Jump to content

Talk:Defense of the Ancients/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Initial comment

I suppose Guinsoo is pronounce like the "Guinsoo knifes". "geen-soo" with a hard g. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vininim (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 March 2005 (UTC)

Revisions

The main thing in the deletion was that a lot of stuff in the article is not citable. We can do history of DotA thing with the progression through spotlight map to the inclusion of it in Wc3 tournaments, those are all citable.

Also, I've never been a fan of the changes section since it does feel more like a game guide. Can we delete that section completely and just leave the information for the transition of architects?

I agree that the version histories aren't necessary. They should be removed. Instruction Manual type content is listed as What Wikipedia is not. I'm going to just go ahead and delete them. If I'm in the wrong, some Moderator can replace them. ;P Ong elvin
Okay, I edited the version history. Took out the version history changes, and only left the summaries of separate eras of version development. I think it looks better this way. =) Also, I think that the AI versions subsection should be moved into the Development subsection. It makes more sense there.Ong elvin

eventine 02:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 11:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)218.186.9.2 Hi I'm a regular player of the game and I added some useful information: -

Clan tda1 - tda3 at Azeroth are not official channels and are in fact malicious "fake clans" created against the official Clan TDA recently. The games there are not official. I hope this is okay as it's a cautionary warning. Secondly the peonban only applies to azeroth realm. I have also added the internationally recognized CAL/IHL link and mentions of the top dota clans in the world - I hope this will spark more interest in competitive play.

Just wondering if the peonban information is even relevant to the article? The section sounds like a guide to the culture of DotA. Ong elvin

(All these are cited in the official dota-allstars website - in fact CAL is on the loadscreen!)

Of more note is the information deleted: -

3rd party illegal programs that can be used to run the game without a valid CD-key is certainly against the rules and should not be mentioned, not even the existance of.

The WCG Asia DotA competition is not fully recognized (unlike CAL) in the official website, in fact, it is not even an official game in the WCG. Also, the quality of the participants do not reflect the standard of international play as a whole. I kept the WCG notes but removed the winning teams as it is rather irrelevant in such a small region's context.

Fansites that do not recognize the official site and forums should also be removed as their quality of information is suspect. The only resources that needs to be mentioned are the official websites and leagues.

Game modes

We need a section about all available game modes. --202.184.206.126 10:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  • i think a section on game modes is good, its part of the game, some people wont play other modes, and people who know nothing about dota may not quite understand what AR or AP or EM or any of that means. dota has its own surrounding culture, game mode lingo is an important part of understanding what dota is. Weevilmonkey 19:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rather than having a section for game modes, it would be better to include some of the better abbreviations used in the game such as "GG" for Good Game, "WP" for Well Played, etc.
But aren't those common to all online games, not just DotA? I don't think either game modes or internet lingo would be useful here. --Habap 17:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Defense of the Ancients: Allstars → DotA Allstars – Rationale: Official name of modification is DotA Allstars, even though DotA is an abbreviation itself. DotA Allstars page is a redirect page with history. DeAceShooter 05:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 11:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I created this page since it was obvious that Allstars made up the majority of the information on the DotA page. What this means is that basically, we can be a LOT more detailed in the information we put about Allstars and hopefully this will be for the good of all people who visit wikipedia for Allstars information. What it also means is that there may be more targeted vandalism, so let's be vigilant and keep the page clean. Anyways, have fun and feel free to be a lot more creative with the page since it's all ours now! --Gatekreeper 08:02, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Who is this?

I need to know who this is with all of this information about the Blizzard contribution. TY.

nice job!

great job all! thanks to Gatekreeper and Rubberband for their participation in this page =)

Debroglie 10:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Merging

I'm upset that someone would want to merge the Allstars page back into the DotA page, since it took a lot of work to separate them in the first place. I have a feeling that whoever suggested it simply looked and thought, "Hmm, this page is based off of the same idea as this other page, so we should merge them." The DotA page was getting far too large, by wikipedia standards, and when we have such a dearth of information on something like Allstars, it's only proper that we give it its own page, rather than let it take up too much space on an already cramped wikipedia page.

--Gatekreeper 07:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

why is there so much detail about how to configure and play this game? I mean, does it really belong in Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not the place for a detailed instruction manual. I know y'all have spent a lot of time putting great detail into this, but there has to be a website better suited than our encyclopedia. --Habap 17:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

About Vandalism

As with the general DoTA page: Please do not edit, change or delete any part of the sections of the version of DotA that you do not like. Please only make contributions and do not name clans or users that do not make consistant balance changes and new features to the map. This is a form of vandalism and your ip address and isp are so conveniently provided by this site.

Please remember that Wikipedia is a place for objective discussion and information. As such, highly personal remarks on the game and irrelevant comparisons with other maps should generally be avoided. Vandalism wastes effort to revert, so it really is a unfufilling act for everyone. If you'd like to contribute more to this page, how about signing up too if you havent?

Ruberband 18:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The note

When I restructured the versions part of the page, since I thought 6.20 deserved it, I took out the note about the differences between the terrain types, since 6.20 once again changed terrain types to a more grassy terrain. Someone put the note back in, but left the new layout. Do we really need this note? Or perhaps we could extend this note somehow (for example, I would suggest making a NOTE: This version set uses icy/grassy/whatever terrain) after every one.) Or perhaps a brand new section specificly for telling the different versions apart?

--AlexMax 17:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Racism!

moneyshot - Often used term by Filipino or pinoy

Some may find this highly racist, first being the fact that how in the world do you know some one is Filipino. What relevance does it really have anyway!??!??!?? I USE THE INTERNET <END-RANDOM-COMMENT>

  • Thanks for taking notice. In the article, the sentence has now been edited to reflect a Neutral Point Of View. Debroglie 18:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm glad that it has been reworded to reflect a Neutral Point of View, too. Although, as an aside, I think that the reference to "Pinoy" gamers were added by some Pinoys themselves not for the purpose of racism but rather to gain immortality as a "creator" of a DotA term (the sariling atin Pinoy tendency). But, I agree... there's no relevance whatsoever. Gryphon Hall 16:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hero Allusions

While I was looking through this section, I noticed that the Ignis Fatuus, Shandelzare Silkwood and Juggernaut allusions are not the heroes but rather their skills. I was wondering whether we should create a new sub-section for skill allusions and replace these heroes into there instead.


imo the allusions mean little anyway. It's interesting to see where the map developers got hero ideas/skills from, but is rather irrevelant concerning DotA Allstars in general. But whatever, if you really feel like it.. 13urb 04:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

    • theres a lot of allusions in DotA, I think we should just call it a general allusions for names/skills rather than making it a separate subgroup for this --Tclphz 13:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

--Tclphz 14:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)== Misc ==

1) "setters"... that doesn't seem like a real group, to me. There's magnataur, and enigma for group. VS, pudge, and intel morph for a single hero. I suggest getting rid of it.

2) Can you guys make up your minds about the gold cost for random? It said 150 in game mode and 200 in commands. I set it to 200 for all right now to be consistent, but yeah.

3) Perhaps we could simply do away with the group stunners? Include it as a sub group for disablers, like I did with nukers and spammers.

4) Do we really need the actions "det", "zap", and "ult"? Techies and zeus players may ask their teammates to type a phrase to alert them to use their ultimate, but it's not really universal. If we include these, we might as well include "nuke" "stun" "hex" "sleep" "attack" etc.

    • IMHO, det/zap is useful cause it is used entire map-wise (i.e. affects all enemy players in a particular location in the game, even if its not near any friendly hero) 61.6.103.84 20:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

-- I've played DotA for a long time and I have never seen most these terms under Nouns and Actions used. I'm just wondering about the purpose of having some of these terms in the wikipedia is? ie: SS, its a skill, but there are a million other skills not listed here, like stuns and such

    • sy/my and country codes refer to Wc3 Banlist and not DotA.
    • OC -> never seen it, but it can happen whenever there is a stalled push and other wave of creeps catches up
    • farm -> just never seen this used before

Also some of the terms are repeat of each other, back+out refer to similar things; MIA + missing.

My main point is some of these terms are never used in the game. There seems to be no point or purpose in having them here, but I don't want to delete them or do anything before theres some other opinions. --

hey guys i think this article should be merged with "Defense of the Ancients" the link is given down under !!!!!!!!

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Defense_of_the_Ancients

--

An item allusion seems not so necessary counterintuitive: The stygian desolator one. There are severals versions of Achilles immortality. One comes from the styx dipping. Another comes from the ambrosia usage. The properties of the styx waters are not confirmed in all versions.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Styx_%28mythology%29

There is also the Tantale supplice associated to the Styx. Anyway, the allusion was probably true for AO, but 'dota' seems to have just imported the name without the associated allusion.

Esby 13:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Under "Download and Resources sites" there is a link to WBnet PvPGN Server, which is nothing more than a default webserver page.

Also is it worth adding Bored Aussie PvPGN server since there is a huge amount of DotA played there?

One should note that PvPGN servers are actually against Blizzard's Terms of Use, and therefore should not be added. Blizzard is against the use of GG-Client for the playing of WarCraft III games in a multi-player environment as a valid CD-Key is not needed for access to GG-Client. Bored Aussie and Eurobattle.net are also examples of such servers which do not need valid CD-Keys to be accessed. This means by publicising such servers, wikipedia is advocating the use of pirated software as such pirated software have CD-Keys which are unable to access Battle.Net. Wilsonho 11:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

As soon as one guy add one of his links to the bottom (external links), the many of others begin to do the same. And the number of links is increasing, increasing and increasing.

I myself have done just the same.

Of course, sometime the links are deleted, but it's not ok also. Therefore, some good approach to these links should be invented. We can't just add them, and can't just delete.

Could one of us propose?? 193.190.238.4 15:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC) (creator of the most popular dota site in Russia)

A normal procedure would be to get consensus on which links to list and then delete any link not dicussed on the Talk page before it gets added. --Habap 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I think any link to "National Sites" is fine, unless they hide link to non-Blizzard realm or website full of hacks/cracks. Adding links to leagues or official websites without approbation in talk page is senseless and must be undo on sight. --DarthRahn 4:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

I think the terminology section is misleading in that it implies that acronyms/phrases like: "gg", "gj/gw", "noob" and "n1" are exclusive to DotA, while almost all of the phrases predate DotA, and are widely used outside of the game. It would improve the article if this was clarified. Ufretin 13:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a link to Leetspeak at the top of the section? --Habap 15:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

'Sources?'?

I'm going to remove the bizarre notice at the top of the page unless someone can point out any reason at all to have it there. All this info comes from either the game itself or the consensus among players here that the various jargon is universal in the DoTA world. --B. Phillips 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If none of this information is published elsewhere and it is only determined by consensus, then this qualifies as original research. The fact that many people contribute to it doesn't make it no longer original research. In order to appear in an encyclopedia, facts must be verifiable. These are the policies of Wikipedia. If this article is not an encyclopedic article and is instead a game guide, it's in the wrong place. So, the article either needs to come up to standards by getting sources, or have items removed, or it may face deletion from Wikipedia. --Habap 20:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. However, finding reliable sources for a lot of the information, especially in the jargon section, would be near impossible. Ufretin 08:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps most of the jargon should, instead, appear on someone's web page instead of here? --Habap 11:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

DoTA is an activity occuring every second of every day. --24.131.209.132 04:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.Ufretin 07:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
This information is verifiable because you can find most of it on the OFFICIAL dota webpage which is the source from the developer himself. -Iopq 20:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The issue is a guiding policy of wikipedia content, WP:V. That policy states "[i]f an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." Now, this article isn't going to get deleted because people think that the article can be cleaned up. It's already been through one or two AfDs. It is important that we provide citations, otherwise the content fails WP:V and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I think that if people dig hard enough we can find sources to back up a lot of the statements in this article. Other statements which can't be verified need to go. What we'll get is a nice encyclopedic article w/o any of the game guide-esque elements. --JRavn talk 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


Suggesting merge

I believe this article should be merged with "Defense of the Ancients." Although Defense of the Ancients is popular, it is still only a custom map, and does not warrant as many articles as it has.

This article is, at this point, almost nothing but a long list of vaguely described things and terms - alongside a few dictionary-style sections. A merge would allow many of these things to be removed without completely compromising the article's length and information. It also allow for the chronicling of the entire history of Defense of the Ancients to be in one place (the Defense of the Ancients article), as opposed to multiple articles as it is now. In addition, "DotA" maps are all fundamentally similar, and thus the gameplay would be easily describable if the articles were merged. JimmyBlackwing 12:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


No. This page is huge. And dota allstars is played by thousands of people EVERY DAY. There are several dota allstar games hosted at any time of the day on four Battle.net servers. This article has a huge amount of content and dota allstars is a very popular game. The same way teamfortress deserves a separate page from counterstrike dota allstars deserves a different page than dota classic. -Iopq 12:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The issue is that the Defense of the Ancients page is about about all versions of the game. The page doesn't exist to solely cover Defense of the Ancients: Classic. This article is a gigantic list, filled with information that only players of the game will understand - it's huge because it's overly wordy, and filled with inane details. For example, the current "version history" is something completely non-notable and unnecessary, but yet it fills up a large part of the article. The same goes for the Heroes and Allusions sections. As for the Terminology section, see WINAD - the majority of content in this section has no place on Wikipedia.
As most of this article's content is worthy of deletion, merging what salvagable parts left back into Defense of the Ancients is the best course of action. JimmyBlackwing 05:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

DotA Allstars was seperated from the main Defense of the Ancients page due to it having a lot more content in the first place. To comply with WINAD, suggest transWiki-ing the Terminology into a Dota Allstars Terminology wikibook? (just my 2 cents.) 130.194.13.105 06:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The history is uncomprehensive and should be merged into the parent article.

I would recommend merge because it sounds more like how to play the game, than infomation on the game itself which could be trimmed. -ScotchMB 02:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
well, i used to disagree, but it seems this article draws to much useless things, so i support just merging the important, encyclopediac parts into the main article. 1698 03:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I will merge the salvageable material into Defense of the Ancients, and nominate the remains of this page for deletion afterward. JimmyBlackwing 21:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


I believe that what is going on here is a lack of understanding of the differences between DotA and Dota Allstars. A good analogy would be "Pool" being a mother article, and 9-ball and 15 ball being subordinate articles. I believer that the page should be extensively rewritten, but not deleted. Hopquick 00:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations Needed

I see someone added a citations needed tag but there is no discussion for it. I'm not sure what needs citing. There is nothing controversial in the history, it's pretty simple and commonly accepted knowledge for anyone that plays the game. I'll remove the "most popular game" on bnet part, that is about all that needs to be changed. --JRavn 03:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A few items are marked, but the entire article is based on "commonly accepted knowledge" that is not verifiable. Since verifiability is critical to an encyclopedia, it seems that a lot of the article is original research that is not published anywhere else. In order to be considered a reliable source, we cannot have articles that are not based on something published by a reliable source. If there is information here that exists nowhere else (some editors have argued for the retention of the article for that very reason), we can't have it. If there is a Warcraft wiki somewhere (I know there is WoW wiki), it might be useful to move the article there. --Habap 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I know what you are saying, but a good chunk of wikipedia is not verified line for line. A good middle ground that is accepted for the majority of articles is that statements which are controversial, or challenged by people as untrue, need citations. "Common knowledge" or uncontroversial things don't necessarily need citations. It would be nice, but due to the difficulty of getting citations we live without them. --JRavn 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
After reading the article more closely and thinking about it, I've changed my position. I agree with you Habap. There are quite a lot of statements in this article which fail WP:V. For example, one such statement is "Although not the first map to have custom skills (that honor goes to the map Valley of Dissent), it was the first with custom skills to become widely popular." Since I've never heard of Valley of the Dissent, and there are no citations, I find myself unsure if this is true or not. There are other statements that could also use citations or be reworded. Let's try to get this article fully cited. If we can't cite certain things, they should be removed per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. --JRavn talk 20:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and see below. The section labelled Sources. --Habap 14:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the need for citations but there are many MANY things that are difficult to citate. There are many other articles involving games, websites, other stuff that have a difficult time finding citation but the information is mostly true. If you want to verify the changes in the history of DotA, that won't be too difficult;, if you want citations of allusions, we can make a wikipedia article on every one of those names. The guy down in sources also said that all this was available in the main websites (www.dota-allstars.com); however, i haven't been able to find the archives for older information, so I don't know what to do about that. eventine 14:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge

There doesn't seem to be a concensus on merging from the AfD, so I'm going to remove the merge notice. We should focus instead on improving the article's quality. --JRavn 03:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd perfer not to merge since realistically, theres only DotA Allstars still being played and its popularity is incredible. But being an internet game, it makes articles written about it difficult. I think we should remove the specific version by version changes and instead focus on large scale changes; .84b -> c -> 6.0 -> 6.3 etc (i can't remember the big changes anymore)
I also would like to see some history involving the increase in popularity with some citation (news about the inclusion in CAL league, spot light map, inclusion in Blizzard tourneys). eventine 13:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
There is already some of that stuff in the Current Player Trends section. If you want to rename it to something better go ahead. I also agree the version by version change history is not necessary. Go ahead and change em. --JRavn 16:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Merge, its the only way to make both articles look somewhat important.

Clan TDA section

There was a recent revert removing this section, with the description "non encyclopedic, this article is about the map, not one of many outside playing groups". I don't think this is a valid reason. Clan TDA is the official clan associated with DotA Allstars. In previous versions, the load screen even stated Clan TDA as the official channel for the map. If you look at the rules in the actual map (F9 I believe), the Clan TDA rules are listed. Icefrog, the creator of DotA Allstars in its current incarnation, is a chieftan of Clan TDA. Also, the channel and clan is notable, and are always filled to capacity with people looking for games. It is the de facto place to find organized Allstars matchups. I feel that for all these reasons, Clan TDA is worth mentioning, and it is not "one of many outside playing groups". I'm going to revert the edit. Let's discuss and reach a concensus before deleting again. --JRavn talk 19:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As a member of Clan TDA I do feel that it should be mentioned, though I would like to mention that there is no Clan TDA article at wikipedia and that if it was important enough to someone to not include it in the dota allstars article we could leave a link to a new article and move that section. 29 AUG '06 War-Mage

Well seeing as how DOTA is now rising up to higher league play (such as being accepted into CAL), I was hoping to add links to major league forums that I'm aware of such as TDA, IHL, and TDT. This would serve to help anyone who wants further strategy information since it can't really be included in this article. If anyone isn't opposed to it then I'll toss in the links sometime this week.Ironstove 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, just make sure they're fairly notable forum sites (10,000+ posts). There is already a link to dota-allstars.com so probably don't need to link the forum. --JRavn talk 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
already done. I've added TDT seeing as someone already added IHL. I edited the link names and fixed the IHL link so it wasn't [2] Ironstove 06:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding a more detailed changelog

I don't plan to actually add the changelog of EVERY version nor do I plan to actually submit a complete changelog, but I think generalizing the section "6.27b and above" is too broad and that area should be broken down into other sections as well so what I plan on doing is creation a section that looks like this:

6.27b

6.28-6.32

6.33-6.35

6.36 to present

basically I plan to seperate the maps based on when new heroes are added to the game and summarize any major map balances that were made within those gaps; so for example, I would move a majority of the .27b and above section into the 6.27b section and for 6.28 discuss the most major balances made and new heroes introduced. The same would occur for hero remakes and other such. If no one has a problem with this I can begin writing these sections up.

Wikipedia is really not the place for a detailed change log. --Habap 12:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

vandalism?

wow someone just removed a few of the external links i added in linking to unoffical Dota leagues... would anyone like to take credit? and i noticed some stupid argumentive lines being added to the 6.27b + section were it says "competition players creep deny hence the previous information is incorrect." i said league play POPULARIZED creep denying i never said that creep denying never exsisted before. and for what reason was the TDT link removed? i also noticed that the person that removed the IHL and TDT links which are both private dota communities added in their own section called DCE. this is really a dumb thing to do please refrain from removing information which others have provided in an attempt to put more focus on yours.

Claims that Guinsoo stole DotA

The lines claiming that guinsoo stole dota, specifically the comments of a particular author saying

"For instance, a number of Classic players resent Guinsoo for having 'stolen' their game, especially since he has similarly stolen most of his triggers, spells, heroes and items from other people; Guinsoo, for his part, maintains that the map was created from scratch and based only spiritually on Eul's work (Guinsoo has only admitted to taking the terrain and the idea for some heroes: everything else is his own, he claims)."

No refrence to the "Classic" players and their credibility. After that what follows the word "ESPECIALLY" are the authors own comments about stealing from all over the place, and not facts verified by anyone.

Nonetheless, no claims by euls are reported regarding stealing. Nor have any claims been reported by anyone else regarding stealing.

--Farqis 17:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

personally, i started playing dota around version 6.04 so i wasn't around to play the 5.85c versions very much... i mean as far as i can tell when it comes to the switch from 5.xx to 6.xx, the story really varies and is really shady so i can't rely on anything other than rumors, so i'd just stay out of this section unless or delete it alltogether if we aren't sure what exactly happened. Ironstove 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Actually, people de-protected Eul's and Guinsoon's maps and found that almost all of the triggers and layout were exactly the same. Thus Guinsoon did steal the map from Eul in a way. --HunterX2 17:45, 2 January 2007

Team heY

Team heY didn't win season 1 CAL, JMC did, and it didn't win season 2; coL did. Fix the vandalism please.

done. i changed the vandalism in the CAL section and also added in a bit more... i'm too lazy to update the strategy section and also i'm just getting too annoyed to do anything in some other areas like external links that are constantly being vandalized with bad reference sites >< Ironstove 21:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Dota 6.42

We need to move the discussion about 6.42 onto the talk page. Revert wars are no way to edit a page. See the three revert rule, which is rapidly approaching. Here is an attempt of a synthesis of the discussion thusfar:

70.71.244.58 (from Talk page and edit summaries):

Acually, dota-allstars.com and getdota.com are no longer official. I know how things work around here, i'm an anon user, and I tell you something that you don't already know, so you assume its wrong. But your wrong this time. Talk to any of the guys from TDA people, dota-allstars and getdota have been taken over by anti-icefrogists who think hes taking the map in the wrong direction. My edit was RVed because of a split within the dota community. It is NO LONGER TRUE THAT GET-DOTA AND DOTA-ALLSTARS.COM ARE OFFICIAL. Please get your facts straight.

DarthRahn, a self-identified TDA member (from 70.71.244.58's talk page):

I see you promotes your website everywhere, even in Bnet but it is a wrong way.

DanSlotman (myself) (from 70.71.244.58's talk page):

You are right, I did assume you were editing maliciously, though not for quite the reasons you said. Can you get me any links? They don't need to be verified or anything like that, but I'm assuming forums.dota-allstars threads involving this would be deleted.
Understand where I'm coming from—I'm not assuming you are wrong, but you need to back your argument a bit better to show it isn't a hoax. Considering that the de facto official pages don't have any mention of this, this looks like an attempt to fork DotA. This is pretty much a tried-and-true tradition for the map (ref. Guinsoo), but you can understand the skepticism about leaving your contributions in the article.
Further, from a purely Machiavellian standpoint, control of dota-allstars.com gives those individuals control of Dota Allstars. If Icefrog disagrees with them enough to distribute via other channels, realistically he will likely have to 1) change the name or 2) suffer significant loss of "brand recognition." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dslotman (talk • contribs) 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
And do not believe to everything in Battle.Net, look over this page on our stance regards 6.42. Also, user 70:71:244:58 is that your account?: xantan by DarthRahn 05:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Dota Allstars has an announcement about this:
Feb 15 2007, 03:52 AM IceFrog. Fake Maps. There are a few people that have been spreading fake maps. The 6.42 that is floating around the net is not even a leaked beta, it is a fake map with hacks. Official maps will always be posted first on getdota.com, if you don't find it there then don't download it. Dan Slotman 20:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Needs more gameplay information

For instance, the different game modes, and a list of heroes. Open stakes 22:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

this article originally listed all of the heroes and the allusion they represented, but other users decided that that information was irrelevant to the article hence it was removed. if you can find a tactful reason as to why the info should be added back in, then by all means show it, because the info removed can easily be found on other sites (which i referenced BUT I AM A STUPID VANDAL AND KEEP CHANGING IT!!). Ironstove 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia is not a game guide, I have removed all the abbreviations and list of heroes. They are not encyclopedic and only are useful to those playing the game. Such information doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --Habap 17:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That would also mean you should remove all pages related to races and classes in World of Warcraft for example, because they are not encyclopedic and only useful to those playing the game. Grow up! byeee 15:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you are correct. Those articles should also be removed. --Habap 15:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Why should they be removed? The top of this page says the article is within the scope of WP:VG. I am fairly sure the project would encourage a few more details. I generally count on WP as a source of information, but in relation to this subject, there is barely any useful information here. And take into account that the heroes page on the official site has not been updated in quite some time. byeee 16:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You just said they are unencyclopedic and only useful to those playing the game. Therefore, they don't belong in an encylopedia. Please read the essay, Wikipedia:Pokémon test.
It's only one page and it would be worth mentioning most of the heroes, since a lot of them are based on other media. I never intended to make pages for each, just a couple of lines detailing their affinity (spell family and such) and origin. Wouldn't that be all right? byeee 18:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
There are other places that would gladly welcome detailed information. I've trans-wiki-ed these articles (DotA and DotA:All-stars) to one of those - egamia. It is supposed to provide game guides, so feel free to edit the articles there: Defense of the Ancients and DotA Allstars. --Habap 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Article structure

I'd like to change the structure of the article. Currently it goes Gameplay, Development, AI versions, Current player trends, and Strategy. I think that for a typical (non-player) reader, the most logical order would be

  • Gameplay
    • Hero classes
    • Game modes
    • Strategy (including more than the anti-noob mentality)
  • Current player trends
  • Development
  • AI
  • External links

Any objections or comments? Thanks, Dan Slotman 23:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree to this. byeee 15:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry. I disagree. user:campersdemise

If you disagree, please say why you disagree. byeee 14:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Colloquialism?

Is this section really needed? These are all just common "chatspeak" terms that can be found in any game, not just DotA. 71.113.98.232 06:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, they are not needed. Go ahead and remove them, along with any other uses of jargon throughout the article. Dan Slotman 23:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

International play

I am concerned with the relevance of a large portion of the following block of text. I think the notable portion is that DotA is an internationally popular map, but I don't think that the various IRC channels, 3rd party tools, or methods for preventing leavers are relevant to the article.

Currently, DotA Allstars is popular among many players around the world, as observed on the Battle.net servers. Players of DotA Allstars, particularly in the Asian region, normally play in Internet cafes. Dota Allstars is played heavily in southeast Asian countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia. In part due to several IRC channels on GalaxyNet over the years, largest being #Zion (host channel for the gaming tool Zion) currently, number of players are rising dramatically. Players are increasingly joining clans and leagues from these countries, and many of these clans now rival more established North-American clans.
In Europe, there are many so-called pickup-games. Players play by first adding up for a game in the channel #dotapickup.euro on QuakeNet, then, when the list is full, a private game is being made on the realms, and all the players who signed up (referred to as the "players on the list") joins the game, and the game is played. This is quite popular, mainly because it protects against leavers. It does so by banning people who leave the game from the IRC channel itself, so that the banned player is unable to add on the channel, and can hence not join any games.

What do you guys think? Keep in mind that this sort of detail is strongly opposed by those judging Good articles, which this should hopefully aspire to. Dan Slotman 19:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I trimmed the section down to include information about international play without the specific details of how setting up games occurs. Dan Slotman 06:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

6v6 Source

There's a problem with obtaining this source. DotA Allstars forum has deleted all the posts that are relevant to this. I know that I have heard the same thing about 6v6 as in the article. TehNomad 17:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The 6v6 version is an illegal copy of the game. It's not supported by IceFrog or dota-allstars.com If you do find it necessary, you can always just google: Dota 6v6. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Primadog (talk • contribs) 09:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Micromanagement

Dota is not as micromanagement intensive as Warcraft 3. Most good Warcraft 3 players reach at least 150 actions per minute on average with 700 actions per minute spikes over 5 second spans. In dota most players have 40 actions per minute unless they are bored and spam actions repeatedly. They don't have spikes unless they are clicking many times on the same spot. Dota is even slower than World of Warcraft in terms of actions per minute. Of course, one would need to find a source for the statement that it is micro intensive. I will mark it as unsourced for now. -iopq 05:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent point that I hadn't considered. The sentence under consideration is, "Compared to Warcraft III, Dota is very micromanagement-oriented." If I recall correctly, I was the original author of that sentence, and I intended it to explain that Dota has no macro at all. I'll edit it to reflect that meaning, which I hope will resolve the problem.
As an irrelevant side note, I question your numbers for DotA. Good dota players manually patrol their hero to control when attacks take place in order to last-hit creeps. This takes roughly 3-4 actions per second. Although these are mindless actions—it obviously isn't the same mental commitment as casting spells or flanking archers—they still push a dota player's average into the 150 action range. Averaged over the game though, Dota will absolutely lose out to ladder WC3 in terms of actions, simply because there are not as many units to control. There isn't a lot to do while healing at the fountain. Dan Slotman 18:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you aren't a complete noob and or idiot, DotA has just as much micro as normal ladder. It's basically comparable to normal ladder; noobs don't micro in ladder very much, and noobs don't micro in dota very much.

Definitely not. In DotA you only have ONE hero, one unit, and four spells. Unless you spam actions by right-clicking there is no way you can exceed a normal ladder game. You don't have buildings, you don't have units to move back and forth (Holy Knight doesn't count), and nothing else except the hero to make actions per minute. Even in ladder games, over 200 APM is considered spamming (of rally points, right clicks etc). With only one hero to control, DotA is much slower. If the hero has two passive abilities and a long-cooldown ulti, even less APM result. Therefore, you unknown guest poster are actually the more 'unexperienced', so I don't use any potentially offensive words such as you did. byeee 17:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets be honest, apm depends on the hero. Lowest possible is 100 and any hero such as viper or meepo can result in a 200apm average. Also depends on the length of the game, especially since 2miniute deaths lategame really leaves you nothing to do. I have achieved over 250 apm in most my dota games, and that's without "spamming" or anything like that - pure skill :). Dota is so micro intesnsive its not even funny. Normal wc3 micro does not show ur skill.... on dota it does as apm usually = lasthit skill and so such.

Oh, mighty anon god of DotA who edits other people's comments. 100 APM is still more likely than the 700 said above. Over 250 apm? Well, unless you're spamming, please make a video so I can see the might of your actions. Spam spells? Spam items? Spam move actions? Spam attacks? Maybe with all of them put together you'd be close to that. Nevertheless you CAN'T compare Wc3 to DotA. Most of the time you have ONE unit (not talking about Necro, Chen, etc.)... a usual Wc3 game has you with 5 controls of units each moving in a different location and doing different actions WHILE taking care of your buildings, troop trainings and upgrades. There is a VERY big difference. » byeee 21:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture

I believe that version is at least 6.40 of dota, otherwise the ice troll hero wouldn't be there? Cheng Liu 23:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You can see the version in the upper-righthand corner of the screenshot. It is 6.39b. Dan Slotman 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hero Classes - original research

I have added a original research tag to the Hero Classes section. I have tried to find a citation for this section and found nothing. The section appears to be a unpublished synthesis of self published discussions and strategies. In other words, you can find lots of discussions and strategies that use the terms described in this section, but no were do you find them defined in the same place. This is why I believe this to be original research.

Regards, Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 11:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you screwed up the whole page, but... let's see. Anyway, sorry(as a member of TDA), but I do not agree with removing official link to TDA forum, and I have undid your change. DarthRahn 17:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No one has been able to provide any evidence that this is not WP:OR. Hence I deleted it. Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 12:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"initiating, support, carry?"

Hello,

I do not believe that the vast majority of DotA players has seen these strange new classifications before. I do not believe that they are widespread enough to be adopted into the wikipedia dota-allstars article. To back up my claim, try entering any random game of DotA and asking your teammate to "Pick Carry Hero Please." They would be very confused.

regards

Overmage 15:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you read official DotA Allstars forums you may notice that we use normal sense. There is no "assassins, nukers and etc. by DarthRahn 15:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Ideally we could get a citation for that section to avoid this sort of problem. There used to be a forum post by inDeed that covered it pretty nicely, but I couldn't find it. Is anyone else aware of anything that we could use for this? Dan Slotman 21:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that this section should be changed to Intelligence/Agility/Strength. Carry could be changed to Agility, Support could be changed to Intelligence and Initiator could be changed to Strength. The reason for this is that these are class types is that agility heroes are usually heroes with greater damage and attack capabilities than the other two classes. Strength heroes usually have disrupting abilities such as stuns (storm bolts, stomps, ravage, reverse polarity.) Also, Intelligence heroes usually have disables that hit one or two people and allow the rest of the team to chip away at the health of the enemies. The final reason for this change would be that players of warcraft and even people who were new to warcraft would more easily understand what types of heroes are used for each situation. User:Npw123 16:27, 24 February 2007 (ET)

It seems that the section in question has been removed entirely, but if something similar should at any time be reintroduced to the article, I hope you will refrain from making such substitutions as they are totally unfounded. Many Agi heroes are not carries (e.g. Vengeful Spirit), and many carries are not Agi heroes (e.g. Silencer, Queen of Pain). Similarly, Blackhole, which is *the* defining initiating move, is not on a Str hero, many Int heroes have no true disables at all, etc.220.255.237.190 12:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes - the section was removed. See Talk:DotA_Allstars#Hero_Classes_-_original_research. Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 12:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, I don't know how to format this properly. http://dotadata.com/index.php Is a website still in beta stages, but is a very useful tool and should be put on external links. The site allows people to upload their replays and there is scripts that analyze the games (look for yourself, a lot to mention). If majority agree, can someone add it, because im bad at these things.

There are several websites with many members, I understand that you would like to promote your own website but this is getting to be annoyed. As I stated in d-a forums wait until it gets approved by administration. Also please remember that Wikipedia is not a archive for advertising. by DarthRahn | talkpage on 04:38, November 28, 2024 (UTC)


Not balanced full of POV

It is a lot of praising and no mention of the usual criticism against this 'game'.

There is no criticism. We have official website for discussion of this game. Feel free to post your "criticism" in there. However as your IP says you are in validation stage and very new member of DotA forums. @by DarthRahn|talk on 04:38, November 28, 2024 (UTC)
While I appreciate your confidence, that's a comment very similar to what we'd hear from, say, the Iraqi War Minister. Is there no criticism because you don't allow criticism? Is there no criticism because the "pros" always flame out those who dare criticize their favorite game? The map certainly isn't perfect, as evidenced by the fact that it's constantly changing. If there wasn't any criticism, why do things get changed?
I think we could come up with a list of things that commonly pop up: rapid level acceleration that leads to a single overleveled character, redundant itemization with unclear tool tips, heroes that have very few alternative heroes to counter them or counter heroes that are too narrow in purpose to be good in a general, random game. These the big ones or am I missing any? @by Kayakyakr 08:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You didn't miss anything really. This article was rewritten time and time again, and now it's perfect, I think. Almost everything was taken from d-a.com, and if you think you can improve it - go on.(ps. Please change [your signature] and add </small> to close the tag @by DarthRahn|talk on 04:38, November 28, 2024 (UTC)
Sorry bout the </small> thing. I was really just parodying your signature and didn't read to the end. It was late. I'm not invested enough in this endeavor to actually care overmuch about perfecting the wiki; I was simply supporting the comments of the poster above and his criticism of the game's perceived lack of criticism. It'll get better; you seem to be willing enough to make it so. - Kayakyakr 18:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I should point out that this is not the place to put out dota-allstars.com's 'positions', and most of this article is game guidish and cruft. In other words, there is little that people who haven't played the game can benefit from. I'm not going to bother even trying to get it into better shape, because people screw it up time and time again. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 19:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
David Fuchs makes several important points. Large chunks of the article are non-encyclopedic. In particular, sections on recent editions of the map should be deferred until they've been used in high-level play and/or given time to settle in. There are too many irrelevant details ("Roshan is weaker than before") and too many unsupported assertions. Editors should constantly keep in mind that a wikipedia article is intended for general consumption. Speculation and unsupported argument and too much detail are harmful because an uninformed reader isn't familiar with the counterarguments and background complexities.
Also, there are definitely criticisms that can be made of DotA, though the ones above largely aren't valid in my opinion. (I.e. tooltips are easily better than other use-map-settings maps of any complexity, and level acceleration is usually only a factor on easy mode games which aren't supposed to be particularly level-balanced.) However, both DotA's player culture and gameplay are punishing for new players. There is little-to-no in-game documentation to help new players (for example, nothing explains that orb effects don't stack or text that says, "Hey, creeps hurt—you shouldn't let the them attack you for no reason.") Thanks, Dan Slotman 15:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
According to WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information we should not let this article become a game guide. I agree that most of the map version history needs to come out. It seems like WP:OR and has not WP:CITEs. Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 14:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree here @by DarthRahn|talk on 04:38, November 28, 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. A small part of the information would suffice. Citations would be possible if the official forums were available to guests. Maybe some other websites hold the same information, but I still think the official site should be the main source of information. byeee 14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just killed off the version histories past 6.27b. I've nothing against them per se, but I don't think 6.42 to 6.44 was a significant enough change to warrant calling it a new "era" and a new subsection when poor old 5.xx gets one paragraph for itself. Furthermore, they read like a tournament reporter telling the players what happened at the latest DotA tournament, and hell, paragraphs on hero selection and how they were synergistic? That's a game guide. Similar thing happened a while ago, with each release 6.27b-6.34 or having its own changelog. I barely play DotA, and I might not be any good at it... but I do know what belongs in an encyclopaedia intended for the masses. A lot of that information was relevant only if your already a player. Ong elvin 15:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that if the paragraph style was more appropriate, I wouldn't object to another subsection for Development. But gotta remember that an encyclopaedia is for the masses, not for the people who already know about the subject matter. That's why we look up encyclopaedias - because we don't know.

Credit?

I thought there was to be no "credit to: whoever" on any pages in wikipedia? This article has credit, contact, and a picture of the guy it's being credited to. I'm new to the whole thing, so I thought I'd bring it up here rather than change it without knowing for sure. Robgoodberry 00:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: Robgoodberry. Four tildes(Robgoodberry 00:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)) produces your name and the current date. Please do not add this signature to encyclopedia articles you may edit, however, even if you have created them. Wikipedia articles are owned by the community, not by any one person. Your contribution is credited on articles' history pages. Again, welcome!

—WAvegetarian•(talk) 13:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)"

Community

I'm not really sure about this section. The 'countries' list could turn into another target for spammers - there's loads of countries with loads of strong players missing from that list, including (but not limited to) the Philippines, Myanmar, Canada, Finland, Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and the list could go on forever. The second part (criticism) could be used, but under another section. » byeee 16:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging, again.

I was really rather unsure what template to use, because I wouldn't want to merge Defense of the Ancients into DotA Allstars or viceversa. However, looking at the Defense of the Ancients page really makes me wonder why it is still there. It's not remarkable, it's not extremely popular (except for Allstars) so it really doesn't need to be yet another stub. I think the best course of action would be to make another section under Development in this article (of course, also removing most of it, which is extremely unnecessary) since it would hardly fill up an entire section (and then move this page to Defense of the Ancients). I know this has been proposed before, and there was no consensus, but perhaps this time will be different. Note: This way, the AfD nominations will not be so frequent anymore, perhaps even stop. » byeee 20:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yea, agree to merge them. The word "dota" means "dota allstars" really but still it redirects to "defence of the ancients" article. But don't go through AfD —comment added by DarthRahn(u/t\c) 21:00, 6-June, 2007 year (UTC).
I intend to avoid future AfDs by having only one article called 'Defense of the Ancients' that documents the other versions in one section, then Allstars in the rest few sections. Nobody visiting WP looks for DotA Outland or whatever, they're looking for Allstars, which is the most popular W3 custom map and will be for a while. » byeee 06:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree. Dota is now vastly used (on Northrend realm at least) for referencing the Dota Allstars map. If the article could keep basic informations about the other maps and the specifities of Dota Allstars, it would probanby work. Esby 10:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well.

Pretty much all of DOTA today is DOTA: Allstars. It makes no sense to have two articles. Merge! 71.252.131.113 03:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC) I would call for a merge, at DotA Allstars official homepage (dota-allstars.com), in the top it says: "Defence of the Ancients", and does not mention Allstars. Probrably because I have never seen anyone play other than DA (A never common short for DotA Allstars) on Battle.net. So name of the article should be Defence of the Ancients. Makeybussines 07:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well, there is no real reason to have two seperate pages. Perhaps you could add the original page (in abrieviated format) to the end of the All Stars? Jeremy 14:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You guys are noobs. DOTA was the original, All-Stars is a variation. There is a difference, and for historical back story purposes, they should not merge. It is a known fact that there are a LOT of other DotA maps around that are very popular. They are just not so popular in Western Countries. 202.154.112.30 09:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure about that. If by popular you mean a map started on a server twice a day, then yes, other versions might be popular too. And I'm not talking only about Lordaeron/Azeroth/Northrend here, but about Kalimdor as well. Yes, other DotA maps might be "popular", but all of them fade in comparison to Allstars. And that goes without counting private games (see DotALeague), unofficial BattleNet servers (EuroBattle) and games on GGC/Hamachi. A Google search for "Defense of the Ancients" only gives results for Allstars in the first 50. Not to mention the fact that what all normal people understand by "DotA" is actually Allstars. Please give examples the next time, dear anon user. » byeee 10:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I would have to say that this not really be a question of opinion on whether or not the other DOTA versions are as popular as allstars. It seems to me that the way it is set up is the most advantageous, because not only does it allow supporters of all the other dota types (in one unified page) to post and update history and ongoing information in some depth, it also allows Dota Allstars to have its own area, where one would expect a much larger amount of single topic information. It is really an arrogant thing to say that the roots and variants of the core game that became allstars is now so unimportant to anyone that it should just be a brief mention. 67.102.78.214 20:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm with 67.102.78.214 here... It's quite arrogant to ignore your roots completely, even if Allstars is pretty much the only popular version right now. This setup does indeed help DotA variants out, but would those variants combined be considered notable enough to garner their own article? Ong elvin 23:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree lets merge it, its the same map/.—Preceding unsigned comment added by xgmx (talk • contribs) 15:11 3 August 2007

I say merge the two articles because DotA Allstars is the only truely noteable game, I haven't seen anyone hosting the original DotA by Eul on the Northrend realm for 2 years. The original DotA is simply not noteable, as it is not played nearly enough. I would say just delete this article, but it would be nice for the DotA Allstars article to have a bit of history of it. Emperor Jackal 17:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've merged to Defense of the Ancients. While DotA Allstars is the more important one, if we are going to mention any of the other variants we should have it under the general page. In a bit I'll move the discussion page here to the general article. David Fuchs (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defense_of_the_Ancients/Archive_1&oldid=1146313253"