1. Hello and welcome to the brand new home for PlayDota!
    Please read through our Welcome thread to see what's new!
    Dismiss Notice

What would happen if tower gold was removed

Discussion in 'Dota Chat' started by b1ock, Apr 13, 2018.

  1. b1ock

    b1ock Member

    799
    12
    18
    Sep 25, 2014
    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?
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2018
  2. kamukag3e

    kamukag3e Member

    3,531
    386
    83
    Jun 11, 2009
    If bounty gold for structure is removed, it will severely hinder any early-middle game pushing strategies - and they are already hard to achieve and rarely executed at competitive level.

    But keep in mind that killing one strategy will make it's usual 'counter' strategy also disappear and then you will have stagnation of the meta.

    The bounty was already reduced and towers strengthened, pushing made harder overall in comparison to previous versions, additional reductions are not necessary.

    On the other hand, bounty is too little to have big impact on the game outside of those early game strategies, because your supports having 100 additional gold every 6-8 minutes is nothing big.
     
  3. b1ock

    b1ock Member

    799
    12
    18
    Sep 25, 2014
    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
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2018
  4. kamukag3e

    kamukag3e Member

    3,531
    386
    83
    Jun 11, 2009
    @b1ock:
    Indeed, you are right - that's the reason balancing a game for the competitive level while keeping it interesting for the viewers is such a hard job and if you read suggestions here and at reddit you can find obviously stupid proposition which will doom the game just to make handful of (stupid)people happy.

    So while strategies are regulating to some extend each other, the game developers should still consider helping the balance to some extend. Otherwise a strategy naturally 'countered' by another may still give better results than expected due to bad balance from the game rules.

    As an example - if we remove Glyph, revert the tower EHP to their levels before the armor changes (from static to reactive to the number of enemy heroes nearby) and increase the tower bounty to a high number - such as 250-300 gold per player for each outer tower. Then pushing strategy will be so prevailing that even 4/1 strategy, which is the natural counter will be nearly powerless to stop it, while right now it would be considerably easy to execute it and the win-chance is naturally higher for 4/1 against dedicated early-middle pushing strategy.
     
  5. b1ock

    b1ock Member

    799
    12
    18
    Sep 25, 2014
    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
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2018 at 1:26 AM
  6. Blarrg

    Blarrg Member

    10,769
    539
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    The entire competitive meta is currently pushing strategies.

    DK, TB, DP, Viper, Tiny, Luna, Lifestealer. These are all heroes that just run up to your highground and kill your shit.

    Towers should not even give gold. They already give map control. Map control can be directly translated to a form of gold or income advantage because of the vision they give that makes your farming patterns feel more safe.

    Gold has become way too accessible to everyone in the game, its just dumb right now. Bounty runes are basically a creep wave in gold. Experience is extremely inaccessible at early levels especially for supports. Its very possible to not even be level 6 at 15 minutes in the game if you didn't get the exp tome. By that time many cores can have counters to your ultimate.
     
  7. b1ock

    b1ock Member

    799
    12
    18
    Sep 25, 2014
    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
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2018 at 1:27 AM
  8. Leadblast

    Leadblast Member

    4,846
    46
    48
    May 31, 2010
    Remove tower gold entirely is stupid idea imho. Of course the worst consequence from that will be considerably longer games. People will get discouraged from pushing and will resort to dumb shit 24/7 gankfest deathball strats for the whole match because ganking is fun, it ruins the enemy's economy and of top of that will be the ONLY way to boost your own incomes. Completely retarded idea.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2018
  9. Blarrg

    Blarrg Member

    10,769
    539
    113
    Jun 12, 2009
    Here comes Leadblast with his Normal Skill opinion.
     
  10. Leadblast

    Leadblast Member

    4,846
    46
    48
    May 31, 2010
    Of course, but going to the other extreme and not give any rewards whatsoever to pushing is not the correct answer to that. The whole long term goal of pushing lanes, destroying towers, barracks and finally the ancient itself is the only thing preventing a MOBA like Dota from becoming an eternal, pointless hero deathmatch.

    More than that, it's the only way to END the game, otherwise it could go on for hours and hours before a clear victor is seen. How many times have I seen games that overextend pointlessly beyond an hour because one of the teams is too good at ganking and successfully keeps the other team shut down but is "strangely" unable to translate this kind of momentum into a definitive push for the victory? Countless times. This is where those comebacks occur. This is where it becomes a "ping pong game" as you called it. This game is already centered in ganking as it stands. The 4 bounty rune points, the jungle shrines, the various tweaks to Roshan, the multiple neutral camps and yet the fact that jungling has become harder, you have to stack them, etc. All of that has been implemented solely for the sake of making the game more spectator-friendly, all in the name of "e-sports". You aim to make it worse by removing the one things that give a PURPOSE to all of that.
     
  11. b1ock

    b1ock Member

    799
    12
    18
    Sep 25, 2014
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2018
  12. RNGeezus

    RNGeezus Member

    140
    10
    18
    Nov 18, 2014
    It would make 5 man pushes worth it for map control, but it would make the 5 man deathball more committing since while you're 5 man deathballing you would be getting ratted and outfarmed. Probably a pretty static meta where you don't try anything until you're able to control map with things like blink
     
  13. b1ock

    b1ock Member

    799
    12
    18
    Sep 25, 2014
    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
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2018