DotA vs LoL...which is better?

[Naeras]

Some short, personal notes that I have made on the games:

- LoL is more accessible
Dota 2 is loaded with a lot of stuff that takes ages to get used to, LoL is slightly easier on that regard. It's still a relatively beginner-unfriendly game, but a bit less so than Dota 2.

- LoL is more objective-based
Dota 2 has towers, barracks and Roshan. LoL has towers, barracks(inhibitors), red- and blue buffs, dragon and baron. Knowing the timing for these sets up for more team-fights, which is a good design decision.

- LoL has better hero design (on the average)
Dota 2 has a lot of old heroes from the original Dota mod that have one active ability and three boring passives. LoL rarely have passive abilities in the moveset, which makes the average champion there more fun to play. I still think the best designed/most fun to play heroes are in Dota 2, but they definitely have the worst ones as well.
Dota 2 also has more gimmicky heroes overall(stealth heroes, illusion heroes, Tinker, etc), which might or might not appeal to your tastes.

- Dota 2 allows lane control on an entirely different level than LoL does
Pulling and denies allow a good player to position the lane so that you become hard to gank, and the opposing team becomes easy targets, while simultaneously denying them experience and farm and allowing harassment. You can't really control the lane to the same degree in LoL.

- Dota 2 rewards mobility way more than LoL does
With everyone having access to TP scrolls and smoke, and there being several available attack routes into every single lane, it allows for far more movement options than LoL does, where moving from lane to lane is a relatively time-consuming thing. The attack routes reward aggressive ganking play, while the TP scrolls means teamplay gets a lot easier if the communication is in order.

- Playing support in LoL sucks compared to Dota 2
Playing support in LoL is essentially sitting in lane with your carry and ensuring that he gets farm, and then maybe you'll get a couple of levels in the process. In teamfights you might throw out your ult or something, and then die because you're a support. Warding is a relatively simple matter, but it's still your job. It's a really boring role to play in that game.

Playing support in Dota 2 is an entirely different matter. Yes, it's still your job to ensure that your carry gets to kill shit, but when you've chased everyone out of lane, there are a million other things you can do. You can roam to another lane and set up a kill there, you can stack the jungle so that your carry gets more farm, you can just go out of lane and make people play conservatively. The warding game in Dota 2 is also much deeper than in LoL, and good warding and game sense shifts the momentum to the point that I've made people ragequit by warding and counterwarding better than them. If you're playing a support well in Dota 2(and your teammates aren't retarded), you not only feel like you contribute greatly, you feel like you're one of the big reasons why your team is winning. Can't say I've ever had that feeling if I've been supporting in LoL.

- Dota 2 has more available lane setups than LoL
LoL has 2-1-1+jungle as the only viable lane setup. Dota 2 has like five more of them. Allows for greater strategic variability.

- Dota 2 has a better business model
Others have mentioned this already, I don't think it needs to be mentioned again.

Overall, I definitely prefer Dota 2, but LoL has several strong points that might make it more appealing to you.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

No tactical stuff like Roshan??? Have you heard of Dragon or Baron Nashor??? I wasn't going to comment on this thread but that statement was ridiculous.

Killing roshan is a much larger time investment and the gain is much more game changing and significant in terms of options and stragetic options/limitations.

Who should get the aegis? Do we focus on killing the one with aegis? Do you just rush in, suicide and use the positioning to set up initiation if you have the aegis? Do you use aegis for baiting? Do you use it to play defensively, ensuring your carry is harder to gank? Do you simply ignore trying to kill the enemy with aegis because he will revive anyway?

Obviously getting a free revival gives a ton more options and decisions assosiated with aegis than just that. It is more complex basically. Whether it is better or worse from a funfactor/design perspective is really mostly up to the player but both variants (baron and co. vs roshan) support their respective goal pretty well. One is simpler and less advanced in a less complex game, the other gives more options, is a bigger risk and can be used more strategically.

Just letting you know, you quoted the wrong guy

 

[infinity_turtles]

Killing roshan is a much larger time investment and the gain is much more game changing and significant in terms of options and stragetic options/limitations.

Who should get the aegis? Do we focus on killing the one with aegis? Do you just rush in, suicide and use the positioning to set up initiation if you have the aegis? Do you use aegis for baiting? Do you use it to play defensively, ensuring your carry is harder to gank? Do you simply ignore trying to kill the enemy with aegis because he will revive anyway?

Obviously getting a free revival gives a ton more options and decisions assosiated with aegis than just that. It is more complex basically. Whether it is better or worse from a funfactor/design perspective is really mostly up to the player but both variants (baron and co. vs roshan) support their respective goal pretty well. One is simpler and less advanced in a less complex game, the other gives more options, is a bigger risk and can be used more strategically.

I'll give you Roshan gives a bigger gain, but it definitely isn't a bigger risk. Ursa can solo Roshan at 6, and other Heros can take him pretty early on too. Hell there was a patch where Ursa could take Roshan at lvl 1 and finish by 2:20(Not really viable in a real game, and it was a result of a bug with fury swipes' reset, but it was still possible), and Ursa and Skeleton King together can take him at lvl 1 period.

Baron's Spawn on the other-hand is known as the pit of throws for a reason, and given the less valuable buff it gives and damage the team will take is often more viable for baiting the other team.

 

[EtherealBeaver]

Just letting you know, you quoted the wrong guy

Woops thanks. Edited it now

 

[EtherealBeaver]

Killing roshan is a much larger time investment and the gain is much more game changing and significant in terms of options and stragetic options/limitations.

Who should get the aegis? Do we focus on killing the one with aegis? Do you just rush in, suicide and use the positioning to set up initiation if you have the aegis? Do you use aegis for baiting? Do you use it to play defensively, ensuring your carry is harder to gank? Do you simply ignore trying to kill the enemy with aegis because he will revive anyway?

Obviously getting a free revival gives a ton more options and decisions assosiated with aegis than just that. It is more complex basically. Whether it is better or worse from a funfactor/design perspective is really mostly up to the player but both variants (baron and co. vs roshan) support their respective goal pretty well. One is simpler and less advanced in a less complex game, the other gives more options, is a bigger risk and can be used more strategically.

I'll give you Roshan gives a bigger gain, but it definitely isn't a bigger risk. Ursa can solo Roshan at 6, and other Heros can take him pretty early on too. Hell there was a patch where Ursa could take Roshan at lvl 1 and finish by 2:20(Not really viable in a real game, and it was a result of a bug with fury swipes' reset, but it was still possible), and Ursa and Skeleton King together can take him at lvl 1 period.

Baron's Spawn on the other-hand is known as the pit of throws for a reason, and given the less valuable buff it gives and damage the team will take is often more viable for baiting the other team.

That doesnt really say anything about the complexity though. Power is relative to the game but since all it does it make everyone on a team hit harder, the only real answer to when the opponent team killed Baron would be to stick together and turtle until the buff is over. Aegis gives a ton of more options to both teams as mentioned above

 

[infinity_turtles]

That doesnt really say anything about the complexity though. Power is relative to the game but since all it does it make everyone on a team hit harder, the only real answer to when the opponent team killed Baron would be to stick together and turtle until the buff is over. Aegis gives a ton of more options to both teams as mentioned above

I was only arguing risk, as the aegis does add more complexity then baron buff, but the response to it's not quite as binary as you're implying depending on team comp, who's ahead, ect ect. Split pushing might be a good idea, turtling as you said, picking people off, engaging because you've just got the better comp/are ahead of enough or even engaging regardless of their advantage at the first opportunity solely so you can kill and reset the buff on a few champions before they've started to push.

Honestly though, the bigger tactical considerations over the course of a match in LoL are dragon and blue buff. Smaller in affect per kill, but the way they're continuously contested changes things a lot. It's a very objective driven game.

 

[Glongpre]

Also there are some ideas that made it into the game that I don't understand how no one pointed out its problems. One of the characters for example, sniper, can make it so his autoattack passively stun enemies. In early games, its annoying, in mid game, its tough as hell to stop, late game you have no chance of getting away fromt hat guy, he can literally lock down whoever he wants.

Yes, but he has so many weaknesses. Slow, no escape mech, low health. He is a late game monster, but his early game is very weak. I don't see a problem.



I think both LoL and DotA have their merits. I enjoy dota more because I find it to be more fun. Lol was ok, I didn't like how streamlined it felt and some of the gameplay decisions they made, like summoners abilities and no "anti-fun" stuff, were just not that great. I did love playing as pantheon though, but that is because he is a spartan, and is awesome.

I vote dota is better because...bias and stuff.

 

[The Wykydtron]

If I have to listen to Luna or Witch Doctor again I will have to hurt something

Oh my lord Dan, I think I've broken you with my soundboard =D

[HEADING=1]SELEMENE COMMANDS[/HEADING]

Anyway, I like both, but for different reasons. LoL is where all my tryhard goes, because I'm actually reasonably good at it (Gold IV and rising), DOTA is where I go to play stupid-fun heroes with absolutely no regard for people's sanity (Lycan, Slardar, AXE, Sand King, Night Stalker, AXE, Spectre, Windrunner, AXE...)

So yeah, that's my take on it.

Well if you would just put this video on repeat for an hour as my vengeance for all the bullshit Luna lines every two seconds that would be great. Just wait until I find that soundboard, all Anti Mage all the time.


TRUTH COMPELS ME!

 

[IllumInaTIma]

Dota 2 also has more gimmicky heroes overall(stealth heroes, illusion heroes, Tinker, etc), which might or might not appeal to your tastes.

How is that gimmicky? A gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. In each case it's not a gimmick, but a central part of that character and playstyle. Stealth heroes terrorize enemy supports by ganking them and killing them in the middle of a teamfights. Illusion heroes with diffusal blade are capable of draining enemy heroes of mana in mere seconds and Phantom Lancer alone can fight entire enemy team. And Tinker! Give him Boots of Travel and he will become the most mobile and pushing hero in the game.

 

[WenisPagon]

I find league to be more fast paced and more big play moments. Also they are constantly changing the game and pushing out a ton of updates. I find the only problem with Dota champs is they are all warcraft based and that limits them to what they can do with them. Also there are some ideas that made it into the game that I don't understand how no one pointed out its problems. One of the characters for example, sniper, can make it so his autoattack passively stun enemies. In early games, its annoying, in mid game, its tough as hell to stop, late game you have no chance of getting away fromt hat guy, he can literally lock down whoever he wants.

As someone who plays both, I honestly feel DOTA heroes in general have a lot more nuance to them than League champs. You've got heroes with actual micromanagement to them, for example. Carry itemization is a lot less stagnant, too.

I actually think the opposite of you, because Riot has a client unfortunately wracked with spaghetti code left over from the days where the company wasn't as successful or competent. It's telling that a SHOM-style game mode hasn't been possible until very recently.

E: Sniper's bash is far from OP if you know what you're doing. In competitive play he's just about always been in "joke tier".

 

[DazZ.]

Yeah there is no ranked system...

Actually, there kinda is. It's just not an 'advertised' ranking system. As in, you can't actively check on a persons personal ranking. However, matchmaking is based on each players ranking.

I actually prefer this kind of system. It doesn't publicly advertise everyones "ranking", which means new or inexperienced players are less likely to be ridiculed or harassed pre-match.

Obviously there is elo to make matchmaking work, but it's not ranked like League or Starcraft where you're placed in a division. Both of those games have the unranked mode like Dota as well.

It's nice to have a place to take the game seriously and a place for a slightly more relaxing type of game where losing won't effect anything but mmr/elo, so I'd like to see something like that added to Dota.

 

[Yeager942]

Well Valve's EU servers actually work most of the time so there's that, EU West OP. In terms of gameplay I prefer League because the engine DOTA 2 runs on is absolute wank. Apparently they just took the original DOTA Warcraft 3 engine or what have you and HD'd up with zero attempt at improvement.

Oh but don't worry guys, it means that all the guys who played DOTA 1 can still be familiar with the shit controls if they transition! Instead of taking a week at most to get used to how not shit the new engine would feel. Logic.

I could go on about the engine for all the minor annoyances but mainly, pathfinding. The amount of times my character has ran in a little circle then finally decides to move the way I fucking told her to five seconds ago when she's already been stunned senseless and killed. That or getting blocked on every single minion ever.


For hero balance, DOTA doesn't have any, League is trying to balance over 100 of the bloody things so it's a little bit trying for them, it's item balance they have trouble with (lol Trinity Force strikes again) DOTA 2 has a fucking hard on for stealth mechanics for fuck all reason, League has a strict meta and DOTA just does whatever and nobody cares.

It's not that Dota doesn't have a meta, it's just that hero roles are so much more flexible than LoL is.

I played LoL for nearly three years and I've since started transitioning into Dota 2. Dota is significantly more complex than LoL, but it's a complexity that I enjoy. The engine LoL runs in prevents the game from having as many varied mechanics as Dota (such as multiple unit control), so the hero design in Dota is much more varied. Additionally, LoL has painful power creep, which really puts me off of buying new champions. Both games have >120 characters to pick from so I love the fact that Dota gives you all of them up front. It's really painful to spend all your hard earned IP on champion you thought you may like only to discover that the champion sucks, and don't even get me started on runes.

However, all of this may mean for naught if Dota's complexity scares you. I have many friends who started LoL with me and refuse to make the transition into Dota merely because they have grown used to LoL's engine and mechanics. If you want the simpler, leaner game, go for LoL. If the complexity of Dota doesn't scare you, then Dota is better. That's not to say that Dota is IMPOSSIBLE TO LEARN, just that it more difficult when compared to LoL (which is already really complex when compared to other games).

It's kinda odd that of all the comments I've read so far, this is the one that actually offended me, but it did, so here goes.

I am not scared of complexity. I am a terrible multi-tasker. I don't do well when I have to consider what I am building, my wards, my cool downs, all of the same for my teammates and opponents, when to last hit, and all the rest. This only gets worse when I have to memorize just how long range my dash goes so I don't click too far away and waste a third of the distance, or just how the turret's range is going to mutate after I've pissed it off. I don't want to have to think about even more when I play a MOBA. That does not make me a coward.

I apologize that my post offended you, as that was my furthest intention. I only meant to address several issues that League players have regarding dota. I didn't mean to apply that you lack the intelligence to play Dota, just that Dota possesses relatively more complex mechanics than league, increasing the barrier of entry.

 

[AwesomeHatMan]

I don't think that's the case. The towers being weaker and the fact that heroes don't have a get out of jail free card with flash means the early game is less passive.

Yeah, good call on the easier to tower dive thing meaning earlier aggression but you also need strong towers so the more poke/kite/range champs aren't too dominant at the start. Of course all this sort of stuff needs to be in balance not too much turtling/not too aggressive. I just found the way LoL is designed allows for the better game dynamic for me and I reckon most people in terms of what is more fun.

However I reckon the Summoner Spells, such as Flash, aren't just a simple escape card as they can be used aggressively. I am sure (even though I have no statistics on this) that SS create far more kill opportunities than escape opportunities. In DotA doesn't everyone get a Blink Dagger anyway? Or is that not a thing in DotA2?

Other features I forgot to mention Teleporting and Couriers I reckon I prefer the LoL setup too.

 

[synobal]

At the end of the day Dota2 has the better business model, than LOL. Which ultimately in my mind makes it a better game.

 

[Naeras]

Dota 2 also has more gimmicky heroes overall(stealth heroes, illusion heroes, Tinker, etc), which might or might not appeal to your tastes.

How is that gimmicky? A gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. In each case it's not a gimmick, but a central part of that character and playstyle. Stealth heroes terrorize enemy supports by ganking them and killing them in the middle of a teamfights. Illusion heroes with diffusal blade are capable of draining enemy heroes of mana in mere seconds and Phantom Lancer alone can fight entire enemy team. And Tinker! Give him Boots of Travel and he will become the most mobile and pushing hero in the game.

You're using the term differently from me, then, possibly because I learned the term from how it's generally used in RTSes or fighting games. By "gimmicky", I'm referring to a feature that sets a hero apart from others in terms of playstyle, but is something that a player would be wise not to overly rely on, as it's usually either relatively easy to counter for more experienced players, or (more often) a particular kind of playstyle that doesn't translate well to the rest of the cast. If you're new and play something "gimmicky" in this sense, you might have a tendency of developing bad habits.

In DotA and similar games, stealth heroes are a very good example of this. I've seen certain players go 15-0 with Rikimaru in one game, and the next game they're going 0-8 within 15 minutes followed by a ragequit. The entire success of these players hinges on stealth, and a lot of them tend to have massive troubles with adapting when people know how to play against it. They're too used to just being able to go wherever they want, so they tend to get caught horribly out of position when the opponents have some kind of invisibility detection. The stealth allowed them to succeed for a long time without having to bother learning intelligent positioning, so the players in question perform far worse once their stealth gets countered, or when they have to pick other kinds of heroes.

It's kind of like a guy I'm playing SF4 with. He's a pretty damn good T.Hawk-player, but since T.Hawk currently relies largely relies on the opponents not knowing the match-up properly, as well as some other stuff that a lot of stuff other characters just don't have, it means a lot of the things he learned playing that character translates very badly to other characters. As such, he'll generally blow me up with one character and lose when he uses other characters.

Of course, being gimmicky doesn't mean that the hero in question is bad or anything of that kind. Just see Nyx, Tinker, Bounty, PL, Naga and several others for examples of that. Played intelligently, all of these heroes are incredibly powerful, and commonly picked competitively for a reason.

 

[Lyri]

You're using the term differently from me, then, possibly because I learned the term from how it's generally used in RTSes or fighting games. By "gimmicky", I'm referring to a feature that sets a hero apart from others in terms of playstyle, but is something that a player would be wise not to overly rely on, as it's usually either relatively easy to counter for more experienced players, or (more often) a particular kind of playstyle that doesn't translate well to the rest of the cast. If you're new and play something "gimmicky" in this sense, you might have a tendency of developing bad habits.

In DotA and similar games, stealth heroes are a very good example of this. I've seen certain players go 15-0 with Rikimaru in one game, and the next game they're going 0-8 within 15 minutes followed by a ragequit. The entire success of these players hinges on stealth, and a lot of them tend to have massive troubles with adapting when people know how to play against it. They're too used to just being able to go wherever they want, so they tend to get caught horribly out of position when the opponents have some kind of invisibility detection. The stealth allowed them to succeed for a long time without having to bother learning intelligent positioning, so the players in question perform far worse once their stealth gets countered, or when they have to pick other kinds of heroes.

It's kind of like a guy I'm playing SF4 with. He's a pretty damn good T.Hawk-player, but since T.Hawk currently relies largely relies on the opponents not knowing the match-up properly, as well as some other stuff that a lot of stuff other characters just don't have, it means a lot of the things he learned playing that character translates very badly to other characters. As such, he'll generally blow me up with one character and lose when he uses other characters.

Of course, being gimmicky doesn't mean that the hero in question is bad or anything of that kind. Just see Nyx, Tinker, Bounty, PL, Naga and several others for examples of that. Played intelligently, all of these heroes are incredibly powerful, and commonly picked competitively for a reason.

In the context of DotA, your version of "gimmicky" is wrong.

Heroes have roles and niches they fit into, the gimmicky part comes with the builds.

Gimmicky is like Lion building a dagon to double burst, the build doesn't normally work and you shouldn't do it but it's a gimmicky way to play him for a stomp.

 

[Naeras]

In the context of DotA, your version of "gimmicky" is wrong.

Heroes have roles and niches they fit into, the gimmicky part comes with the builds.

Gimmicky is like Lion building a dagon to double burst, the build doesn't normally work and you shouldn't do it but it's a gimmicky way to play him for a stomp.

That's what I'd generally refer to as "cheese" or "a really bad idea unless you got five kills before 10 minutes passed, in which case you might as well do it", but okay, thanks for the clarification.

 

[MorphingDragon]

If I have to listen to Luna or Witch Doctor again I will have to hurt something

Oh my lord Dan, I think I've broken you with my soundboard =D

[HEADING=1]SELEMENE COMMANDS[/HEADING]

Anyway, I like both, but for different reasons. LoL is where all my tryhard goes, because I'm actually reasonably good at it (Gold IV and rising), DOTA is where I go to play stupid-fun heroes with absolutely no regard for people's sanity (Lycan, Slardar, AXE, Sand King, Night Stalker, AXE, Spectre, Windrunner, AXE...)

So yeah, that's my take on it.

Well if you would just put this video on repeat for an hour as my vengeance for all the bullshit Luna lines every two seconds that would be great. Just wait until I find that soundboard, all Anti Mage all the time.


TRUTH COMPELS ME!

I'll be honest, all the one liners are infuriating after a while.

 

[Lyri]

That's what I'd generally refer to as "cheese" or "a really bad idea unless you got five kills before 10 minutes passed, in which case you might as well do it", but okay, thanks for the clarification.

Well, it isn't really cheese.
It's not like being Forest Law and spamming rainbow kicks or playing Protoss in SC2 and two gate proxy rushing.

You can't cheese at all in DotA, you can play gimmicky builds that relay on advantages certain heroes has.
For instance, Warlock has an ultimate that will allow him to stun in a large aoe and summon a demon from the depths to fight for him, acquiring a refresher orb will allow him to refresh all his spells, allowing him to do two ultimates and
have two demons after two large stuns.
The gimmick is that Orb isn't usually picked up for most standard Warlock builds, but you can certainly go for one but at a cost.

 

[WenisPagon]

Dota 2 also has more gimmicky heroes overall(stealth heroes, illusion heroes, Tinker, etc), which might or might not appeal to your tastes.

How is that gimmicky? A gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use. In each case it's not a gimmick, but a central part of that character and playstyle. Stealth heroes terrorize enemy supports by ganking them and killing them in the middle of a teamfights. Illusion heroes with diffusal blade are capable of draining enemy heroes of mana in mere seconds and Phantom Lancer alone can fight entire enemy team. And Tinker! Give him Boots of Travel and he will become the most mobile and pushing hero in the game.

You're using the term differently from me, then, possibly because I learned the term from how it's generally used in RTSes or fighting games. By "gimmicky", I'm referring to a feature that sets a hero apart from others in terms of playstyle, but is something that a player would be wise not to overly rely on, as it's usually either relatively easy to counter for more experienced players, or (more often) a particular kind of playstyle that doesn't translate well to the rest of the cast. If you're new and play something "gimmicky" in this sense, you might have a tendency of developing bad habits.

In DotA and similar games, stealth heroes are a very good example of this. I've seen certain players go 15-0 with Rikimaru in one game, and the next game they're going 0-8 within 15 minutes followed by a ragequit. The entire success of these players hinges on stealth, and a lot of them tend to have massive troubles with adapting when people know how to play against it. They're too used to just being able to go wherever they want, so they tend to get caught horribly out of position when the opponents have some kind of invisibility detection. The stealth allowed them to succeed for a long time without having to bother learning intelligent positioning, so the players in question perform far worse once their stealth gets countered, or when they have to pick other kinds of heroes.

It's kind of like a guy I'm playing SF4 with. He's a pretty damn good T.Hawk-player, but since T.Hawk currently relies largely relies on the opponents not knowing the match-up properly, as well as some other stuff that a lot of stuff other characters just don't have, it means a lot of the things he learned playing that character translates very badly to other characters. As such, he'll generally blow me up with one character and lose when he uses other characters.

Of course, being gimmicky doesn't mean that the hero in question is bad or anything of that kind. Just see Nyx, Tinker, Bounty, PL, Naga and several others for examples of that. Played intelligently, all of these heroes are incredibly powerful, and commonly picked competitively for a reason.

Rikimaru is a bit iffy as an example of gimmicks. There are counters to invisibility, but Riki does not need to rely on it as a crutch and in play you'll notice the good players focus more on the advantages his blink, cloud, and passive give him.

E: If you're annoyed by the constant move-chatter in Dotes (I know I was) there's an option to disable them and only hear event-based voice. Really improves the experience IMO.