Rules of the Game: Five Further Techniques from Rather Clever Designers

[@ThousandairesClub]

the ability to carry dead bodies with you throughout the world and have everyone comment about it is such an underrated feature.

[@DarkMatterVisible]

Sounds like Coroner Simulator gets weird.

[@HarmoneaSinn]

I'm at the very beginning of the video and skimming the comments during the intro and I gotta say... this comment? Out of context? Bit odd. Lol

[@JonMW]

Josh Sawyer's stuff is amazing for trying to import *good GMing* into a video game.

[@BudLeiser]

41:20 Fun fact LOL did have creep denial for a long time, but only for one character. Tank Plank (Gangplank Mid, armor build) was my favorite build and very successful for me once discovered. It was a creep denial strategy that nerfed you're mid opponent as you ran back behind your tower and used a special ability to shoot one of your own minions to gain a speed and damage boost for a short period of time. Thus deny'ing them a little gold and XP. Then you continued to harass them with Q. You had no real way of finishing most opponent unless they over-extended but was enough to cause your mid opponent to level as slowly as a dual lane, while you and top leveled faster.

[@gogauze]

Tl;dr: games are art for reasons and Erin's talk is incredibly important. -- I sit here as Erin perfectly describes the method by which I reinvented my artistic process in photography-which led to spectacular improvements in every facet of my images from that point forward. The side by side comparison of two photos shot 8 weeks apart, during which the process redesign occurred, don't even read as the same photographer. Practically everyone I shared my work with was astonished by the, seemingly overnight, transformation. As a consequence, it also created a deeply unique personal style that has the same strong sense of continuity that you find in some bodies of creative work; almost like a signature that enables others to identify the artist of a piece you've never seen or heard before because it is distinct in a way that only they really produce. This is all to say-in what I suddenly realize is a terribly braggy way of going about it-that the process of starting with a foundation of incredibly precise and relevant questions isn't exclusive to game design. But I think that the parallels that this kind of process draws with more traditional forms of artistry is a strong indicator that games are, in fact, also art at their very core.

[@3sxp]

Hi, this is Erin! I was searching for an old video and saw how many views this one had so decided to check the comments, haha. Thank you so much for this story! I never would have thought about applying this process to photography but am delighted that it works, and it makes perfect sense! I would be very interested if you've ever written or talked about those side-by-side photos and the questions that got you from one side to the other.

[@phobos2077_]

Damn. Josh Sawyer really thinks on a whole different level of game design. A titan.

[@vitriolicAmaranth]

Speaking of Josh Sawyer, I just noticed that at 22:34 the screenshot says, "Welcome to Sierra Madre! This city has a problem with high air pollution." Had to be intentional

[@NedTheUndead]

Oh damn at 30:02 that catcher almost takes the full hit from that bat, you can see it clip his mask.

[@jamesblake4524]

Wow sounds like the start of legends of runeterra! And i love how the card game became hearthstone.

[@dreamingacacia]

Mr.Stoner Le Brandy.....he got the precise information that I currently needed.

[@Rawyr]

Wow. Offworld guy is so unbeleivably insightful. Ive watched his offworld trading company talk over and over and now this one he shows up again. So many designers seem too narrow on their philosophies but this guy is amazing when it comes to turning the tables. I really hope he makes a ton more games

[@Olodus]

Maybe you already know about it, but he holds a podcast called Designer's Notes where he interviews other well known game designers about what they do, did and how they design. It is an really interesting listen.

[@DanielDroegeShow]

"Let's switch the conflict resolution of poker and think that poker remains in tact." Fuck, there goes my battle poker game.

[@christianrichters7922]

"Don't worry about reading this" The second after i unpaused the video.

[@vitriolicAmaranth]

Regarding games that rely entirely on their narrative being consumable via twitch, it's astounding to me that someone can come to that conclusion and still not reach the conclusion that such games should not be produced as games but as films. Films are protected from that kind of thing for precisely that reason. Games aren't because gameplay is supposed to be a major element- You can't just consume them secondhand for the full experience. It would be absurd for someone to collect royalties for making a fighting game any time someone plays it on twitch, but it would not be absurd for a movie director to collect royalties or be able to cut the feed when someone streams their film on twitch, because the former does not hurt revenue (rather, it's free advertising) and the latter does. In fact, I'd argue that you could use the question of streaming as a litmus test. "Would this 'game' being streamed on twitch destroy its sales value?" If the answer is yes, you shouldn't be making it AS a game (because either it's a film, or it's just that bad). There are edge cases, of course- A game that can be ruined with spoilers where gameplay is an important part of forming the experience for example- But that's obviously not the issue when you're using Edith Finch as an example of a narrative game. The issue is that if the game's gameplay consists of walking forward, it isn't compelling enough to sell a game to someone who has already experienced the narrative, or significantly different from the "gameplay" of putting yourself in the shoes of the protagonist of a film.

[@vitriolicAmaranth]

Coming back to this three years later, I didn't offer an example of "A game that can be ruined with spoilers where gameplay is an important part of forming the experience"- To name an example now, Outer Wilds is pretty much the key example of a game that could only work as a game but that is, at least to some degree, ruined by streaming. I don't think that hurts its sales value, though; Instead people who get spoiled on it kick themselves, and very vocally tell other people not to get spoiled and to buy it and play it.

[@jesusmora9379]

CS is a very important mechanic in lol, good players get more minions while bad players end up with less gold. it allows opponents to harass in lane and it's tied to pushing or freezing lane to make the tower kill the minions, making it harder for the opponent to farm, which allows a jungle to attack a pushed lane. most players agree it's THE most important mechanic and core of the game.

[@byeguyssry]

I think last-hitting IS a concept that is good for MOBAs, but only some. In League, if you were to get all the rewards for killing a minion without the need to last-hit, it would be easier to not need to interact with your opponent.

[@necooo]

33:33 If you want to skip the whole baseball rule inheritance story.

[@avatarrojopredeterminado5983]

Ty

[@christianrink4093]

0:45 as an AI engineer.. I would love to hear a deeper explanation why that would be so?

[@arnesieper8332]

the interesting thing about the way dota handles creep denial is: you can actually abuse it, even if your opponent denies everything. infact, some of the most overpowered strats i have ever seen involved baiting the enemy into denying his own creeps so that one can push damn hard against the player who jsut took his own preasure off. farming under the own tower may be a lot safer, but it is also a lot harder, becouse of the (relative to creeps) heavy hits of your own tower. this way, you could bully someone not just under, but BEHIND his own tower, becouse he denied his own greeps to often, and thus getting him out of XP-range completly, which yould force him to miss out on whole creepswaves. this way, you could not only negate his advantage, but even turn it around. sadly, this got nerfed recently, as the towers now hit faster, but with less damage, maing it easier to last hit under the own tower, but it is stil possible, altho with a bit more skill needed to do it

[@Olodus]

Haha I love Soren (his podcast is amazing) but I am not sure I agree with him about creep denial :P I agree killing your own units is unintuitive and maybe should have been abstracted differently (maybe as you sending your wounded back to base or something) but it does make for an interesting part of laning and creates imo interesting emergent gameplay in how heroes fight about the lane as well as a special flow in lane not every moba except dota kept intact. I do agree though that this flow isn't inherent to the moba genre and not the genres "big design idea". Anyway great talk Soren. And the other talks was also great. Got some real inspiration from these talks. Thanks.

[@Neph0]

It is a very interesting strategic mechanic and I'm baffled that a GDC guest cannot see that, or even straight up say "it is dumb" about it, when it's obviously a stapple of DotA's laning. Sure it's unintuitive and it's very interesting that it's been inherited from W3's engine, but... That doesn't mean it's "dumb". The fact that he also directly correlates "good game design" with "number of players" makes me think that he skipped some steps in his reasoning. Good game design helps with player numbers, but I think it's far from being the most important thing (especially when considering competitive online multiplayer games).

[@voltcorp]

@@Neph0 the tank controls on old survival horror games also add a lot to the challenge and tension. his point is that it's not a core component of the gameplay experience and data shows that the game that got rid of that is more successful while the one that didn't has to deal with re-balancing it every other patch. it's more work for less results. it's what he means by "dumb".

[@voltcorp]

the creep denying debate in the comments reminds me a lot of when magic got rid of mana burn

[@RglMrn]

Great talk. Thanks!

[@ViolosD2I]

23:53 The question many internet users would fail.

[@Elrog3]

Ironically its a poorly formed question. Validity is about an arguments logical form and is not about the correctness of its conclusion. Its obvious whoever wrote that has never taken an introductory course in logic.

[@3sxp]

@@Elrog3 You may be surprised to hear that I was a philosophy major (dual major philosophy and electronic media) and did in fact take intro to logic, but you might be reassured that I abhor formal logic specifically because it can be so obtuse about the way that humans actually use language. ;)

[@Elrog3]

@@3sxp Well, isn't that something. I abhor the way people use language. I was an engineering major with a mathematics slant.

[@le_chronicc]

Gosh I laught so hard watching this video. So entertaining and at the same time giving soo much information. Thank you.

[@bvs1q]

I wish I knew what all that sportsball stuff was about..

[@davedoublee-indiegamedev8633]

31:28 I'm completely lost

[@fa-pm5dr]

This one was amazing

[@marko-lazic]

What is sim?

[@mohandasjung]

Simulator

[@dontnormally]

I want Starblo.

[@Captain1nsaneo]

I love how most of the comments are about the third dev's take on Dota's creep denial. Though to be fair, I also paused the video when it came up to quip in the comments; Remove creep denying? Next you'll say we should remove pulling! (hoping that one day icefrog will make a presentation about balance)

[@Bloodyshinta1]

Yeah its really weird that he made his talk about slamming another game's mechanics. He should just focus on what he's done and not use his time to flame other developers. But maybe he is a mediocre designer and has nothing to really contribute outside of criticizing the work of others.

[@mdawni6933]

@@Bloodyshinta1 are you serious?

[@DanielDroegeShow]

I like last hitting because it is another metric to measure how you and the other players did relatively, just like income, level, kills, deaths, vision score, etc. It is a team game though, and this highlights the individual's skill and not playing as a team. Perhaps a good middle ground would be increasing the gold income of the entire team for each last hit from each player, so they make you stronger, but much less stronger individually and much stronger as a team.

[@Lugmillord]

I can't follow that baseball talk. The used vocabulary isn't really inclusive for people who never played it.

[@Gnurklesquimp]

It's not a baseball talk, I didn't get the terminology but got the idea, especially with the MOBA examples. Unless you didn't mean ''baseball talk'' as if that's what the whole presentation is about, assumed so cause these presentations are called talks, I agree it could've been explained better, but otherwise it's a good demonstration.

[@JuanUys]

Remember, they host the "world series", so we ought to all know about it 😜

[@roguu]

I HARD disagree entirely on the argument that denying in dota doesn't add depth. And I think it comes from a perspective of someone who doesn't have an indepth understanding of the game. When going into the lane understanding and assessing how likely the enemies are able to deny (damage values/animations/lane presence) affects every decision from start of the game, to hero drafts, what items you buy, how you approach the lane, how you handle the lane, and how/when you leave the lane. Infact laning at ANY mid to high level requires a decent understanding of how deny mechanics work, and 'securing' specific last hits/waves as well as the footsies style mechanics of zoning. Deny mechanics aren't akin to playing chess but on fire, but rather understanding a match up and choosing to play a defensive style or an aggressive. To suggest that denying is simply an extra layer on top of last hitting a pure mechanical complexity that adds nothing to the depth of the game is absolutely ignorant of how Dota works. This doesn't event include denying as a mechanic for heroes as I assume Johnson's talk was about creeps in particular. Johnson's talk overall shows a very surface level understanding and a vast oversimplification of how moba mechanics work as a whole. Edit: You could also argue that the offlane role, one of 5 heavily established positions prominent in the majority of metas IS BASED AROUND DENYING. Working with limited resouces focusing on scavenging as much exp as you can whether their strengths lie in laning, farming or fighting. Clockwerk in older metas would be a prime example of this. Especially in his ability to manipulate a lane. And yes I haven't even mentioned lane manipulation. A core mechanic in practically every moba that is heavily affected by ones ability to deny.

[@blarghblargh]

I had as similar aversion to that part of the talk. Dota might have fewer players, but has (had?) a much more interesting meta. So much of the meta derived from players making discoveries and exploiting them, with those discoveries often being revealed at the international during play, rather than the game being a polished stone that leans almost entirely on rolling buffs and nerfs. I feel like his points make much more sense in single player than they do in MP. Or at least, in a game focused more on new players than on pros. Not every game should be Divekick.

[@rafaelbordoni516]

I'm pretty sure he didn't meant to say it doesn't add depth to the game as a whole, he even mentioned that the players gamed this mechanic (which means he acknowledges how it adds a layer of gameplay and strategy to it) in the same ways the baseball players gamed that old rule, which caused the developers of the other mobas to ditch the mechanic and the developers of dota to keep patching it. What he meant is that it doesn't add depth to where they intended the depth to be. It's like the lighting chess pieces on fire argument, it would add a layer of complexity that would change how the game is played, but that would take the focus away from strategy and thoughtful play, not how they wanted chess to be played. Now, on a possible analysis of intentionality, we can say that in the initial dota wc3 mod, the intention was to make a team fighting game, but the developers had wc3 map maker instead of unity. They wanted to make a game where a team of 5v5 fighting off with RPG mechanics, but they had to work around the RTS mechanics of their "engine". If they had unity, would they have the awkward point and click controls that are actually RTS unit orders? Would they have the RTS isometric camera? Would they have the abilities (and RTS base orders) scrambled on the keyboard? All of this wasn't intentional, it was inheritend along with creep denial, which, by the way, would they have creep denial? All of those things added layers of complexity and gameplay to the game, it adds skill for both your brain to strategize upon and your body to be precise and master. But were those skills the skills they wanted to bring to the game? I call it a "possible analysis" because none of us can say what their actual intentions were. Let's think of a different possibility: they actually wanted the RTS controls and RPG progression. Playing is about mastering your hero's abilities, positioning, knowing what items to build, which fights to pick, when to gank, when to split push, how to combo your team abilities, etc. Would they have creep denial if that was the game they weren't confined to wc3 map maker? From a narrative/flavor perspective, it doesn't make sense to kill your own army. From a gameplay perspective, all forms of last hitting are more about resource management than controlling your character and strategizing. At the end of the day we don't know what they actually wanted to make but it's clear that the vast majority of the mechanics were inherited from a completely different game, they weren't intentionally put there. Camp stacking, 6 slot inventories, creep denial... All of these were not just inherited, but things they couldn't even get rid of, they had to build their game around them. To a lot of people, dota was about skillfully controlling your character and outplaying the opposing team. That's where LoL focused, they made spammier abilities and removed micro-ing to let players focus all of their attention to their hero instead of splitting it. Heroes of the storm went further and removed all forms of last hitting. I've heard some games even ditched the RTS camera and controls altogether! Where they the right call? We can't say they made better games, but we can say they made different ones. Dota did the opposite, they embraced those mechanics, and probably because of the competitive nature of the sport, flavor and initial intentions be damned. I think the awkwardness of those inherited mechanics gave dota its identity to a certain degree. Oh, but they still got rid of the scrambled abilities on the keyboard though.

[@HoneyedOasis]

Both creep denying and last hitting adds complexity and depth to gameplay. The question is whether or not adding complexity or depth is a good or bad thing is a different question. Perhaps for the new player experience it's bad but for player retention it may be good. I'm pretty sure the avg dota player has much more total playtime than the avg LoL player. After all there is a reason ppl have been playing the game for 10+ years now, the features might sound 'stupid' when u think about them but they sure do add depth to the game.

[@daystyrfer7887]

I really disagree with the underlying rational for why creep denial is bad design but an otherwise good point about the potential shortcomings for iterative design

[@knightlunaaire1087]

40:20 "is there a better way for the player to be spending their time?" no, not really in times where denying is your only option. denying is unexpected, but not really that hard to grasp. whether or not the core gameplay is maintained kinda stupid cuz both dota and lol have plenty of additions that are not supporting the core gameplay. like why did hey add runes pages... is that why league is more successful? the random reddit guy actually explains why denying wouldn't work in league, while hinting that it works well in dota and what it is used for. the presenter sounds like a debate bro saying "burden of proof is on why the feature should be added" instead of just investigating and talking about the feature. we literally have 2 "similar" games with and without the feature to compare, and could talk about the implications within the game instead of pointing at the player #s.

[@levprotter1231]

Creep denial is one of the best parts of Dota, it gives you the ability to control the lane. That's it. I want units to flow backwards? Boom, creep deny. I want to stabilize the lane? CREEP DENIAL.

[@paulszki]

I think the problem with creep denial is, that it adds a layer of complexity as well as another dexterity skill check for a strategic payoff that may just not really be worth it. To me last hitting and denying is busy work. I played a ton of DotA DESPITE that mechanic. If all you want to do is manipulate the lane strategically, there is probably a ton of alternative ways to implement it, without having it be another skill check. One is already in the game: creep pulls. Just because creep denial in DotA is important and just because you are really good at it using it, doesn't mean it's automatically a good or interesting mechanic that players enjoy. In the case of DotA it's also weirdly unintuitive to .... KILL YOUR OWN MINIONS IN BATTLE. It's just a super ... "gamey" mechanic that doesn't resonate with the flavor or core fantasy two armies clashing. So even if you successfully argued that "creep denial" as a dexterity skill check mechanic is a.) fun and satisfying and b.) strategically meaningful and c.) is the best mechanical solution with the least amount of tedium and player frustration in comparision to any other mechanic that could influence creep equilibrium.... so even IF you successfully argued all that, it's still just a really bad fit for the core of fantastical armies strategically clashing in battle. What lore/narative/flavor justification is there for the radiant side to kill their own creeps? I could see it to some degree for dire side in that "we kill our own guys for any gain" like when past version of Lich could sacrifice own creeps for Mana or clinkz deathpact to eat your own guys in a pinch. I could even see a justification in hero denial in a "wanda kills vision before thanos gets to him way". DotA is still an awesome game and maybe creep denial is somehow the least problematic mechanic to achieve the design goal to have players be able to influence creep equilibrium. I have no idea for example, how League of Legends actually tackles this (or if there even is such a concept of influencing creep equilibrium).

[@jayvillar]

​@@paulszki I think creep denial is least of dota's problem, is creep denial as a core design bad? of course. Creep pulling should be the only way to deny gold and experience. One of the most problematic part of dota is huge turn rates that heroes of newerth fixed by giving everyone a turnrate value of 1 which made HoN smoother and more responsive to player input. Melee carry heroes are still viable HoN unlike in league of legends that removed turnrates all together and now has a problem of range character power creep that riot decided to fixed by giving every melee heroes a dash ability that in turn needed to give range champs have dashes too to not get killed by melee heroes, causing a mobility creep within the game. Dota 2 is very archaic in design but those weird quirks makes kind of balance in a weird chaotic way that I can't describe. Dota should have failed as a game because of those bad design choice but those bad design made it more closer to balance than league of legends could ever dream of. As much as Soren Johnson see the faults of the game but Dota, Dota 2 and LoL are originally made by high school and college students that didn't study game design. I'm just disappointed on how he views a certain mechanic as "bad" and then not explaining further on why it was bad except for the comparisons he made for dota and league. Also I don't get why game devs have a hate boner to dota 2, this the third GDC speaker I watched that mentioned dota on a bad light.

[@paulszki]

@@jayvillar Hey, thanks for your input. I think people don't dislike DotA as a whole. Even if it's not their preference of game, they will at least respect it. It's okay to point out design flaws, even in great games. I bet even (most of) the current DotA2 developers at valve don't really like creep denial as a mechanic but it's one of those legacy mechanics that for a lot of players is part of the identity of the game. Even if these players may be wrong, what point is there in upsetting an established playerbase. Sot they just accept these limitations and work around them. It's a bit like the yellow opening crawl text in Star Wars Movies. It's an incredibly outdated form of exposition that even the movie makers want to get rid off but can't quite because it would upset a nostalgic portion of the audience for whom a floating yellow text made up of three paragraphs about the movie you're going to watch is somehow essential to the Star Wars experience. When they do have the chance, they skip it (I believe, the opening text crawl is not in Rogue One or Solo)

[@neetfreek9921]

I mean you can do that in league too by changing how fast you push your lane and by pulling creeps. All while reducing unnecessary mechanics. I’m much more in favor of soft mechanics vs hard ones as it removes bloat.

[@riveteye93]

Creep denial is one of the most fun and challenging things about laning in dota, this guy has no idea what he's talking. It may have started as an artifact of wc3's engine, but luckily it brought a lot more to the table than it took away. Creepblock is a far more "problematic" feature, enabling a lot of bullshing strats for offlaners, to be fair.

[@radekmojzis9829]

38:30 - yes the game would be completely different if you couldnt deny creeps... it is a HUGE part of the game and the meta would be wastly different if denying wasnt a thing.. you would not only have to redesign the whole laning stage mechanics, but also basically every single hero

[@metagen77]

The sound is always crap one way or another without fail.

[@nolongerinuse1083]

I could stare at this image for hours, but I'm gonna do it.

[@tkellaway]

That guy from Obsidian gets it lol

[@kolukolev726]

"In Fallout Las Vegas you can kill every single character in the world except children." The first of many mistakes that led to the ultimate downfall of the beautiful masterpiece that was once Fallout.

[@MegaJotie]

Las Vegas was the one to improve 3 and bring it back closer to the franchise.

[@mohandasjung]

Just mod all the way!

[@cally77777]

I presume that's an argument on the basis 'because it destroys immersion', because otherwise you're on the very dodgy ground that the ability to kill children in a game is a desirable thing. Nevertheless I would argue that a total immersive game is a pipe dream, at least at the level of technology we're at, and picking on the children issue is pretty daft and perverse. Currently video games fall short of immersion on all kinds of levels. A game could only become totally immersive if it simulates 'life' flawlessly, in which case its arguably no longer a game. The comment could also be taken to imply that any restriction of the player's freedom could destroy immersion, and is 'wrong'. But a game without any kind of 'rules' would similarly be no game at all. Even 'reality' has rules. You can tamper with some of them, but tampering with them all would result in a primal chaos. No laws of physics=no universe=no morality=no life. It therefore becomes a matter of which rules are most condusive to life/good game play; in other words, a practical and moral argument. On that basis, the death of children in a game doesn't seem something necessary.

[@ReeseEifler]

I'm sitting here thinking about how incredibly appropriate it is that someone who doesn't value the complexity of baseball's rules doesn't value the complexity of DOTA's rules. Both dropped third strikes and creep denial add skill requirements to their respective games. I'm not sure how you're able to convince yourself otherwise through these ridiculous Reddit posts, but having to do something else that requires skill in order to secure a play increases the complexity of any game and the required skill to play that game. You're also leaving leaving out that creep denial requires an additional force-hit button hold. Also, the dropped third strike rule is by no means obscure unless you didn't play much baseball.

[@wylie2835]

There is no value in complexity. There is value in depth. Complexity often takes away from depth. It s VERY important that a player, at any given time, knows all the choices he can make AND the EXACT effects they will have on everything. The ONLY unknown should be what the competitors are doing. This is why games like chess and go still have larger skill gaps than other things. Game designers are often confusing complexity with depth and forgetting what depth requires. Things should be as simple as possible anyway. If a given rule or action doesn't exist for a specific purpose it should be cut. Complexity for the sake of it is bad.

[@niclasbelrra]

@@wylie2835 You are absolutely right, except creep denying adds depth, not only complexity (if you are implying the contrary).

[@connorthurston7731]

He's saying that having to do something else that requires skill, in order to secure a play, doesn't necessarily increase the complexity of the game in a MEANINGFUL way. Like playing chess with half the pieces on fire. It distracts and ultimately detracts from what you're trying to accomplish.

[@yonjuunininjin]

I agree, the guy is a fool. Standing there being like "Hey, I got the ultimate solution, why not just remove creep denying in Dota, lul", like the devs of Dota never thought about it before. There is a reason why they didn't remove it even after all those years. Then he brings up that chart that LoL has more revenue and thinks creep denying/ riots philosophy about analyzing the old dota mod is a huge factor... instead of I dunno, art style and character design do not appeal to everyone, game is harder, Riot has a PR and marketing team, League came out first, Riot is far better at supporting the community.

[@wylie2835]

@@niclasbelrra You might notice i never said anything about creep. Just making a note about the difference between depth and complexity. As OP doesn't seem to understand. Idk why the fuck words are being put into my mouth. Are you insecure about your feelings over whatever the hell game OP is on about?

[@Number-dp8ls]

Listening to that guy smugly miss the point of creep denial was so painful. It adds a ton of depth to laneing, players end up fighting over every last hit.

[@WarjoyHeir]

Yeee you can't tell me creep denial is bad deaign just because it's a remnant of the past. That game is about mechanical complexity both personal and team oriented, and limiting the field of complexity takes away frome the game's depth. Making small changes is no proof of the bad design. This is what Icefrog has been doing with every feature of dota forever. So that would mean every part of it is poorly designed and shouldn't be in game. I undertand the idea to look at you work from a distant perspective to see it clearly and in wider scope but the example used is just ham handed into the argument. Especially that there is no basis to the statement that League is better designed because it lacks creep denial. On the other hand lacking bindable hotkeys would be a bad remnant of the past when it comes to dota and we can see it was changed.

[@Lovuschka]

12:28 "I look for it to be simple with only a few rules even though it might have room for tons of data... right?" Well, we don't know what you look for, so we can't answer that question.

[@fockyutuub5193]

Soren jonhson really dont know what he talks about. no wonder his game tanked