I'd suggest you watch the previously linked video for what to make of it. Also, did someone suggest an "outright ban" on all-chat? Did I miss that somewhere in a follow-up post? Disabled by default means you have to enable it in the options. Like you do to make yourwin/loss history public. It was done in League for the same reason it was disabled by default in Dotes: to slow avenues used to troll games.
Ha, no you didn't. That's what I get for slamming out a response during break time.
It's a pity the all chat is just a small portion of the video's discussion. I'm curious of the changes to the percentage of games that have zero cross-team chat after the opt-in option was implemented. Would this be considered a success if the amount of games without cross-team chat doubled (putting it at 92% of games where teams don't talk to each other - which would mean that we've actually had fewer games with positive chat after the opt-in even though the percentages have increased)! Without knowing how much this affected overall all chat percentages (and I'd be surprised if it didn't in the first week from the very fact many players probably wouldn't have even noticed the change) these results are meaningless. Furthermore, I'm surprised they don't show an analysis over a longer period of time. I doubt this experiment was done the week prior to the conference and if you're analyzing a long term problem one week after implementation is not enough. Are these results consistent after the week? Is it a trend and positive chat changes are even more pronounced? Or did the initial change disappear once players got used to the new system?
Just so that I'm clear: are you attempting to suggest to me that it's *easier* to come back from getting behind in Dota2 than it is in League? Because in my 3 years of experience with both, I can't agree there. While I find neither game particularly easy to come back from deficits in, the fact of the matter is one game costs you time (while the enemy gains gold and xp), while the other game costs you time, costs you gold (while the enemy gets MORE xp and about the same amount of gold). Certainly you could be the lucky recipient of the 900g or whatever it is for killing someone on a 10-kill spree which helps...but hell, if they're on that kind of tear, that gold bump probably isn't enough. lol. Both games can have 15-minute GG's and both can have epic comebacks if given space and opportunity. That's not the spirit of what's being pointed out. Rather, that you can be punished in more ways and thus put farther behind in Dota2 with deaths and denials. To say nothing of not being able to afford wards and invis heroes which contribute to an overall map oppression/claustrophobia. Hell in League, everyone gets free wards now! lol. To me, that combined makes Dota the more challenging game, but in the context of this conversation it can also make people feel more punished and become more frustrated which can lead to acting out.
Well, I'd argue the mechanics that make your mistakes in Dota 2 so punishing are the same mechanics that make coming back possible. Yes, every time you die in Dota you are losing out on money, time and experience but this cost is a dynamic relationship. Ending a killing spree gives quite a significant amount of gold now which helps to make up for the deficit. Furthermore, items in Dota 2 are of a higher impact. That 900 gold influx might be just the thing needed to get a Scythe which will help to lock down the offending carry or ganker who was snowballing earlier. Unless League has changed, they still don't have any decent control on heroes with the longest stun being two seconds.
I also think League has some more subtle relationships that make it harder to come back after early loses. For one, map control is much more important because of the various objectives around the map. Between the Baron, both team's blue and red buffs and dragon, you have a lot of the map that needs to be protected or assaulted and very few options to cover them. There's less mobility in League (unless it's changed) as the TP scroll was regulated to a summoner skill and almost universally ignored for the much more maligned Flash and getting across the map, even though it's smaller, I think is actually slower. Since League is all about incremental improvements, if you give up a first few early deaths, suddenly their heroes are getting their items faster without any way for you to prevent it. A fed carry in Dota 2 can always be stun locked into death but a fed carry in League has no mechanic to keep her in check.
In Dota, if the enemy carry is getting an early advantage, the easiest response is to apply more pressure to him with your supports and ganker. Back to back deaths on a carry will cripple what lead he gained. In League, you couldn't (and I'll keep it past tense since I've been out of the League sphere for over a season and half) really apply the same amount of pressure to the carry as everyone scaled with items and levels. If you focus on the AD ranged in the bottom lane, suddenly their AP in the middle is given lots of space to farm, push towers and achieve their objectives. You only really had one hero in place to apply pressure - the jungler - and he can't gank as effectively as in Dota because of having to control the jungle and needing to traverse the map without any mobility options. Not to mention that actually killing the carries is made even more problematic with everyone having a built in blink dagger (Flash is the worst).
When I was watching pro games, the vast majority of the time an early gold advantage of about 800-1k would be established in the laning phase and I would just watch that disparity grow and grow over the next twenty or so minutes. Come backs in pro games seemed to be far rarer than in Dota 2 because you can't even rely on the unique strengths of your line-up since the champion design was so every hero fit a specific role and mirrored their colleagues in that role. There were no push teams, no 4 protect 1, no mid game dominance etc...
Well that's partially because there aren't any Nature's Prophets, Tinkers, Phantom Lancers, or Boots of Travel in League, not because there is some inherent rubber banding or ease of getting back into a game in Dota2. Epic comebacks are almost always a function of having a team comp that can facilitate it by split pushing and backdooring or otherwise stalling for time. Or an enemy team comp that unfortunately peaks early but can't break the base against a team with 3 carries.
But I'd argue that these heroes are some of those inherent "rubber banding" mechanics. Furthermore, the dynamic nature of items in Dota 2 helps to cover some of the weaknesses in drafting. As you mentioned, if you don't draft a split pusher but are suddenly on the defence and have to play Alliance-dota, you purchase shadowblades or boots of travel and be able to apply split pushing pressure. In League, your item options were "which stat do I want to improve more?" If you didn't draft enough disable you were out of luck (not that there was a lot of disable in the first place).
This one
http://dotabuff.com/matches/437712524, for example, was over quite early. It went an extra 15 minutes because they simply weren't inclined to finish. Multiple fountain diving sessions were the order of the day, and for at least the last 5-10 minutes they were simply sitting around in our base fountain diving, buying more items, then falling back.
Replay expired.
Why does it have to be either or? No ideas on how to find a medium between the two? The purpose of the commentary isn't for you to choose which you think is good or bad because you'll only answer based on your biases. Rather, the point is to consider how it can be improved. And you can bet your ass it can be better than it is now. Your better idea could be passed along and implemented. Who knows.
Well, I think Valve is experimenting with some ideas. The chat wheel is great but underused and we have pinging and drawing on mini-map (often misused). As I said, I wouldn't say region locking is a positive especially since there are going to be very few situations where region locking will ensure a game with people that only speak your language. In North America we have French, Spanish and English in rather large percentages from native citizens. Europe would be an even bigger mess. I really think the discourse over Russians and Brazilians ruining every server is a misleading (and slightly racist) one.
Ack, I've got to run now. But I guess that's probably for the best else I'd ramble on for longer.