What would happen if tower gold was removed

this is purely metaphysical argument. towers and rax should not give gold. why? due to objectives. Towers must be destroyed and in logical order to attack the ancient. in previous patch it was tested that without heroes creeps would destroy the ancient within 90 minutes. There is an efficiency element to a competitive outcome. A noncompetitive game might last 20 minutes but a strategically thrown game might last 2 hours and it is theoretically true that the previous statement could be objectively false. and Ideally the definition of a 'competitive' game in a meta sense may ultimately not outlast the time frame that would signal that heroes would not have been needed.

So what is the Defense of the Ancients without heroes? Heroes bring the element of PvP which is a show of power. That power is measured with networth, the trade of which is measured with volatility. Removing gold in certain ways should in theory, reduce volatility in networth exchange so the story is more definitively regarding certain measures.

Towers and buildings could be reformed as a separate class from heroes and creeps: Ancient. Ancient might be though of as an arena where games are played. Some will say everyone will just dodge around towers and PvP randomly all over the map. OK, no problem but lets imagine that tower (arena) kills could redistribute gold (values) based on productivity. So unlike today, say towers give a productivity dividend based on what they have achieved. So defenders have incentive to pull enemies towards towers at all times. Lets go further and imagine towers had upkeep intervals and that maintaining towers meant direct cuts to PvP/farm. In short networth is separated into parts that can be used to measure efficiency against other players and the affect of losing relatively more towers than enemy might be a very big penalty later game.

destroying towers would have no direct gold benefit but could influence Ancient balance, which would be a new field for heroes to manage. Also go ahead and decide to PvP for 4 hours, it would be rated inefficient. The true meaning of strategy may be can we definitively know whether or not the game is competitive based on game length?

 

that seems reasonable explanation
but take the view that competitive is always just a response promoting the biggest gameplay hack, so if you say early push needs to be explicitly protected, its a snake eating its own tail re: strategic diversity

admittedly a pretty radical idea, taking something away is never popular and implementation would probably not be worth it, but if towers gave a productivity dividend the strategy would regard how quickly and when it is safe to destroy enemy buildings

 

yes i understand. if you put too much incentive in tower destruction players will pick to focus down towers. yet when you think about how networth trades value, there is obviously a future global derivate risk to destroying any tower and increasing team networth existing for all time. Thats kind of like increasing risk that the game turns into a ping pong volley just because you want to make progress. that towers hold so much directly translatable to networth value seems somewhat counter-intuitive to winning the game since the only way to win the game is linear progress through structures. In short, the opposing team should be indirectly obliged to defend towers and if they dont they may earn easier closer to base farming? therefore why does there need to be such a direct incentive to taking them down? The closer you get to the base, the likelihood only increases that you lose lives so in theory why should you want to take down towers unless you are assured victory? Yet, you cant win the game without destroying towers. the incentive is confused with the goal of winning the game in the instance you do not end the game due to networth trading

the proposal is that direct impact to networth (volatility) is quarantined to PvP and PvN and that as you are successful in pushing towers, as the risk of networth transfer naturally increases, rather than having this kind of random structure NW leakage going on all over the map that is hardly traceable for viewers. There could be a multitude of ways to indirectly incentivize defenders so that basically they showed up to the push fights.

this is back of the napkin philsophy not analysis btw, just idea generation

 

not to mention being able to TP to structures. losing towers gives you more control of farm MAYBE, but you lose so much its priceless. what about installing a strict productivity dividend? a tower that exists in the very late game is then like a stripper well, still producing (from waves and hero kills/assists, or just time based on existence). so the strategy could be more than just PvP networth trading, it might regard having more existing Ancients than the enemy too.

basically give structures a separate tier, possibly put a structure productivity formula in the tower and remove static bounty for taking them down

 

Why include this gold in NW? Team 1 pushes down 2 towers very early and has to retreat. Team 2, who has taken no towers at all gets four kills in a random teamfight 20 minutes later. The value of the towers among networth gets transferred. The value of the 2 dead towers is being carried by the assessment of the heroes inventory and skill yet towers have no relative improvement over time like heroes do. The whole point of NW is to assess dynamic change at points of time to account for the fact that dead heroes dont drop their inventory on the ground. There is no relative/dynamic power to structures like there is between the progress of 2 heroes where 1 can completely outplay another early, die randomly and repeatedly later on and give up almost nothing at all (old way).

The value of a tower is a bunch of factors including op cannon, range, vision and area control and teleport point. The arena is SYMMETRICAL so both teams get these benefits. Propping up the pushing strategy by making a pinata party out of it is what lacks purpose. If you cant understand the value of a tower and how lanes are impacted, try to win the game without taking one down! Also re-read the OP. This position is non-technical, speculative but your argument does not address the context in entirety.

 

i agree that light would shine on movement/tp/blink. being able to get around the map and get to farm would be terse

also could pave the way for super OP towers