, defines opportunities and of course, alters the very flow of DotA. Thus, not only extensively affecting the game but also creating a unique one as well.