ID:1912054
 
Two popular topics I've discussed with the MOBA community over the years dealt with skillshots ( and their frowned upon opposites: "targeted" abilities ) and comebacks.

When you first hear "skill shot", the phrase itself makes you automatically assume that it's harder. That the player using the skill shot and doing well is more skillful than the person who just clicks directly on an opponent and reaps a reward. This even leads to people calling Dota 2 easier ( because of it's abundance of targeted abilities ) and League harder in that regard ( because almost everything is a skill shot now in that game ). However, I feel like people overlook several important factors when it comes to skill shots and targeted abilities.

Skill shots are stronger - Generally, MOBAs are balanced in a way that a higher risk yields a higher reward. A skill shot has the potential to miss and do nothing at all, so the player is rewarded when they DO land the ability with more damage or a stronger debuff. While targeted abilities are guaranteed to hit the enemy, they usually have noticeably weaker damage and effects.

Skill shots have more range - Not only are skill shots typically more powerful, but they also come with the benefit of hitting someone very far away. Pudge's Hook, Mirana's Arrow, or for a League example, Ezreal's and Xerath's ultimates. These abilities can hit you even once you've managed to successfully blink/flash/teleport across the screen, something very few targeted abilities can do. And even when targeted abilities are allowed to have long range, like Karthus's ultimate, it comes with a huge drawback: his opponents are given 3 seconds to react to it and it's a channeled ability which means it can be interrupted. That means his ult doesn't get him any kills if his opponents use that 3 seconds to heal up enough, use magic immunity, or become invulnerable OR simply stun/knock-up/disable Karthus.

Skill shots ignore fog of war - Fog of war is a gargantuan advantage for those hiding in it and a huge detriment for those who have no wards to see through it. However, the biggest factor that makes skill shots so useful is that they completely ignore fog of war. You don't need vision of your opponent to attack them using a skill shot. Your opponent can run up to higher ground ( Dota 2 ), can rush in a bush ( League ), or they can just go invisible, and it doesn't matter - your skill shot can still hit them. This is not possible with a targeted ability. In order to target something, you have to, you know, see it so you can click on it.

When you realize the abundance of advantages that come with skill shots, you have to ask yourself: is the player using a skill shot-reliant champion REALLY having a harder time? The only drawbacks are that you'll miss often if you're playing against a very mechanically skilled player who is side-stepping all of your skill shots, or if there's a very fed tank who's standing in front of his team soaking up every projectile. But since most players actually suck at moving unpredictably ( coupled with the fact that things like stuns and slows make landing your shots that require "skill" not require any skill at all ) and don't know how to play front-line oriented heroes and champions, this becomes less of an issue.

So basically, skill shots are just as easy if not easier to win with than targeted abilities.

The other thing on my mind was comebacks. One of the things that irritated me about League in comparison to Dota 2 was that I felt like my good performance ( in terms of snowballing early game ) had next to no effect on the game, whereas in Dota 2, if you stomp early game, there's a good chance that you've pretty much won. All you have to do is just keep spam killing the enemies, and they never get a chance to comeback. In League, you kept your gold upon death, and so even when you died, you didn't really lose much especially if the enemy didn't take your turret afterwards. All it takes is one team fight to go your way and 15 minutes of early game dominance just becomes a complete non-factor.

This is why I invested so much time into Dota 2, because I enjoyed the idea of "you should be punished if you play poorly". However, from a game development standpoint, and especially an eSports standpoint, this idea is pretty much the exact opposite of how you want your game to operate. I was just watching TI5 and I stopped to ask myself "I don't even play Dota 2 much anymore, but why do I enjoy watching it more than League?"

The reason was because comebacks. There's nothing more boring than viewing a game in which one team just completely dominates the other team and they never get in a position where they can put up a legitimate fight. We as viewers love those games where a team is down 20 kills and just miraculously turns whole situation around in their favor in 5 seconds. That's what makes these games entertaining and keeps us on the edge of our seats - the back and forth struggle of two evenly matched teams where no one can guess who the victor will be.

I actually recall reading a post about Dota 2 about a month or two ago where in a certain patch, they changed the game in a small way that made it slightly less punishing. I can't remember what it was, but obviously it has made a difference because there were like 4 comebacks yesterday in TI5, it was pretty insane. But basically, if you were to design a game that was so punishing to the point where if you make 2 or 3 mistakes you've already lost, a game that challenging might sound good on paper but the reality is even if two teams are evenly matched, a game might turn into a landslide just because the team with the advantage was rewarded too heavily.

Just two topics to think about. I don't think anyone here is even making a MOBA but I think everyone makes games involving PvP here so perhaps there is some relevance. If you want to see some crazy games, watch Dota 2.
I actually don't like league of legends because there are a lack of comeback mechanics. Everything seems to be oriented on "Who won the late-game teamfight?" In Season 2 there was an example of Gambit Gambing vs. CLG.EU (I believe they're Elements now) where CLG.EU got rekt in the early game and they just stalled outside their base until they had farmed up enough through waves pushing in and won the game. They stalled outside their base for a good 20 minutes though. That just should not be allowed. Riot has gone some way to helping this not happen by providing baron and dragon as game-ending tools. But my complaint with them is that they only really work for your team if you're winning. Riot posts stupid stats like, "Teams that get the first dragon win X% of games" but they don't seem to notice that the reason these teams get the first dragon is probably because the team was already winning. In other words, dragons come because you're winning, not dragons lead TO winning.

Although it's rather amusing I talk about how baron helps you win games when I got 3 baroned earlier today in ranked and we still won %) But overall, it doesn't matter how much you're winning in league if you can't teamfight. There's no such thing as a solo carry unless it's Riven (fuck that wench).
As a an avid, though no longer ranked playing league of legends player, I would just like to inform you that the "snowball" effect has been lessened from season 2 to the current season 5. Leads need to be maintained more than previously. Snowballing only occurs when a player, or team, do not actively react to a danger. Whether that is a player's level, items or position.

I'm a big fan of this personally, and try as I might I couldn't get into DOTA 2. I suspect this is because I started in LoL and moved to DOTA 2. It would probably be the opposite if I started in DOTA 2 and went to LoL.

I really enjoy it in LoL when a team has half the kills of the other team, but still wins because of strategic objective dominance over direct PvP power.
In response to Bone White
Yeah, snowballing doesn't happen on a macro-scale anymore. But it still happens almost every friggin game of League of Legends. How many comebacks have you seen that didn't come from, "Oh the other team messed up their blink so we managed to ace and take their base"?

Why is it almost every game I see a lane swap I see teams swap towers and one of them grabs a dragon on their way out? Why is it almost every game the team I see get a gold lead very rarely gives it up? When I rate snowball, I don't rate "how fast it gets out of control"; I rate it, "how easily can the scales tip". And when League is controlled entirely on teamfights, there's little to no reason to pick anything that doesn't perform in teamfights. The only split push I remember is ZionSpartan on Dig playing Susan and literally walking into the base with stupid af Susan stacks winning.

The dragon isn't a comeback tool, if a losing team gets it, it's being used more to deny the 5 dragon stack. Baron isn't a comeback tool, it doesn't benefit teams getting sieged, it benefits teams doing the sieging. And those are the 2 objectives on the map. Several pros have gone on stream to say that splitpushing isn't viable at the highest level because while you got bot solo, the other team got baron + inhib. So overall, if you start the game losing, odds are you're going to lose, and if you don't lose it's because you held out long enough for the other team to make a mistake. It's the difference between passing because it's a good idea, and being forced to pass because it's the least bad option. At no point in a fair game should you be waiting for someone else to make a mistake to win. There should be proactive measures you can take.
At my level, players are too inconsistent in performance to allow the matchmaking system to be "fair". That has more of an impact on balance than any other factor in my opinion, and can't be mitigated by gameplay features.

On subject, skill shots can be mentally or mechanically counter-played. For example, in league of legends, Talon's cut-throat always positions him behind his target. This means any basic projectile type skillshot (think Ezreal's Mystic Shot) would be mechanically countered by this skill, assuming Ezreal was facing Talon when casting it (he rotates to the cast direction when cast anyway).

As for mental counter-play, you know that Ezreal will save his Arcane Shift to avoid your skill shot, so by purposely casting your skill shot towards where you think he will Arcane Shift to, you can bait him to use the skill predictably, using up his escape and landing a hit.

Just my thoughts on the skill-shot side of the OP
Baron doesn't help the team being seiged? How do you figure that?

If blue side gets a red inhibitor but is low and goes to take baron and red side reacts and goes to fight or steals it or whatever, it most definitely benefits them. How?

1) It denies the enemy team about 1500 gold and the baron buffed minions
2) It puts that gold into the losing teams pocket, getting them that much more caught up
3) Gives that team the baron buff, which effectively negates the push of the super minions so long as someone with Baron buff is nearby.

It definitely provides a way to stall out the game a little longer to get more caught up.

And while Dragon isn't necessarily a comeback tool, if you get the first dragon late in the game it is worth the chunk of stats it gives. Also, denying the 5th dragon allows you to stall out more again, helping you to reach a point where the enemy's gold lead no longer matters.

Not saying the system is perfect, but it is not as bad as you make it out to be.

Oh, and even in professional games with the exception of the most top-class teams who know how to close out games on a small lead like the back of their hand, there is often always room to come back with superior strategy and map movement and vision control. It doesn't all rely on mistakes, though mistakes do of course help.
In response to Albro1
That's just it, it's a stalling tactic. But it's the DENIAL that helps your team. It's like stopping a 3-pointer just to lose to 2-pointers.

In most cases, inhib > baron. If blue gets low on the inhib and risks a baron, they're probably losing 2 inhibs for it.The tools for the losing team are always, "Stall out, hope someone makes a mistake". That's not proactive gameplay. Once a team gets a lead, if they just play safe they have no risk to losing that lead. (Personal opinion) Leads should require risks to maintain.
EG just beat LGD and are going to the TI5 grand finals. If there's anyone in NA who deserves to hold that Aegis, it's this man right here



This guy has been nothing but a staple in the North American Dota scene for longer than most of us even knew this genre of games existed. Now he's taken his insane amount of experience, mentored his teammates and has destroyed the competition this year. It's taken some time, but now our country can finally be taken seriously when it comes to Dota.

The grand final begins in an hour. CDEC will definitely not be an easy opponent but if anyone can stop them it's Fear and his team.
its official, pansies! americans are your TI5 champions! EAT IT, CHINA