Talk:Defense of the Ancients/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Aeon of Strife

I think Aeon of Strife should at least be mentioned at some point in this article considering that is what the original Dota was based on... the game design is exactly the same.

This article is not about game modification but about all of them. Also please sign up your posts by typing four tildes(~~~~) after the post. —comment added by DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 17:47, 16-May, 2007 year (UTC).

No need for fanboyism on a Wiki article.

removed a portion of the article which claimed the game to use "popular heroes" (This is an opinion, not fact) and written poorly in general. I also removed a portion that completely contradicted the section before it in which it claims a sequel was made when two paragraphs earlier the article states there was no sequel...

Also removed a few pointless sentences ( (the official multiplayer gaming server network for Warcraft III by Blizzard Entertainment). ). This sentence is pointless when a simple click on the word Battle.net will suffice. --Lucavious 17:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

DotA Allstars

There is already a DotA Allstars page. Why does this page exist? It should be merged or deleted. And I don't think that Dota Allstars should be merged into here - because it is the notable topic. Mention of classic dota could be included in the history section of Dota Allstars. The writing on this article is much better, I would like to see that sort of writing end up in DotA Allstars. --JRavn 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

DotA Allstars and DotA are two totally different things. DotA is the genre, DotA Allstars is a game in the genre. And I know that DotA is an Aeon of Strife game. It should not be merged, deleted maybe. Youngminii 08:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The genre is really AoS - DotA it really just a successful spin on it.

DotA is not a genre, it is a custom game that has had lots of spin-offs (like wintermaul). I agree with JRavn, this page shouldn't even be here. Nobody plays the original anymore, they haven't for an extremely long time. I have only ever seen it on the European server on Battle.net once, and that was around 2 years ago. DotA Allstars is extremely popular, so I would say merge a few parts into the DotA Allstars page. Emperor Jackal 16:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Important Note on Vandalism!!

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.

--- There have been several edits being in favor of Classic/Outland/Allstars, and some irrelevant comments something like: "allstars sucks, way too imbalanced" or "classic sucks" .... if you wish to contribute please do NOT insert such comments; instead put any information regarding your favorite DotA variant into the appropriate category; and please do not remove entire sections of the DotA version you dislike. Thank you all for the cooperation.

Notes

I have deleted the listing of "cheesing" as a synonym for backdooring, since I feel cheesing does not specifically refer to backdooring, but any "cheap" strategy. I have deleted the sentence "(Note: Most hosts now keep banlists, preferring to permanently ban backdoorers instead of debating the topic)." Found in the Jargon section under "backdooring." The reason is that I find most hosts do not run banlists unless they explicitly state such in the game name, and banlist is only common for Allstars games. Since this is a section on all variants of Dota, I find his comment is more a statement of misdirected anger than a statement of fact. Also, I disagree with his statement based on my own experience. I have also deleted the sentence "backdooring as a concept doesn't exist in DotA since its considered a valid tactic by siege heroes" since it is (1) poorly written, since it clearly exists and even has an official definition, and (2) the statement of validity is an unsupported opinion of the author. I think it is sufficient to say that the merits of backdooring is debated without citing specific people's opinion on the subject. I also want to note that "skipping" is not a common term used by any West Coast or East Coast Allstars players, but I have not deleted due to the slim possibility that it is a common term on other servers. (RoshThief, 17 November 2005)

Great job on this page guys! i'm an avid dota allstars fan, and due to the Allstars section growing larger and larger; maybe in future it needs a new page [DotA Allstars] dedicated to it... but for the time being i just reorganized allstars a bit, i.e. sorting lists in alpha order, adding subcateg. and so on.

Oh yeah -- btw, the lowyat.net link removed coz it is not specific to the exact page we can find the map. (It refers to a computer forum among LowYat plaza computer enthusiasts in Malaysia for those who don't know); however if the link were to stay, someone should provide the exact URL of the DOTA map instead of just a top-level domain.

Debroglie 30 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)

After going over the article, I find that the "Miscellaneous" section of the article is somewhat extraneous and of little merit. Listing the abbreviations for heroes just does not seem necessary and since there are an extraordinary number of ways to abbreviate the number of almost every hero in DotA Allstars, it seems rather useless to list only a few. I think a majority of that section should be cleaned out, but I'm asking here for your opinions on this.

--Gatekreeper 07:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Gatekreeper: thanks for the input. I quite agree. WoW (World of Warcraft) has a special article linked to all the Terminology for WoW and RPGs (stuff such as Aggro Range, Creep, etc). Based on your suggestion, i think we can edit out the not-so-common lingo and simply Cut-n-Paste it into a new article called, for example, "Defense of the Ancients Terminology" or "Defense of the Ancients Lingo". Any suggestions on which to edit? Please provide a list and i'll cut it to the new article if you guys agree with the cleaning. Thanks =)

Debroglie 08:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Keep up with the good work, guys. Newbies appreciate the time we put into this. :D One note, the number of clans that are being listed as examples is becoming rediculous. I don't suggest that we remove them all, but we should at least organize them by map. Unfortunately I don't recognize a majority of the names and so I don't know which ones should go where. If you guys like, I'll move the names into here and start a table and you guys can fill in the rest.

--Gatekreeper 07:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Gatekreeper: somehow the famous clans are mixed-up with the not-so-famous clans, and they're not organized... i agree on putting them here and starting a table good job on your frequent participation for this article. thx =) -- Debroglie 10:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Your contributions to this article have been exceptional as well. Clan list: Clan DP/DAI, Clan WUJI, Clan 1CW, Clan l3cr, Clan DCE, Clan DEF, Clan mOpD, Clan TDA, Clan ToN, Clan CAS and Clan LSD

--Gatekreeper 21:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I do agree with Debroglie that since the Lingo section was added it got carried away and turning the article unconcise. An article on MSN should focus I do think we can move all that to a terminology article you suggested. I also suggest this article be split into the different variants so that descriptions can be map specific and not "this applies to this dota variant only". Perhaps after section 1.3 we can break off into the different variants in different articles. This will also allow more indepth focus into DOTA AS without bias of neglecting the other variants. To help players understand the "flavour" of DOTA AS better ive also stumped an article List of Allusions in DoTA which can be merged with the terminology article Ruberband 16:43, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Ruberband and Debroglie, I have ported a majority of the DotA Allstars-specific information into a new page, Defense of the Ancients: Allstars and I have also moved Ruberband's allusions to that page. If the new DotA Allstars is still not enough space, then we will also split off another page for lingo, but for now, I think we'll be fine. Luckily there's enough DotA Allstars ino to make a full page on the subject, but I didn't think there was enough information for the other variants to have their own page, with the possible exception of Outland. If you guys have any more suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them. --Gatekreeper 07:58, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that the word "pwn" (sometimes spelt "pawn" in an attempt to make it easier to pronounce) actually originated from a typo of the word own back in the early days of Starcraft. This means that "pwn" and "own" are probably synonyms. Have these words changed meaning? If they haven't, I think someone should edit the article to reflect this.

Except "pwn" isn't pronounced "pawn". It's more like "pee-yoon" (but said quickly and as one syllable). GreatGatsby

Yes it is. It comes from "own" so some people pronounce it "own" noting it as a misspelling, but the rest say it like "pown" or "pawn." Many chess clubs have flyers that joke about "pawning" people. -Iopq 18:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I added two links to the articles on the words "owned" and "pwn". Readers can read the two articles if they're interested in the etymology of the two words. Ikusawa 17:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I took out "Silencer with Infernals" under the "pushers" list, since the Silencer no longer has that ability.

Is this information below necessary? It already exists in the DotA Allstars page in much greater detail and we are trying to keep the page as concise as possible, which means we should attempt to keep from repeating information that is game specific.

suggest removal of DotA:Allstars lingo

Since the lingo of Allstars is available at Defense_of_the_Ancients:_Allstars#Terminology, maybe we should consider removing the Allstars-lingo section in the DotA page and instead put a link from the DotA page to the Allstars page (in the section which says "Specific to Allstars only"... Any comments??

Comment: I think the biggest problem is that if anything, it shouldn't be in any article at all in my opinion, since the list is just general terms that many, many games use, even outside of the blizzard community. Claiming that stuff is allstars-specific is very innacurate.

hey uys i think this article should be merged with "Defense of the Ancients: Allstars" cuz it creates alot of confusion for those who want to know abt "DOTA" the link is given down under!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allusions_in_DoTA

Please revert

..to the correct non-vandalized version. I accidentally rolled back to the wrong version and can't find the last decent version within the history. Bobo. 11:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Jargon

Pardon my french, but the "Defense_of_the_Ancients#Jargon" section of the article is utter and useless Bullshit and trolling. Do we really need those made up stuff included? What's this? An encyclopedia or a "r33l h4xX0Rz' guide to da über-game"? The leet article is an example victim (lost featured status) of such trolling. Misza13 ^{T C} 16:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No comments? Ok, so I went bold and removed the entire section as unencyclopedic. If you feel otherwise, please discuss here before adding back. Misza13 ^{T C} 12:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

Is any of this published elsewhere? Can it be verified? Is it original research? This reads like a detailed game guide, updated by the developer and many gamers. Much of it is not at all encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and the parts that make this a gaming guide probably need to go. At the top of the list of items to remove would be the recent addition of "game modes". --Habap 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

WCG 2005

Can someone provide a link that shows DotA being used at WCG 2005? All I see on the WCG 2005 website is the use of WCIII:TFT for competition, with no further details. --Habap 17:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

DotA-Allstars in WCG: Singapore 2005 was a joke (figuratively). The fact is, they used an old and bugged version of the map, with many, many restrictions. It was an UNOFFICIAL game at the event, only for Singaporeans, and is not an official game like CounterStrike etc. Wilsonho 10:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Banlist and Hacks

y is this in this article instead of the warcraft3 article?--1698 20:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it has different style of playing. -- Bocom

External links cleaned

I`ve cleaned the external links section, the links are now in order of their relevance and importance. --Cristian.

I didnt put the clean up there, but i think only the two official links should remain --1698 03:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've cleaned up the article as best as I could and commented out some things; if anyone can fix them, then please do. Here are the changes. And how about the {{confusing}} tag? x42bn6 Talk 13:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've commented out the external links because they are AllStars links, but I don't know if they should stay because AllStars has its own article. x42bn6 Talk 01:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove Kill Section

The part of how much the kills are worth, is strictly Allstars and is no way a representive of all dota. Remove it please or add it to the Allstar section. --- TeXaN@allrealms

Make it clear in the first part that its allstars.

Agility in Roc Dota or as you call it classic dota isnt a strict 1% increase. Also the 25 level cap isnt in RoC dota either. Honestly some people dont appreciate you editors making it clear that the dota your mainly focusing on is Allstars. Clean this stuff up.

The part about Wikipedia is that anyone can clean up the mess.  :) x42bn6 Talk 02:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've commented out the killing levels and 1 Agility gives 1% increase in attack speed. I have a feeling the latter is wrong because I've seen the Bone Fletcher attack twice as fast (minus Strafe and items) and it certainly doesn't have 100+ Agility. Regarding the first part, I think most variants have some sort of bonus for multiple kills without dying, so if that is true, then I'll modify that part. So, any help or confirmation? Sources would be nice. x42bn6 Talk 02:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

you can open the map to see one agility equals 1% faster attack speed. And, unless you actually watched the replay or tried it out in single player, checking against the clock and slowing the gamespeed, I highly doubt that what you "saw" was accurate. Err yea, directed at the guy above me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.241.216 (talk • contribs)

I don't have Warcraft installed at the moment so I can't... But I'll find some reference first then uncomment it out. x42bn6 Talk 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Article is a game guide

This article basically amounts to a game guide, including instructions on how to do things, on top of overly detailed descriptions. At this point, it completely fails WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. I'd prefer to keep this article out of AfD - I believe Defense of the Ancients is probably a subject notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, if the unverified claims, original research and general lack of real claims to notability continue to run rampant, another AfD nomination is inevitable. I'm going to do some work on it, myself, and cut all the mentions of non-notable versions of the map, and mentions of people other than "Eul" and "Guinsoo" - vanity mentions of other people only make an AfD nomination more likely. JimmyBlackwing 20:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Eul and Guinsoo are the authors of the original DotA and arguably the most popular variant DotA AllStars respectively - they should stay. But by all means, mess around with the article. It's not helped by the fact that so many uncited statements are around.  :( x42bn6 Talk 05:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I can't pinpoint what's wrong with this article but it really doesn't seem to live up to the standards of a typical Wiki article... I think it simply needs to be rewritten completely and leave out the any names unless it's the creator. The fact that it's a popular sub genre below Warcraft III doesn't make it anymore above the rules than another article. --Lucavious 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Article rewrite

I went through the article and did a rewrite of most of the stuff. I tried to keep the article just DotA specific, since most of the original applied only to DotA Allstars (which already has its own article, no need to duplicate or confuse information). I also tried to keep everything verifiable and removed a lot of the statements which sounded like original research. It could probably use some expansion to the Gameplay section, such as a short Items subsection. --JRavn ^talk 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is this even here?

A while back I remember seeing a Tides of Blood (a similar custom map for Warcraft) article on Wikipedia, and then saw it removed, saying custom maps are not suitable wikipedia material unless they have achieved some sort of recognition beyond the immediate scope of the parent game (like CounterStrike.) Why is this DOTA article now permitted? Can I make a TOB article?

I believe the main reason is that DotA is allegedly the most popular variant and (more importantly) is used in professional tournaments. Check out the dicussions in the AfD's listed way at the top of this talk page. So, if TOB gets used in professional tournaments, it might deserve an article. --Habap 21:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention in the article of it being used in professional tournaments. I have never heard that. Please include in article with source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.80.211.11 (talk • contribs) .

Ah, someone had removed it. I put it back in. Thanks. --Habap 16:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's rather poor since ToB is widely regarded as better. Wanka 16:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If you've got citations from articles that agree with that assessment, maybe it deserves an article also. --Habap 18:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

"Widely" is a very dodgy word. Proof is required before such statements are allowed in. Tides of Blood may be better, but DotA is much, much, much more popular - the number of variants and games on Battle.net is proof of that. x42bn6

This has been long debated, and there has been no concensus on multiple AfDs and merges for both articles. So they are staying, the focus now is making them high quality. I believe the current concensus is that the DotA article is for a general overview of the DotA concept, it does not apply to any particular War3 custom map. The DotA Allstars article is devoted directly to the DotA Allstars custom map released by Clan TDA. We want to avoid duplication as much as possible. --JRavn ^talk

There is no such thing as "DotA concept", the original concept for DotA came from the Starcraft map "Aeon of Strife" and that type of maps are called "AoS", short from "Aeon of Strife".

This article should be deleted. The "DotA Allstars" article is better and covers the same topic, if something important from it is missing just add it there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.228.34.76 (talk • contribs) . x42bn6 Talk 20:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to file another AfD go ahead. It's been done 2 or 3 times so far, with no concensus. Personally, I think our time is better spent improving the article and removing duplication. --JRavn ^talk 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that there are pages on maps such as Eve of the Apocolypse, if non-proffensional-tourny maps aren't to be shown. And LOTR maps. If those deserve pages, then a map such as Tides of Blood which was, for a time, the most popular map on wc3, deserves a page. Even if you add up the amount played of all 3 eota maps, it probably doesnt get close to Tides of Blood. So there's a weird imbalance.--Uberfoop 08:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

There is little reason that these articles need exist, period (note that DoTA Allstars was voted to be deleted or merged into Warcraft III, while the consensus for DoTA was keep.) Either way this info should be consolidated. David Fuchs 00:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the vote on Allstars was no consensus. I don't play, so I have no emotional attachment, but if you look at the various AfDs and merge proposals, I don't think there's a consensus in favor. --Habap 11:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

This article has been attacked by so many newcomers recently, all the edits seem to be just reverting vandalism. What say you lot for semi-protection? x42bn6 Talk 19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Article quality is going down and lots of vandalism. --JRavn ^talk

I came to the talk page explicitly for the purpose of asking this question myself. Please go right ahead. --Ozy 00:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. One of these weekends I want to improve the quality with some slash and cite, but half my edits are reverts. AGREE!!! David Fuchs 00:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I just came to this article for information and I found that all the information was deleted by 75.7.24.243's vandalism. Protection please. Youngminii 08:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Another article promoting players!?

In the music online game O2jam, there was somebody writing an article promoting a so-called great player from Singapore. NOW I see another article about someone claiming he's so great in DOTA. Who the heck is promoting Singaporean players!? I vote for the deletion of that section. It violates the rules and regulations in wikipedia about neutrality. Otherwise, people would start writing about each nations "greatest" player.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.92.66.27 (talk • contribs).

Removed fanboyism via revert. x42bn6 Talk 22:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Frozen Throne Spin-off Mission

Does anyone agree with me in thinking that there should perhaps be a section mentioning Blizzard's mission in the Blood Elf/Naga campaign in which Illidan must be rescued from the cage? It seems almost identical to DotA, except with a moving cage instead of having to destroy a base. I can't remember off the top of my head which number it is, but I think the name is 'The Search for Illidan' and comes straight after the 'Tower Defence'-esque secret level, adding further weight to the argument of it being a battle.net spawned level (ie it being 'bundled' as such with the TD). Wyvern King 20:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any physical evidence? Not really, so I don't think we should add it. David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Related to Aeon-of-Strife, but not necessarily Defense of the Ancients. x42bn6 Talk 22:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Should the line [...]

Shouldn't this be "Each hero can learn 3 abilities with 4 levels each, and a special "ultimate" ability with 3 levels."? There are *three* abilities which can be leveled up four times. And there is one "ultimate" ability which can be leveled up three times. The current wording makes it sound like there are four abilities which can level up four times, in addition to the ultimate which levels up three times. yawgm8th 07:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't true for all versions of DotA

Heroes can gain up to 25 levels in the newest and most played versions of DotA. Each hero can learn 3 "standard" abilities, upgradable 4 times each, and a special "ultimate" ability, upgradable every 5 levels, starting from level 6. The heroes are divided into 3 groups which emphasize one of the 3 hero attributes: strength, agility, or intelligence.

I remember seeing some versions where there were deviations from this standard TehNomad 17:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But it is for most. If you know what other versions had, by all means add in that info. But Allstars, DSC and the original, I believe, followed that formula. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it sounds really dodgy and stoic - I cannot imagine that these mapmakers cannot think of a better formula. If one can find a map that disagrees with it and is fairly notable, then that part will go. I have always been against that paragraph anyway. x42bn6 Talk 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There aren't any versions of dota that deviated that ever really got popular. The most popular aos-style map that deviates that comes to mind is Tides of Blood, which hardly has a community anymore (although there are still games played sparsely on the east gateway). But yea, it used to compete with Enfos and was extremely popular. After those 2 maps stopped updated DotA Allstars pretty much took over. But since Tides of Blood isn't a Defense of the Ancients map, it doesn't disagree. --Uberfoop 05:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Forums are not reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:V. I've removed a section which only had a forum as its source and there is another sentence which needs to be removed if a source can't be provided. The claim of who made the first map isn't supported by the map posting and a forum thread isn't going to cut it.--Crossmr 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

But that shouldn't be a reason to kill the entire section - even if it is now "unsourced". I've put the section back, commented out the reference and replaced it with {{cn}} just so I can use this URL for finding a new link later. x42bn6 Talk 20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is, WP:V#Burden_of_evidence the burden of evidence is with the editor who wishes to add or restore the material. If you want the section in you're required to provide a source.--Crossmr 21:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mm, alright, but the controversy section is there to keep the article NPOV. Can't find any non-forum sources even though the forums themselves might be notable. x42bn6 Talk 01:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV under undue weight. If you can't source it, its not a neutral point of view issue. Notability of the forums isn't an issue. Forum posts just cannot be used as a reliable source except in the very limited capacity of say an official company spokesperson making a press release type statement there (but those kinds of things should be covered elsewhere). NPOV doesn't mean you have to create some sort of artificial balance. It means you should present facts without bias and without giving a verifiable point of view undue focus.--Crossmr 02:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)