Heres a book
Oh i mean it's not weird that you dont see the link between his post and my rants, since i was just really aimlessly ranting, but if i had to say some things:
Out of context statistics is a thing that gets me going and played a large part in our election results, i dont mean to say that this and anything hots related are even close in importance, just that statistics and presentation and the effect of things like advertisement and marketing is a thing that's important to me and has been for a while. So you can see why the misuse of a resource like hotslogs works me up. As srey reiterates, hotslogs only shows you the result, it's not the means it's just the end (i always say that the hotslogs winrate only shows you one thing: how many times that hero has won or lost).
When i talk about wanting hero specific discourse i am talking about the urge for rational base level discussion; that is it is fundamentally impertinent to the game to speak about balance or whatever in this game without actually talking about what heroes do or do not do on paper. Different levels of play dont matter, talk about the game and dont forward anecdotes as evidence. I dont expect discourse to improve or diminish, it's just a want i have.
When i talk about dota or league being more homgenized im talking about a fundamental meta that is followed, even if everyone is not cognizant of it, of similar goals but diff ideas of efficiency. This barely exists in hots from the bottom up, in my opinion in part due to obscured mechanics. In league of dota it is very easy to see that you want to make gold and get good items and prevent the enemy from doing this, and ymmv based on level w/r/t the ways of doing this...but everyone wants to do the same thing, that's what the game is, they want to get their resource and prevent the other team from getting theirs. They dont have to be aware of this, the game drives them towards this and the strategy emerges from the various tools provided via map, conp, etc. Hots is advertised as a brawler and have these ostentatious map objectives so like i said it's understandable that the idea that exp is king and that map obj are a means to this end is lost on ppl, like this is part of why i think na hots players have not improved much in 2 years.
I like to read so i emphasize what i want when i view discussion, but maledict talks about watching high lvl play and the lack of options for this and im in total agreement. But to be fair to content creators, creating content for hots is a different ballgame than creating content for other mobas, like the amount of vitriol that pops up when someone at a higher lvl suggests you play a different way in this game is different. Battlerite is suffering from this too. Hopefully a weekly visible tourney like hgc can help this along.
Also srey is theorizing that silver->diamond mainly consists of outplaying via mechanics and that this results in dissonance at the very top when these ppl enter the field with ppl who actually know how to play, not the other way around. And so you get a mechanically great zeratul who leaves a lane unsoaked or tries to engage 4v5, like he can outplay these situations mechanically until he reaches the top where hes fucking dead weight because those decisions start costing the game. I dunno how much i agree with that, but i know high level na players cconsistently are faced with this dissonance and are paired with ppl who are playing a diff game than they are.
"It is what it is" is also my approach in the end, but i have fun writing rambling posts about stuff and putting words to my exp. and thoughts on the game. Like a big part of why i got into this game was because it was new and it's consistently interesting to me to watch the twists and turns it goes through, plus i have little stake in whether it succeeds or not.
W/r/t tier lists, imo a tier list needs to consider the game itself, regardless of ppls ability to play the game itself. Im not gonna read an article about how queens in chess are super valuable and get pissed off because my pawn kda is much higher. You can make the argument that pawns are more valuable in certain skill levels and that's fine, but you cant say that pawns are objectively stronger. Btw i dont know shit about chess so sry if this is nails on a chalkboard to someone. I mean that's just my take on it, it's why i say that you might as well look at winrates if you do not want to talk about the way the game works, pawns are great in silver ppl dunno how to deal with 5 min pawn rush, but to me you cant make an objective tier list that doesnt consider that this may not be the best option regardless of it's success at certain skill levels...and like indeed the constant railing against the idea that it's relevant to a group of players who are ignorant to certain game possibilities is literally a call to diminish knowledge. When ppl tell srey his tier list is irrelevant because the majority of players dont understand the game well...like he's not talking about some elitist vision of the meta, he's literally expressing his views on the base game from his perspective. It's a resource not a rulebook. It's just a game in the end, tho i see parallels w/ more important things.
