Talk:Defense of the Ancients/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Site

The artwork is from http://kunkka.deviantart.com/art/Dota-allstars-5v5-100058409. The site was cropped or wasnt included in the loading page screenshot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.93.43.50 (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous information about Icefrog

Editted information in development: Please get your facts right: It was only after icefrog took over that dota began its exponential growth as well as truly became the game it is today. Beforehand, it was simply an unbalancable and biased creation with hardly any regard for teamplay and coordination. As well he is not as reclusive as you may think: While it seems he remains anonymous to the public, he has opened a blog detailing major developments, as well as given dota-league an impressive interview. -UTDC.Justin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kongsingcheung (talk • contribs) 01:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not one to underplay Icefrog's contributions, DOTA was wildly popular before his time. I've been playing since Eul's version and the popularity has been a steady growth over the years.--67.168.160.239 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I second this* I was in clan ward long before Allstars was even created and the game was hugely popular and (eventually) balanced (still before Allstars came out).

The reason exponential growth died down for Dota and not for All-stars is not very simple. It was a combination of factors. The lack of support from Eul, the game itself growing stagnant and lacking in possibility when compared to what the Frozen Throne expansion had to offer. Yet I feel the major reason for All-stars eventually outshining the original DoTa was because it was less balanced when it came out and slightly more crude as well. Balance was initially* achieved by making every hero incredibly powerful in terms of damage so everyone had a fair chance of killing everyone else regardless of skill. The masses appreciate this more than a slower paced game and the cat and mouse tactics that were more prevalent in the original.


Shouldn't there be a larger section on Eul? After all, he did start it all. Obviously all ideas are recycled but he did lay much of the foundation for the warcraft engine series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.209.228 (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

If there was more reliable information about Eul, it would be in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

He's still (or to better phrase it: again) active at TheWarCenter, where he did most of the development work with the community. This entry lacks 99% of the information on "classic dota" [it was developed way into 2008 and Allstars didn't start as "official" version - Guinsoo was a beta tester who cracked classic dota and started developing his own version], but since TWC lost it's database pre-2006, there isn't much proof, only stuff that other TWC Users and I can recite without any more existing sources ...

Popular/Iconic heroes section?

Hey. I think it would be great with a section mentioning popular heroes like Pudge, Rhasta and Lion, and why they are so popular and characteristic. Can I get permission to do this? Or at least start on it. - Mathias Blicher

While a cool idea, I don't think this would work out too well. Heroes that you consider notable might not be considered notable by others (I agree with Pudge, but not Rhasta and Lion-they're generic support and nuker heroes). When I tried to think of other ones that I would consider notable, I realized that even those fall into groups of heroes (I thought of Rikimaru, but that's stealth--Rikimaru, Broodmother, Rooftrellen, Slark, Lanaya--and Bounty Hunter, but that's tracking--Bounty Hunter, Bloodseeker, probably others I'm not thinking of at the moment). It might be possible if we had some sort of vote (such as voting for all of the heroes you thought should be included, then taking the top ten or so), but this would require a disproportionate amount of time, effort, and dedication. ~rezecib (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Mod or Map?

I've noticed that the article says that DotA is a mod. DotA, if I'm not mistaken, is a map and not a mod since it doesn't change the underlying game at all. - ShootinPutin109 Talk. 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

From the wikipedia article on mods: "Mods are made by the general public or a developer, and can be entirely new games in themselves, but mods are not standalone software and require the user to have the original release in order to run. They can include new items, weapons, characters, enemies, models, textures, levels, story lines, music, and game modes." DotA features custom content, new items, weapons, heroes, et al. It's not the greatest comparison, as Warcraft 3 allows for these modifications, but it's still technically a mod (it's called a custom scenario and map in the article body as it's a more accurate term in context.) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Reception

If you add reception, study it properly -- seriously, on Battle.net, all non-dota players think that the community is assholes, weak, jackasses, and think that it is repetitive gameplay. Lol and you know its right -- thats why its view source. oh and my username is just so i can change the reception bit to include what non-dota players think of it. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Avalanchekillsmetoday (talk • contribs)

I'm well aware that there are many on Battle.net who dislike DotA—I don't play it that much anymore. But we are interested in verifiability, not truth. Just because it's true doesn't mean we add it to the article; we need reliable sources that state those facts in order for them to be included. If you find such a source, I would be happy to add it in. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You like pretend sources or sources over...truth? Wow... this proves how corrupt, biased, and stupid Wikipedia is. Ooh Dead Rising is Survival Horror because you can take on thousands of zombies with your own fists... but we want the false source from the website which claims it is survival! Also, Wikipedia has false information. This is an idiotic take -- sources over truth. Who cares, if your admins freak out about this, just get them to BUY the game, fix any story mistakes they have made (They find that Ricardo Irving and UMBRELLA - What? Umbrella? They are long gone is planning to etc through Africa -- wait, has anyone played the game and actually remembers what happens? and then through the world. If you're admins are happy, I'd be satisfied to send them some sources of websites which hate wikipedia and some discussion forum threads. I'll do that now for you. And also, because you know that people want to say the truth, you block pages from those who have not registered.

'Editted information in development: Please get your facts right: It was only after icefrog took over that dota began its exponential growth as well as truly became the game it is today. Beforehand, it was simply an unbalancable and biased creation with hardly any regard for teamplay and coordination. As well he is not as reclusive as you may think: While it seems he remains anonymous to the public, he has opened a blog detailing major developments, as well as given dota-league an impressive interview. -UTDC.Justin"

I've also seen you stand up for your crummy rules above. Get over it, its a map. Get some opinion.

WIKIPEDIA SUCKS LINKS http://www.dotcult.com/Why_Wikipedia_sucks http://www.therssweblog.com/?guid=20060410082920 http://www.wikipediasucks.org/ http://bestwikiever.wikidot.com/wikipedia-sucks http://www.fiendish.org/glimpse-of-genius/wikipedia-sucks/ http://thewebserviceblog.co.uk/2008/10/31/wikipedia-sucks/

There's... LOADS MORE of websites. Thats a sampler.

DOTA HATERS: That coming soon.

Huh and lets see, the admins will run with their riot batons after me. Don't ban me, I'm being a goodytwoshoes by giving sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.27.141 (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

We can't and don't expect people to take a wiki that's editable by anyone at its word. Truth needs to be backed up by something more reliable, or readers won't be able to tell that it is the truth. In places where the truth is contested, we can't exactly decide what the truth is (see also every article on the arab-israeli conflict ever), and instead seek to cover the conflicting reports and how they differ. This article is a featured article, meaning that it's held to the highest available standard of sourcing. (Is there a problem with the Dead Rising and Resident Evil 5 articles? I couldn't make that out.) --Kizor 12:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The spamming person has a point. While I respect Wikipedia's rules, it DOES need to be mentioned that DotA has attracted a lot of hatred from the Custom Maps side of WC3. While this may be a slightly biased opinion, half of its true. Instantly banned due to a dl, or remaking a game because a person doesn't know how to play is... well ***hattery. Your presenting DotA like the entire WC3 community is obsessed with it, while making it seem like no one dislikes DotA... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.211.92 (talk)

But we need reliable sources that say the DotA community is poor or something similar, otherwise we cannot mention it. Your opinion and mine don't matter. We need the proper sources before we add anything. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But thats the issue entirely. What Wikipedia defines as a reliable source doesn't work in this case as no decent news organization bothers to look at the OTHER side of DOTA. Self-published resources don't work, and even when you find points on the WoW forums, you cannot make reference to it because it isn't a reliable source. Thus the quagmire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.211.92 (talk)

That would be an indication that the "[other] side of DOTA" isn't really notable. Whatever goes on in the community, regardless of how much importance the community claims, is beyond Wikipedia's scope unless it's covered by reliable third-party sources. 142.1.133.169 (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
^what my esteemed anonymous colleague said. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

WoW forums is wrong - its a W3 map. If 2 billion people say something, then a celebrity says something else in an opinion, thats enough people to merit an inclusion. This is simply my opinion, I'm not trying to break rules [in...my...opinion, bad rules, but I won't argue.], then you revert what I say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.118.108 (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2009

We need sources because I doubt two billion people even know what Warcraft is. In addition, celebrities say things all the time, but only a fraction are newsworthy, let alone notable. Thanks for letting us know that you're simply expressing your opinion; now we know that you know the policy, and that dragging this discussion would no longer accomplish anything. —LOL T/C 11:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've always known the policy and disagrees with it. Did you jump here from L4d discussion? But...if no one knows about it, then they MAY NOT need sources. After all, it is, the truth. Whats with the fact that you think that detail is not allowed as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.113.253 (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you've always known the policy, then here's something you either don't know or are violating intentionally: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. How is your question about "detail" relevant to DotA's reception? —LOL T/C 14:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so I'm guessing that, those people's opinion don't matter. And, I'm not being biased, because its the truth - half of B.Net hate DoTA. Thats a fact, not opinion. Propaganda? Advertisement? Etc? What? Also, if anyone wants to delete my messages, they are opposing a policy -- Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.53.93 (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Your guess is correct; their opinion doesn't matter—if there are no proper sources to establish their notability. Until someone finds some, it is fruitless to argue about some opinion that has no significance outside the community to which it belongs. Bias, facts or opinion aren't the issue here. Anyhow, I believe WP:NOTCENSORED applies only to articles, but at any rate, see WP:TPOC; I'm sure that some editors found your comments to be incivil, especially when you decided to hand out ban threats (assuming you're the only anon in this discussion with the Telstra IP). —LOL T/C 02:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed some stuff, so that the government can't find out my identity again. And lol, and how is talking about what my internet provider is relevant? Oh, and "civil" is a word for propaganda, or other things. Of course, most people agree that it is wrong, and of course, Half Life 2 - 'Civil' Protection. Ever seen a martyr? Are you trying to get me to stop by revealing stuff about me? Yeah whatever, 3 people arguing already know that everyone who does not play DoTA hates DoTA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Heimstern/Wikipedia_is_going_to_suck_sometimes - Congratulations, the first decent person on Wikipedia. Also, come over to The Hive Workshop, as I myself oppose DoTA on the forums along with everyone else (some say its a good map ruined by a "lunatic" that does not try to perfect it, but simply to make it famous), and come to the Oblivion project hosted forum so I can detect your IP and internet provider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.51.100.212 (talk) 09:42, 13 June 2009

I have blocked the above IP. At this point, your threats and attacks (as well as you're refusal to get the point) are disruptive. Please read and abide by our verifiability policies, and come back to edit constructively. If you are just going to persist in this manner, then we really have no need of you. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the IP paranoia, the disclaimer at the top of the edit page informed you that "your IP address [will] be recorded publicly in this page's edit history", so you have no grounds for attempting to conceal the fact that you used a Telstra IP. The public has access to WHOIS as well, which is why anybody with Internet access (like me) can find out. Funny that you're actually asking why it's relevant, because you were opposing the censorship of comments by another Telstra IP. You also connected a policy about "[participation] in a respectful and considerate way" to martyrdom and fictional police; and linked to a user opinion that accomplishes nothing for this discussion. Anyhow, because the relevance of your arguments have been dwindling and your disruption escalating, I'm losing interest in this conversation. —LOL T/C 15:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, how is talking about my internet provider relevant? Lol. I've got better things to do. Of course, 3 out of 5 people in the argument full well know that the point I raised is true. Also, if you want to address IP paranoia, leme see your IP... This argument...is pointless. I may resume in a few months when I get 50 people to argue on my side. Also, Fuchs, you should note that your definition of "attack" from me has ceased days ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.58.216 (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. No number of people can override policy just because they share your opinion. Lol. Your complaint concerning your (already public) IP is "pointless", as I showed in my previous comment, and giving you mine will do nothing to change that. Out of curiosity, who are these five people you believe are "in the argument", and which three of them "know that the point [you] raised is true"? Do those three have any familiarity with Wikipedia's policies, or are they probably just members of the Warcraft community? —LOL T/C 04:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh god. An admin and a member. And me. Indeed, an admin does not know the policy. Read the argument before commenting. You're relevance is getting out of hand, since you started talking about my IP address and stuff. Also, I'm curious why that plot section was written by another telstra person. Here it is:


it DOES need to be mentioned that DotA has attracted a lot of hatred from the Custom Maps side of WC3. While this may be a slightly biased opinion, half of its true. Instantly banned due to a dl, or remaking a game because a person doesn't know how to play is... well ***hattery. Your presenting DotA like the entire WC3 community is obsessed with it, while making it seem like no one dislikes DotA...

I'm well aware that there are many on Battle.net who dislike DotA

And me.

3 people. You and the other just jumped out of nowhere and have no place in the argument 3 + 2 = 5. Contributions/124.185.72.206 (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one who started complaining about your IP, so you're one to talk concerning relevance. Only two admins have commented here, and both of them said that the truth needs to be backed up by sources. That leaves you and the other anon, who are both probably just members of the Warcraft community. But wait, if you're counting Fuchs in, then that means you've switched your point from this "merit[s] an inclusion" to this "is the truth". Count me in, then—4 out of 5! And for what it's worth, I do have a "place in the argument" because I'm a Wikipedia user and this is a Wikipedia discussion. —LOL T/C 21:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)'

You're the one that completely went of the scale of relevance. You might argue that you have a place in the argument, but have you even played WarCraft III, Battle.net, let alone DoTA? Also, note that IP addresses are not always the same, so you don't know if someones the same person or whatever.

No, you're the one who totally flew off the scale of relevance. But seriously, you just pointed out yourself "that IP addresses are not always the same"—hence the reason I had to identify you with your ISP. If you still can't connect the dots, then that's too bad. And for the record, I have played WC3, on battle.net, and DotA, but once again, your newest argument has about zero relevance here because I don't need to play those in order to understand Wikipedia's policies. —LOL T/C 02:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
... ahem, I don't think you can talk about something you don't know much about, but, ok, you've played DoTA, so there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.75.169 (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2009
I'm talking about DotA's reception, as the section heading indicates, and it doesn't take a player to see that this hatred does not extend to the reliable sources that Wikipedia requires. I'm not writing some sort of a gameplay summary for DotA or synopsis for WC3, which would probably require player experience. —LOL T/C 16:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering if this would count as reliable. Posting at 1 in the morning I can't figure out if said website is or is not. Thank you. [1]The Company0 (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting find, but I'd have to say it's not (the fact that they apparently use content from wikipedia—like the screenshot I took—is one indication.) The site was only formed in April 2009[2], which means it can't have built up a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The post you linked didn't appear in the front page archives when I looked, and blogs are usually avoided per WP:SPS. That seems to be the best thing we have so far, but I think we'd need something better. —LOL T/C 02:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I would say its a reliable source... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.75.169 (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2009
Got reasons? —LOL T/C 16:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The archive is under "Features" at the top. It is in their main page archives under page 43. Too many posts in a day. Also, please don't argue over the link. If only one person thinks its reliable... its not enough. The Company0 (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We still need reliable sources, even though the page is biased and favoring one side (and arguably breaking the soapbox rule of no propaganda), and it being the general truth. ChinoYayaba (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly biased: NPOV means "representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". The above argument has failed to produce significant views published by reliable sources, ergo the article isn't biased. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol [not LOL, but as in Laugh out Loud], yeah me too. I think it is biased as well. The reason? It is trying to be as non-biased as possible. It is completely favoring DoTA's side, being biased (but...its trying not to be biased...rofl...). I say we should remove the reception bit, as that way both parties (hopefully) will let this end. But the link IS reliable, as face common sense: FORUM PEOPLE...say that the community is shithouse...look above, and see who said the community was shithouse. There is enough proof for that to be passed as reliable...most people don't care if stuff is sourced or not, so basically that only leaves the critics. And which one of Wikipedia's critics will look at this page and see that it has no sources for reception? 121.217.34.4 (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly you are wrong, simple as that. The neutrality of the article was certified at WP:FAC and simply put what you think about what constitutes reliable sourcing or what wikipedia should include matters not. I'm done discussing things here, and I hope LOL will too. There's nothing more to hash out. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Frankly Fuchs, why so arrogant to think that everything opposed to your thoughts are wrong? Then...I will probably lose, but I'll do a census...

1) The community agrees of the horrible DoTA community.

2) Look, 2 people know about that too in this discussion page!

3) The site. Simply, with the above 2, its not false...

P.S Where is DoTA on the FA nominees page, then? 58.165.80.17 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1) The community is not a reliable source.
2) Look, the two people aren't reliable sources.
3) The site is simply, like the above two, not a reliable source.
The nomination of this article already passed, and I already answered this question in a previous comment that was deleted. —LOL T/C 01:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If they are combined, then they can pass as reliable...Use common sense, would you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.168.33.237 (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Common sense says that several unreliable sources do not "combine" to make one big reliable source. You probably haven't read WP:RS even though it's been linked to several times in this section. Be rational, would you? —LOL T/C 03:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh, just a question. Doesn't the community write most of the news articles and papers that this is sourced from? Since any news agency that only goes from the words of a player but doesn't experience it themselves isn't exactly an unbiased opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Company0 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I think Fuchs would have a better answer for this because he wrote much of the article, but here's my 2¢: if all 15 of the references in the reception section are reliable sources that favour opinion A and we still can't find any that favour opinion B, then that implies that opinion B isn't really notable. —LOL T/C 17:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Saddening for LOL, as he would be screwed if making a game if he didn't take constructive criticism from the community. Plus, regarding your comment on the L4D talk page, I'm sure if you are so smart, you could construct an advanced selection system for my upcoming map Operation Void, a first and third person survival co-operative shooter (a mouthful...), using trackables and such, like having a first selection screen for three (over)classes, and then three for the (sub)classes of the class you choose. Ok? How about you ration how many times you link policies LOL? There is a policy about not overusing links to well, policies to win. But, do you think we are lying about the community doing those acts of horror? Do you have any sources that refute that (irony!)? And, why is this even a featured article? It has no neutrality, only showing the DoTA liker's side. 121.216.246.58 (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Plus...! The W3 community mostly sucks, though it is the best game on Earth with the best mods. A girl was freaking out and calling me a dick, in a mod called Fantasy Life (based on Final Fantasy, though it is a LoAP style map: Life of a Peasant), because while we were fighting that marital arts renegade in the town centre, she got killed (she was the queen), and the crown dropped...and so on, and then I took the crown later and then she started attacking me even though I won in a poll for being the ruler (one person said Hail King Kain! you can also go -name and I changed my player name to Kain, a slight reference to Cain from Diablo), and etc...well, I could of told you more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.246.58 (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Making a game? Constructive criticism? operation void? Those make so little sense here, they're not even worth comment. There's only an essay about overuse of policy, but regardless, my links only supplement my arguments, not substitute; this is very evident in the link density of my comments. As I've already said before, I'm already aware of the community, but because there are no reliable sources to confirm its notability, it's currently outside the scope of Wikipedia. We don't need any sources to refute it because there are no reliable sources that confirm it. This article is featured because it satisfies WP:FACR. It seems quite common for a biased person to believe that a neutral article "has no neutrality" because they believe that their opinion has significance, even though there are no reliable sources to support it. —LOL T/C 17:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Final word

This is it. There is a constant refusal to get the point above. We are bound by WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. All those together mean that unless there is criticism of DotA from a reliable source (an established publication with editorial oversight, and a reputation), we don't include the info. The Wikipedia Five pillars, the most basic tenets of Wikipedia, explicitly forbid it. Frankly, I'm tired of this. Any additions by the above IPs will be reverted on sight, or I'll just lock down the article. Continue the conduct here, and I'll lock the talk page too. This has gone on long enough. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but aren't you a janitor which can't end an argument by his own power? 138.217.156.87 (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia: we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. 138.217.156.87 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. Plus:

The reception of this article doesn't seem to take everyone's view into account. I see only positive viewpoints, and it ignores the rest of the WC3 fanbase, especially on East and Europe, where DotA has notcemplate:UnsignedIP --> -- from archive 3. And LOL, you mean not notable for some people PAID to write some articles on a game site. You and Fuchs are DOTA fanboys, and he was also accused of fanboyism on the H3 article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.7.47 (talk) 11:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Just accept that the article doesn't say anything about DotA being 'loved' by everyone, just that it's become popular (undeniably true), and widely discussed (undeniably true). There's no point in mentioning that a lot of people hate it, since that's true about every popular thing, ever - unless you meet the Wikipedia guidelines for adding it to the page (: Which you wont, because you're either too lazy/ or stupid to have done it yet. Greets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerozol (talk • contribs) 09:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone wants to go and find it, an Australian gaming magazine ran an article about Arena MMOs a few months back and basically tore the community apart making special mention of DotA and HoN. The magazine is called PC Power-Play and is an industry leader. If you feel as strongly as you all seem to about this topic, feel free to go and find it. -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.183.142 (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Pen and Ice

"Need an update on the split between Pen and Ice" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubswin002 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

What more needs to be said? I haven't seen anything besides the fact that they've gone their separate ways. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Currently the article does mention dota-allstars.com, but does not mention Icefrog's new Playdota.com by name. 85.223.73.236 (talk) 11:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Just add that playdota.com is the new official website, and that dota-allstars is the largest fansite. clarity is important here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.188.229 (talk) 07:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Any reliable sources discussing perception of the DotA community?

I'm not sure if they are out there, but are there any reliable sources discussing the perception of the DotA community by people who are not DotA players, or even by players. It strikes me that many people are very adamant that the DotA community is one of the loudest and most vitriotic in its communication with each other. As we can see from the "Reception" discussion feelings tend to be very polarized on DotA. I know some games have similiar references to the attitude of the online community, or differences between offline and online play, in their Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure DotA is notable enough to merit this level of granularity but as an avid player and peruser of various message boards I do know that people have strong feelings regarding other players and different facets of the community. However, that said if there is not a strong and credible source for it the idea should be discarded ASAP as most discussion around DotA is very heated and not objective at all, and this article is already very polished. Musing Sojourner (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that I've seen. I believe someone brought up a blog post discussing the issue, but it was obviously not meeting WP:RS and WP:FA? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats been my findings so far as well, lost of discussion but nothing meeting standards. With the upcoming direct spin-off Heroes of Newerth maybe there will be a few more reliable sources that discuss it.

Pardon my french, but what the hell does the "perception of the DotA community" have to do with the "reception of DotA"? As an example, the Twilight community is likely mostly teenage girls...but how does that affect critical reviews of the Twilight novels, movie, etc. It's not like everyone who plays DotA is part of the "DotA community" either. -- Bubbachuck (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Bubbachuck, you simply help make the point that we should keep looking for viable sources. It could be titled under a section called "Players" or "Demographics" if you wanted. Other video game articles do have sections discussing the playing community for a particular game. Citing Twilight is not really a good comparison to make here. If you don't think that DotA games hosted on bnet are exceptionally foul mouthed affairs dominated by incoherent ranting and trash talk, you aren't playing DotA on bnet. DotA's chat in public games is much more crass than most other games, and many people who are aquainted with DotA but refuse to play it hate it for that very reason. There's just not a source that meets Wikipedia's standards that discusses it. I'm not going to edit the article, I was just looking for a reliable source. Musing Sojourner (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not really true. Most video game FAs don't discuss fan opinions at all, for the simple reason that they usually aren't covered by reliable sources. Occasionally, there's an exception, but the general rule is that they are excluded. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to re-iterate that any work (art, book, film, videogame) and any enjoyers of the work are not related. What does the demographics of people who like the Mona Lisa have to do with the Mona Lisa as a piece of art? Should we have a section in on the Mona Lisa's wiki page about how upper class people enjoy it more than the lower class or vice versa? Halo players are renowned for their "incoherent ranting and trash talk" (as multiple viral Youtube videos can attest)...I don't see a section on either Halo 1, 2, or 3's pages about the amount of swearing/racism/sexism/antisemitism/etc on there. Adding such sections in articles will only seek to provoke snide comments, vandalism, accusations of hearsay, and whatever else you don't want to get involved in. -- Bubbachuck (talk) 01:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
While this is true for books, art, film, and many video games, it's not true for a team-based multiplayer video game. DotA is one of those games, which means that the majority of the players pretty much HAVE to interact with other players, and that the interaction they have is very relevant to their performance in the game. Therefore, the demeanor of the DotA community is a relevant topic. It's notable because the severity of reactions by DotA players to other players is significant enough to affect the reception of the game. For some examples, it's common for newcomers to be subject to slander (told to uninstall the game, kill or castrate themselves, etc), and in many cases merely appearing to be a newcomer (such as downloading the map in-game, rather than from the website) can result in an automatic kick or ban. ~rezecib (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I ask those of you who defend it by looking at other video game FA's, please show me an example that matches the situation of this entry in Wikipedia itself. All of the Halo pages are defining a full-scale game. Referring to Art is a completely misguided point. The goal that needs to be attested is that, despite its FA status, it is still being soapboxy, in the fact that it is COMPLETELY positive about every aspect of the game. Halo ODST notes the shortness of the campaign, and the cost. If you are worried about vandalism, why don't you just loc... Wait, you already locked it didn't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.96.166 (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Good choice picking Halo 3: ODST, because I wrote that FA too. And in that case there were plenty of reliable published critical opinions that weren't enthusiastic about the game. For DotA, however, there's not the same level of critical reception that a standalone title has, and since fan opinions are worth jack unless commented upon by a reliable source, there's nothing to be done. There's no POV imbalance if the other "side" of the issue hasn't been written about. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

To post this since its been ignored... An interesting excerpt from Gamasutra http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3966/postmortem_defense_of_the_ancients.php?page=4

"Lastly, because new players typically didn't play very well and DotA is a highly competitive team game, more experienced allied players could be very critical of them. This often resulted in new or inexperienced players being goaded into quitting the game entirely -- never to return. "

Your telling me that somehow this excerpt about how the game plays (Loads of this type of information are already in the wiki) somehow escaped the notice of important people like Fuch? A cited article mentions the environment of the game, even slightly, and is glazed over? The Company0 (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Video games developed by Valve Corporation?

Why is that template down there in the article? --112.203.79.209 (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Gone now, thanks for the heads-up. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bleeeeee

The last section states that League of Legends is an upcoming game. It's out already. that is all. grawp 24.77.201.165 (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Done --SkyWalker (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Heros

  • Shall we add a section about the various heros available?122.184.58.114 (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • That would be game-guide material. In short, the heroes themselves are not central to understanding the game and they aren't adequately covered in secondary sources, so we don't include them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

see also

I recommend adding a "see also" section, which links to articles about DotA clones, such as Heroes of Newerth, League of Legends, and Bloodline Champions.--ILoveSky (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the above are already mentioned; if the DotA clone bit is explicitly mentioned, it can also be discussed in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Importance

Why is this article low importance? DOTA has spawned a new genre and it's been played by tens of millions of people worldwide. It really should be high or top importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.3.187 (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't put this here as your metioning the point of Importance, but I find it disturbing that everyone says that DOTA spawned a new genre, when the map itself was based around a custom map from starcraft Aeon of Strife. Granted DoTA might have made the genre famous and made it what it is today, but when you get down to it didn't genre spawn from AoS and not DoTA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.43 (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Technically that's correct, but DOTA is the gold standard that these other games are basing off of (i.e. HON, LoL, Avalon and so forth). Just as you would mark Everquest as more relevant than DikuMUD or UO for MMOs, I think you should mark DOTA as especially important. Additionally, at one point, new versions of dota were getting 5M downloads each. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.3.187 (talk • contribs)
It's all of video gaming; one video game generally is not as important in comparison to other topics. If you have complaints, the best place to go would be WT:VG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Fuchs -- Did you read the importance scale that was set up? HIGH is "Series and games that have been shown to have a lasting impact on a genre, culture or the industry itself; typically need a few years to assess this impact. e.g. Pokémon, Final Fantasy (series), Bard's Tale", while MID is "Achieved wide commercial success, critically acclaimed or had wide sub-culture effect outside of their country of origin e.g. Gran Turismo (series), Ratchet & Clank (series), Gears of War". Some facts you should reconcile: Every valve game is mid or high importance, and Valve is making a spinoff game. Another spinoff, LoL (league of legends), is the #3 or #4 most played PC game now according to xfire and gamespot, and it's a spinoff game (old DOTA author works there) (consequently, LoL is mid in importance within the VG project). Avalon and BLoodline Champions say they are based in part on DOTA -- I'm bringing this up because spawning a series of similar games fits intot he description of 'high' importance. Some other random facts -- 6.54 had over 5 million unique downloads on playdota.com, and a lot of people are sharing files over networks or playing at LAN cafes, so that's likely a lot lower than the actual active user count -- that's about as popular as WoW globally, at least at that point in time. Additionally, if you go to google trends and compare 'DOTA" to "Final Fantasy", you'll see that they get equal search traffic and thus have roughly equivalent global popularity, and FF is consider 'high' importance by definition in the rating guide. I really think you should go read the importance scale and check the data, because it's obvious that this should be a mid or high importance article.

Dead links in references

DotA-Allstars.com was recently shutdown. That leaves a mass of dead links in the references of this page. Should those references be deleted or at least have indications next to them that said links are now dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.66.92 (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a link to confirm this, or is it possible the site is merely down to a technical error (I can't verify anything). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 11:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Site mentions that links will work after relocating to new permanent home - The website will be offline for the next week or so while the database is moved to its new permanent home where its contents will remain archived and available to the public for the sake of historical preservation.http://dota-allstars.com/index.html--Admadison (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Links 25 and 26 are also dead.The Company0 (talk) 21:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to clean up those dota-allstars deadlinks. The "historic preservation" has not happened in months and I doubt it will ever be back. The website (Dota-allstars.com) has simply turned into a redirection site for League of Legends. --Dotaveteran (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There's only one link that doesn't appear to be available for archiving. It's not that big a deal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 11:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, because I updated the other dead link. Is there any other way to get an archived copy of that interview? If anyone has a copy of that interview done by Nair please post it up. --Dotaveteran (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

New content by LostHerald

LostHerald proposes to add the following contributions to this article (with no sources):

Another person of interest, whom had helped since the Starcraft maps was originally known as xxMajorPayne. He helped until WC3:TFT came out and notified Eul that he was unable to continue into TFT. Once he obtained a copy of TFT, he came back trying to find out if the map was still in development and a player named Dewgong stepped up. He had told xxMajorPayne that a player named Guinsoo was making changes to the map. xxMajorPayne was unable to contact Guinsoo and came back to Dewgong and told him of the situation. Dewgong then told him that a player named Icefrog would know something about it. He contacted Icefrog and was told, along the lines of, that Guinsoo had not been online for quite awhile and he had taken over the project. xxMajorPayne then joined IceFrog with DotA All-Stars.

Your thoughts? Should this be added directly to this article? Thanks,  Davtra  (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. In short, no. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
No. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Valve's involvement

Valve has the rights to DotA now, and has used Jon St. John as a voice actor, not to mention hiring Icefrog. Any way this could get stuck in there? 192.197.71.189 (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Any Valve project is going to be another game; this is about the WarCraft III map. When there's enough information, we can create a new page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
No, Valve Corporation does not have the rights to DotA. They did, in fact, file a trademark for "DOTA", but Steve Mescon has filed three competing trademarks. Don't get me wrong, I am in complete, full support of Valve receiving the rights to DotA, but until they win the trademark, mention of the planned sequel will remain sufficient, without being erroneous. Also, since they will have owned the rights by then, we can re-apply the category, along with the infobox for Valve games.DarthBotto talk•cont 05:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we add a "Dota Community" section?

It would talk about how welcoming and friendly the dota community is, including most of the common friendly ways dota players talk to eachother, such as:
"Stop feeding you fucking noob!"
"You noob retard why didn't you help me!"
"Fucking idiot I fuck your mother!"
"Fucking noob leaver! everyone block his ip!"
(excuse my french)
These are just light examples of the warm and friendly atmosphere of Dota Games. People should know about them.--Propaganda328 (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

On a more serious note, regarding the above- is there any way we could work in information about the rather infamous dota community? Its widely known for its exclusivity and 'noob-bashing', far more than most any other game. To the point that I believe one searching for it could easily find creditable articles mentioning this- allowing us to created a cited remark about it. Given its one of the defining characteristics of not just DotA, but the whole AoS genre right now, I feel it should be worked in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.151.73 (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother asking. If you look further above, either it was shot down by Fuch for lack of sources, or glazed over because it seemed like it might harm the view of DOTA to someone other then the fanboys. This article is most certainly playing "Everything's a beautiful world". To bring it up from an ALREADY CITED SOURCE. Please see the last post in reliable sources of perception of DOTA community. Of course any attempt before to put this in was blocked when it was locked. 68.12.96.166 (talk) 09:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Be consistent with IceFrog's name

Apparently the article is locked, or I would fix it myself. He capitalizes it IceFrog; half the time it is done properly in the file, the other half it is not.96.227.33.220 (talk) 04:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning genre

There is a discussion taking place on Talk:Dota (genre)#Merger proposal that I hope can provide more decisive resolutions to:

  • Whether we should have an article for the genre, as it now has a significant number of games in it
  • What the article about the genre should be named, and by extension, what name for the genre should be used on the relevant games' pages

Currently it's mostly been a 2-sided discussion, and I know it's been discussed here in the past, so any input from the contributors given the new climate would be welcome. ~rezecib (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

On sequels...

Let's set some things straight. The definition of sequel is simple: "something that follows something else"; "a part added to a book or play that continues and extends it"[3]. DotA 2 is a sequel, in that it's a continuation of a game concept on very very narrow terms, it's being created by one of the main and current developers of the original game, it's specifically being marketing as a sequel, et al. Official is a much messier term. Until trademark applications were filed, Defense of the Ancients was a nonentity in a legal sense. Activation-Blizzard owns every part of the map, and the only thing stopping someone else from creating a DotA site or even a new map was street cred. Valve is certainly creating a sequel to DotA, but to call it an "official" one makes no sense as it's not sanctioned by Blizzard (who's making their own) and because it's only IceFrog involved; what's stopping Feak from having labeled his own game a DotA sequel? Let's leave the POV connotations out of the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth are more like clones or adaptations than sequels. HoN can definitely be considered both because it has a nearly one-to-one gameplay and mechanic correspondence, and moves it to a different fantasy setting. LoL moves it to a new setting and changes the mechanics a bit (not really a one-to-one correspondence, just a few close resemblances). In other words, I also think that we should not use "official". ~rezecib (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
It's the same way that we do not need to write "official" before the Batman movie pages for sequels. It is already evident. Also, League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth are based off of DotA's premise, they are not developed as sequels. Valve Corporation purchasing the rights to the franchise, as well as IceFrog leading the team is all the evidence provided in this article to call it a sequel in itself. On a side note, Immunmotbluescreen, please don't delete my edits simply because you do agree. If you would have stopped and looked at this talk page, you would have seen the general consensus of the editors who have been creating this page for quite some time. DarthBotto talk•cont 19:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, with the sequels!

Okay, people, please read the two previous discussion sections. We are not expanding the section about Dota 2 to include a mention of Demigod, League of Legends, Heroes of Newerth, Bloodline Champions, or even Blizzard DOTA. The current developer (IceFrog) is taking the brand to another front and that's all that may classify as a sequel, as it's a sealed deal, the rights are transferring with the current developer, etc. No matter how cool it may be that there are these spin-offs popping up all over the place, they still are only spin-offs and not sequels. This especially applies to the mention of the Blizzard fun map that somebody decided to insert in the sequel section.

If we were to consider spin-offs or sequels in terms of first-party legitimacy, we'd find even League of Legends as a spin-off, as the lead designer, albeit a former DotA developer, is still only a former developer. It is as much a sequel to DotA as Tactical Intervention is a sequel to Counter-Strike. DarthBotto talk•cont 22:43, 06 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. :-) I didn't mean to step on any toes. An elegant solution I have found for problems like this is to add comments within the article. Reading the DOTA 2 article, there is a section on a trademark controversy. Do you think a sentence summary of that section would be appropriate? Thanks. Oldag07 (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries! I suppose comments would be appropriate, in order to clarify relevancy, rather than anything else. But, I do think that we should keep the coverage concerning the sequel to a minimum, in the spirit of the standard Wikipedia article mentioning its successors. DarthBotto talk•cont 02:17, 07 March 2011 (UTC)
With regards to spin-offs. Do you think it would be appropriate to put in notable spin-offs that spawns because of the popularity of dota? If so would it be appropriate to put it in Dota or the Dota (genre)? What do you think? Personally, it would be quite notable to find out the many variation of Dota-type/Action-RPG games because of this.--Chiekken (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Are there really many notable related games not mentioned in this article? If they are action-RTS-type games, then that's a matter for Dota (genre) and not this page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
By my reckoning, the only spin-offs that should be named would be League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth; the former because of universal success and the latter because of its reasonable success in the competitive gaming industry. DarthBotto talk•cont 23:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Chugguh, 26 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In Sequel section the line "leading to Steve Mescon's DotA-Allstars company to file a counter application of trademark for the phrase "Defense of the Ancients", in order to gain ownership of the Warcraft III map and to prevent Valve from entitling a sequel." is completely unsupported with the referencing source.

I believe "in order to gain ownership of the Warcraft III map and to prevent Valve from entitling a sequel." should be changed to: to "release it to the community to allow them to continue to modify, play and experience DotA for free." which is a direct quote from Mescon himself from the same source.

Chugguh (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Done I went ahead and used a direct quote from Mescon from the article, which I think is the shortest, neatest way to capture the sentiment. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

can we move the part about valve making a sequel to somewhere lower in the article? it emphasizes valve's sequel over other sequels, such as heroes of nerwerth and league of legends. i think all sequels should be mentioned either together or not at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.141.139 (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's the most "official"; the others are just spinoffs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
hmm, still, then I think the other two spinoffs should be mentioned as well, for example "Dota has spawned several spinoffs such as HoN and Valve has an upcoming sequel planned for release", Also is it worth putting somewhere in this article Blizzard's reaction to Valve's trademark filing? I'm sort of anticipating some sort of legal battle over the Dota Trademark, because the map's creator is not the current one responsible for development, and there is a lot of weird area because the original map is a mod of blizzards content —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.141.139 (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Demigod, League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth are mentioned before Valve and IceFrog's sequel. I don't see any reason to include something of legacy with something regarding the current developer's sequel. They're not sequels, they're spin-offs, so they can stay where they are. Also, we don't need to fill up the page with every last trademark detail about the sequel. The Dota 2 page already specifies the viewpoints of Riot Games and Blizzard Entertainment, so if people are interested in it, they can view it there. Besides, we can't include something we're guessing may happen to something of less relevance. DarthBotto talk•cont 02:50, 06 February 2011 (UTC)
As much as I agree that the Valve version is the definitive sequel, the sequel is not without controversy. This is evidenced by the trademark controversy. In the end, wikipedia is not the place to decide this. Even the evolution article has a section that discusses the fact that many people still don't believe in that scientific theory. I do believe one sentence would be appropriate as discussed in WP:NPOV. Oldag07 (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
We're not taking a side--it's reported that the Valve one is the sequel. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 12:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Just because China claims Taiwan is part of its territory doesn't make Taiwan part of its territory. Just because one of the developers of DOTA (not all of them) claims that DOTA 2 is the definitive sequel to DOTA, doesn't mean it is. Oldag07 (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Has it been disputed? There's been the trademark kerfluffle, but no one else has branded their game the sequel to DotA. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we've spoken all we need to about LoL and HoN, since they're games inspired by, by not making claim to the DotA name. I'd say this is somewhat similar to the story of the Counter-Strike franchise. The current developer took his mod and brought it with him to Valve and now they own the franchise; down to every last character and game play element. The developer of CS left Valve, but Valve still owns the game, so nothing else matters- it's their sequel. IceFrog is the current developer of DotA, so he has the final say in what happens to the franchise and what really is the sequel. I find that taking into serious consideration the hope that a video game clone (HoN) or the viewpoints of former, (former being the key word), developers, that DotA belongs to them is simply ridiculous. There already are mentions of the inspired games, so let's leave it at that. The sequel section will not grow too much, but will simply be a basic summary about what happens after Warcraft III DotA goes to the grave. DarthBotto talk•cont 07:26, 07 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as a point of interest, Dota 2 is now officially recognized as the sequel, in the sense of both concept and legality. DarthBotto talk•cont 17:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What really spawned the genre

I recall everyone (who didn't care for the competitive SC) was playing this awesome SC map called Defend the Temple in 1998, extremely newbie friendly compared to normal SC. There's claim that "Aeon of Strife" spawned it but I have doubts: AoS must have just copied the DtT idea and add the hero element since AoS idea reads exactly like DtT with the heroes added. This is first I hear of AoS when I read about DOTA on Eurogamer. I recognized the whole "hey this is a whole new genre better than original SC" when playing DtT and was dumbfounded that it seemed like no one picked that up. I can't find any mention that AoS was around when DtT was around. However there's 500 Defense maps you can find in Nibbits and only 50 AoS type maps. Pretty evident which came first and which is/was more popular in SC, hint: it's prob the genre with more maps. DtT was very light hearted fun team play the way I remember it. Sorry to hear it's developed into what people in Eurogamer DOTA article comments talk about, not really interested in checking out.

I wish I could say check the dates but the only date (1/20/1999) I could find was for a modified version of the DTT map here: sc.nibbits.com/maps/view/131041/5defend-the-temple-se-bwscx If someone can prove AoS was released before then I just ask, why 500 defense maps and 50 AoS maps? It makes NO SENSE that AoS came first, then someone would have REMOVED the heroes to make the plain old Defense genre. I rest my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.178.205 (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

First, please sign your posts and put new topics at the bottom as it says at the top of this page. Secondly, we have sources saying DotA was based on AoS. We don't have any good sources for your assertion. So we stick to the reported facts. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute that "DOTA based on AoS" claim. This was about "what spawned the genre", which was claimed to be AoS. I claim this AoS is a derivative of the DtT. I also just poured through my old files and found a temple.zip with "defend or assault the templ.scm" map with date 9/16/1998. Of course this also depends on what you believe to be the characteristics that make the genre - if you take the Eurogamer DOTA review description *as is* then it matches very close to DtT map, but from what I read there are some subtler changes to spawning and objects that justify the "Based on AoS". So mechanics wise, based on AoS but the genre gameplay roots are in the defend maps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.243.178.205 (talk) 07:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment Request > Importance=High

This is in response to the request posted at WP:VG/A/R. I believe consensus needs to be built here.

  • Support - The subject of this article seems to have spawned a new genre. While it is certainly not "top" importance, I believe it may merit High-importance. In addition to the impact and legacy throughout popular culture, it definitely was a landmark title that inspired a slew of newer MMO RTS/RPG hybrid games. Salvidrim! 07:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - No, this is not of Top-importance, but the subject of this article has been hugely influential, to such an extent, in fact, that I don't believe I need to re-list the stand-alone video game titles that have been influenced by this title; they're listed on the assessment page. DarthBotto talk•cont 10:40, 01 January 2011 (UTC)
  • More than just a list of games, DotA is the base upon which every MOBA (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) game is built. Salvidrim! 12:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a part of my opinion, as well. DarthBotto talk•cont 05:04, 02 January 2011 (UTC)

Changing the Picture

Hello, this page looks really well done and informative, however I think there is one way that this page could possible be improved. You'll notice that the primary screenshot (the one titled 'a game of dota in progress') for this article is sub-par for this page, for numerous reasons:

1.) Ancient version (6.48b). Considering that the current version is 6.74c, its past time for an update, if only to match the fact that dota has come a long way since then.

2.) Outdated visuals. Skeleton king still has stormbolt. Headress still provides a weird green aura. No healthbars shown. New players to the genre could see this and be misled as to the current content of the game.

3.) If you look on the mini-map, you can see that there are only three heroes on the Sentinel side. Considering that dota is traditionally played 5v5, this could again be misleading to a new player.

Considering that I'm assuming most people editing this page play/have access to the game, I'm sure it would be extremely easy to get an up to date screenshot that more than accurately depicts dota in its current form. I'd suggest a similar screenshot in terms of what is being depicted- nothing too crazy like a gank or teamfight. The current screenshot is good in that regard. I'd provide one myself but my internet is in a bit of a rough spot at the moment.Clarty 94 (talk) 13:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

DotA is not a mod, it is a map

Yes, it is distributed in map file with extension .w3x , which is extension for warcraft 3 expansion scenario file. It does not modify any file of the original game, warcraft 3, so it is not a mod. I thought that wikipedia is about facts and not about some biased opinions. I am not a registered user, but I would be glad if some of you registered users would correct this misinformation. Thanks 11:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Sokoro

For the general reader and not the video gamer, they're equivalent. This is why it is described as a mod rather than a map. --Izno (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Eul is a Valve employee

A little note should be added in the sequel section on Eul being an employee at Valve working on Dota 2. Dota 2 producer Erik Johnson mentions it in this interview. There was a small controversy over the franchising of the term "DotA" by Guinsoo and Riot. It would be useful to anyone looking for information on this to be able to find where all the major developers are (that is Eul and Icefrog at Valve, and Guinsoo at Riot.)75.97.192.37 (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe all of that is covered in Dota 2. -- ferret (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate term

The term is wrong. DotA is not a "MOBA", it's a ARTS. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faestus (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

This entry states that DotA is a Multipalyer Online Battle Arena (Wtf is that???). DotA is a RTS. Please correct that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faestus (talk • contribs) 19:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


To be fair, the term for the genre is v. ambiguous. It's called a heap of different things by a heap of different people. I think that the best thing would be for the name of the genre to be omitted, and perhaps to state that a name for the genre is not available until it's been absolutely determined what the genre will be called. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrivvyWivvy (talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a particular source but the term MOBA was coined by Guinsoo. It seems to have caught on and I have seen it several other places on the web. I believe it is a appropriate term to use, but I am a bit partisan for League. Marcusyoder (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that the term MOBA is essentially Riot Games' trade name for League of Legends. Valve similarly uses the term ARTS for Dota 2. Because this article is on the Warcraft 3 Custom map I'd suggest calling it an RTS if you have to give it a genre. 75.97.192.37 (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Take it to Talk:Multiplayer Online Battle Arena. Changing the genre name requires changing...er... the genre name. All the related articles will shift with that. As it is, ARTS is considered an alias of MOBA, with MOBA being the common name. -- ferret (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm talking more about DotA just being a custom map of Warcraft 3. In the end you're still just playing Warcraft which is an RTS. It's like saying Chess960 is a totally different game and genre of game when in reality it's just a permutation of Chess. I don't think the DotA map has a genre 75.97.192.37 (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014

Change "is a multiplayer online battle arena" in the first sentence to "is a Action RTS game", ARTS is Dota2s official genre as labeled by Valve, the creator of the game, it's NOT moba.

PuroYO (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: For the same reason as the request just above this one. -- ferret (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2014

I kindly ask for a change in the term for the genre in which DotA belongs, from "multiplayer online battle arena" to "A-RTS" "Action Real Time Strategy" as this is both more descriptive of the genre and the name Valve wants to call it. Granted Vavle donesn't own DotA, but it's most recent prime developer, IceFrog, works at Valve. Also, the term MOBA comes from Riot games LoL, a leading competitor of Dota 2, DotA's "clone". MOBA was, incidentally, created by RIOT to separate itself from DotA. It can also simply be called DotA (or "Defence of the Acients", without the acronym), because that is actually the genres name, althou it might be confusing having the same name as the actual game.

178.16.78.120 (talk) 10:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as our article Multiplayer online battle arena starts:-

Multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA), also known as action real-time strategy (ARTS),
They are, therefore, synonymous. - Arjayay (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, the intellectual property for Dota technically is owned by Valve, so you're wrong on that count... DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Defense of the Ancients. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked. -- ferret (talk) 00:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request June 30, 2016

I think that by adding the list of heroes that are currently in Dota 2 and the heroes that has been taken out of the game will make the page a lot more interesting. Heroes Deleted Heroes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomyumyum1314 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a video game guide. -- ChamithN (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Additionally, this is the article for the original DOTA, not Dota 2. -- ferret (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Remake of Eul's Dota on Dota 2

There is a remake of the Eul-Dota versions on the Dota 2 arcade:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=725837387

It allows Dota 2 players to play with all the heroes and mechanics of the original Warcraft III Reign of Chaos Eul-Dota. Maybe it should be linked in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.63.16 (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

https://www.vg247.com/2016/09/07/someone-ported-one-of-the-first-warcraft-3-dota-maps-to-dota-2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.51.250 (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Dota 2 itself has all the heroes and 99% of the mechanics from Dota 1, so this is really just trivial. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"Dota 2 itself has all the heroes and 99% of the mechanics from Dota 1, so this is really just trivial.". That's actually not true. Don't forget: Dota Allstars is not ROC Dota. ROC's Sidereal Engine hero (a tank) was never ported into allstars, along with some others. The original ROC version also had a strong focus on summoning, and today's necrolyte, windrunner and lich were primarily summoners. Also, the whole corpse-aspects is gone is gone in Dota 2 (corpses were basically a second resources for the undead site in ROC Dota). The gold-pooling which was possible in eul's is also gone in Dota 2 and allstars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.52.77 (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

In that case, it's probably a better fit on the Dota 2 article, as that's where the gamemode is playable. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Defense of the Ancients. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Defense of the Ancients. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Defense of the Ancients. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Icefrogs Real Name

Is not Abdul Ismail. He's anonymous, to this day and age.

Just remove that part and the rest is fine.

It's literally a meme that you guys copied.

Now I know why my teachers taught me not to use wikipedia as a reliable source.

Cheers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyneic (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Evidence of IceFrog's name, including legal documents, has long existed. -- ferret (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
And his real name isn't relevant to this article anyway, only on his. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Is there any competent person to write more about DotA influence on the MOBA genre?

Is there any competent person who wants to write more about DotA, and generally Warcraft Editor, influence on the MOBA genre? Last hitting mechanics, items, they were all part of Warcraft World Editor "limitations", which then became standard for the whole genre. On the other side, we have Heroes of the Storm, which is not "limited" by Warcraft Editor (no last hits, no items...), but it is still highly inspired by the same game, trying to include as many original Warcraft heroes as it can. First maps in the game have been influenced by Warcraft (instead sci-fi, "near future", or "dark theme") as well, despite the fact that HotS has originated from the StarCraft Map Editor and engine.

In addition, not only DotA as a game was inspiration to the other MOBA games, but DotA lead designers and original creators had direct influence in the development of the next two most popular games in the genre. To be fair, it has been noted in the article, but that section needs expansion. EchoBlu (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I agree it should be expanded, but nobody is saying that this this game did not popularized the genre, so I'm not sure why you seem to be arguing that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Why do you think I am arguing? I even wrote "To be fair, it has been noted in the article, but that section needs expansion." Can you just WP:GF? EchoBlu (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Because you typed all of this when you could have simply said the article could use some expansion. Its impact on the MOBA genre and esports as a whole is known, no need to point that out on a talk page. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
When did explaining suggestion become problem on Wikipedia? EchoBlu (talk) 11:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I suggest understanding that Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, and game details and mechanics like last-hitting are not relevant to include. Most of what you're talking about above isn't covered in reliable sources and thus should not be included. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 04:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"Steve "Guinsoo" Feak" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Steve "Guinsoo" Feak. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 7#Steve "Guinsoo" Feak until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defense_of_the_Ancients/Archive_4&oldid=1142541739"