Dota 2 is Better than League of Legends
Debate Rounds (4)
I accept. And I also want to state that the burden of proof is on my opponent to try to prove that Dota 2 is better than LoL. I don't need to try and show that LoL is better than Dota 2. I just need to show that Dota 2 isn't better than LoL. I await my opponent's arguments =)
Before you assume something, opponent, keep in mind I think both games are great games. I just find one better than another.
First matters off, let me discuss the formation of each game.
League of Legends was designed by the original mod for the Warcraft III engine Defense of the Ancients (known as DotA to most). The development of League began when Riot Games partnered with Steve "Guinsoo" Feak (Guinsoo's Rageblade, anyone?), who had previously worked on the original map for DotA. The idea was that the game would be standalone as opposed to another sequel using the same engine. Upon which, League was born.
Dota 2 is the sequel to the mod for the Warcraft III engine, Defense of the Ancients (known to most as DotA.) Its map was based off of the "Aeon of Strife" map for StarCraft. To make the map, the team used the map editor of Warcraft III's prequel: Warcraft II. The first version of this game was released in 2003, and has become extremely popular since, sparking the sequel which was made by Valve.
Now let me head straight in to my argument:
I. Learning Curve
Many new players to Dota 2, or some used to LoL (I know I was) didn't understand the game at first. The controls were very confusing, especially for the items. And the idea of a TP scroll seemed ridiculous to me. Why didn't they just have a Recall button? I quit midway through my first game and didn't play it again until three to four months later. When I logged it, it was an entirely new patch. At the beginning, it asked me if I had played a MOBA before. I said yes. It then gave me a list of MOBAs to choose from, and when I clicked "League of Legends", I found out that, in game, it had changed the settings for me to be almost identical to LoL! They made it feel at least a bit more comfortable for me to play, even though I didn't truly understand what was going on.
I shall not deny the learning curve is a LOT steeper in Dota 2 than in LoL. But I find that to be better in some cases. Imagine, opponent, you were faced with two tasks. One to learn a relatively simple task, and one to learn a complex one. Most would choose the easy one, because it's, well, easy. However, a few people would choose the difficult one. Note that I am NOT saying LoL is simple, just simpler. And that makes it good in its own regard; it's simple, fun, and easy to understand. However, taking the time to learn and perfect something much harder is more rewarding, because you end up feeling like you accomplished something that was very difficult, and you feel proud of yourself. The thrill of winning a tough match, or stopping that Faceless Void from getting fed (which is remarkably hard) is a lot more rewarding, it seems, than getting a kill in LoL, because it's EASIER for those kills to happen. You sometimes feel empty after killing an easy opponent, because they didn't provide a thrill, a rush, a sense of excitement and danger. This is why people keep coming back to Dota 2, and so do I.
Note: graphics do NOT define if a game is good or not. But graphics help to enhance the gaming experience you're in. After playing a few games of Dota, I simply could NOT switch back to LoL. The graphics seemed HORRENDOUS to me after what I've been used to. While they seemed sort of anime-like to me at first, it just lost its appeal after playing another game. As I said before, while graphics do not define if a game is good or not, I just could not play the game. The graphics aim to be good, but they aren't good, at least, compared to Dota's, and that is a major issue for me. The issue is with this, games such as Minecraft/Robocraft INTENTIONALLY have bad graphics. When a game is played as much as LoL, you think they could improve their graphics. And while they are current;y working to do so, they have essentially used the same map with the same graphics (Summoner's Rift) for about five years, without any major changes.
Dota 2 has a more strategy-focused gameplay as opposed to LoL. Wile it is undeniable both games have great amounts of strategy implemented in them, Dota 2 opens up more possibilities to strategy, such as "creep stacking" and "denying" creeps and towers.
In League, if you and your lane opponent farm passively, with no assistance from a jungler, then you both gain a huge gold advantage over the others, with virtually no one stopping you. With the chance to deny, you can stop your opponent from getting minions while still playing passively, opening up the possibility of your opponent not getting levels and XP and putting you ahead of them. Denying towers is also a huge deal. When you deny a tower, members of the opposite team only gain 100 gold each. When they destroy a tower, people end up getting 200-300 gold each, as well as the appropriate XP if you're near the tower. When you deny a tower, you end up denying the enemy 500-1000 gold. That is a HUGE difference!
Creep stacking also allows for more strategic jungling. You aggro a creep and drag it out of its home before a minute hits. After it hits, a new pair of creeps spawn, because the game has detected no creeps are in the area.
Dota 2 is undeniably LESS popular than its counterpart, League of Legends. Despite this, I still believe Dota 2 is the better game. Why? Because popularity DOESN'T DEFINE IF A GAME IS GOOD OR NOT.
So many people think LoL is the better game simply because it has a larger playerbase than Dota. There are many cases I can think of that the less popular game is better than a more popular one. For instance, the example I can think of is in the FPS Category: COD, Battlefield, and TF2.
Whilst all related in one way, each has completely different gameplay and playerbases, the largest being COD, second being Battlefield, and third being TF2. But I play TF2 more than any of those other games. Why? Because it's simply more fun. The people playing the game are a lot more friendly than the large abundance of 10-year olds who play COD, and the total tryhards who play BF.
Community is also an issue for me. With League, the community is less than hospitable to newcomers. The best example I can find of this is the video "Why I Love League of Legends But Hate Playing it". (Link is in sources)
The person in the video was talking about how they were all noobs, and it was a fun experience (especially building IE on Annie), even though they didn't know what they were doing. When it got to the later stages, however, they felt like they HAD to do certain things or else everyone would get mad at them. And this is why he loves LoL, but hates playing it, and the same goes for me.
In Dota, the game is just fun throughout. Whilst difficult at first, the game's experience grows and expands as does your knowledge of the game, and you get to have more fun with it. People don't yell at you for going Dark Seer jungle, because you CAN. They don't even get mad at ES jungle, because you CAN do it. If I tried Akali jungle in League (despite her AoE capabilities), people WOULD rage and flame me for my decision, even if I think if it's a perfectly viable choice (And if it works, it ain't stupid).
My conclusion for this segment is this: Dota 2 is superior to LoL in a number of ways, including graphics, community, and overall experience. Both games have their pros and cons, however, I find Dota 2 to be the better of the two games for the reasons above.
Opponent, or anyone, if you read this all the way, I thank you for your time. And opponent, I wish you good luck in the next round. Your argument should be interesting as well. Thanks. :)
Thank you Pro, for your arguments. Since there was no particular format stated, I assume that I have the option either rebut or to make my own arguments; I will be choosing the former.
First, I want to say that I'm actually playing Devil's Advocate in this debate, as I personally love Dota 2, and play it significantly more than LoL. My advocation, however, is that Dota 2 is not better than LoL. I feel that the whole debate is pointless. The debate itself is very subjective in nature, and no game is truly be better than the other. Now I will go onto the rebuttals:
I. Learning Curve
It's great that Dota 2 sets up controls like LoL, but I fail to see any crazy advantage here. Sure, it saves you maybe 5 minutes of setting up the controls, but that's about it. Plus, many people who play Dota 2 as their first Moba, won't find any advantage out of that option.
Once again, I bring up the subjective nature of this (and all of the other) arguments. My opponent's assertion is, "Imagine, opponent, you were faced with two tasks. One to learn a relatively simple task, and one to learna complex one. Most would choose the easy one, be cause, it's, well, easy. Howeveer, a few people would choose the difficult one."
Once again, this is a stale-mate argument, and by that I mean that there is nothing "better". If you take up a task that's hard, then it will take a long time to perfect your skill, and thus it will be more rewarding. That logic makes sense. But also, if you take up the easy task, it still takes a lifetime to actually master it, and become good at it, and still it will be very rewarding when you achieve your goal. In both scenarios, you will achieve a reward. It's understood that it may be easier to get a kill in Dota 2. But we can assume that 2 kills in LoL is as hard as getting 1 kill in Dota 2. Either way, everytime someone gets 2 kills is LoL, they'll feel very happy, just as the Dota 2 player is happy. Again, the whole argument can be made for both games, and there is none that's better than the other.
My opponent first states that, "graphics do NOT define if a game is good or not. But graphics help to enhance gaming experience you're in... The graphics [in LoL] seemed HORRENDOIUS to me after what I've been used to."
Graphics do not define a good game, as my opponent stated. Yet he still decides to use this contention to prove that Dota 2 is better, and I don't understand why. Either way, the reason LoL has worse graphics is because it was released before Dota 2. The engine is older, and doesn't have the graphics capabilities of Dota 2. If another MOBA were to be made in 7 years, that MOBA would like better than Dota 2, because it would have a better engine. This doesn't mean that Moba would be a better game than Dota 2. It just means it would look better. Again, graphics cannot tel if a game is good or bad, and my opponent himself admitted that. Different graphics will appeal to different people, and this once again brings up my idea of subjective these arguments are, and that no one game is truly better than the other.
My opponent brings up two strategies, creep-stacking and denying. I'm going to rebut to both:
This is one of the characteristics of Dota 2 that Dota 2 fans usually use as arguments against LoL because Riot didn't implemented it in their game. It is supposed to create gameplay giving you something to do in lane phase until the kills, fights and ganks start. Or giving you a tool for lane control.
But this is false. If you are in a solo lane, denying more or denying "better" is beneficial and it's better that you do. Better deniers get better results. It is a skill players have to learn and master.
Sadly, there are no disadvantages to denying. Of course, if you can't deny, that's bad for you. But if you don't get punished because you deny in a different way that you would get punished for farming, then it's not creating gameplay, it's limiting it. It is possible for lane control without denying.
It is difficult, but is possible, and you can see many scenarios where it's important to do it in LoL The only case it makes a different is in the trio lanes (which are not possible in LoL), but that doesn't change the fact that it's limiting the rest of scenarios.
This is a bug in the original DotA caused by a timer limited by the map editor of warcraft 3.
This suffer the same problems that denying suffer. At some points and with some heroes you have to do it, you need to do it.
IV. Popularity and Community
So my opponent brings up a contention now about Popularity and states, "Because popularity DOESN'T DEFINE IF A GAME IS GOOD OR NOT"
Again, not sure why he would try to prove that Dota 2 is better from this aspect if he clearly states that it doesn't define whether it's good or not.
Next, my opponent brings up the idea that the LoL community is not as welcoming as the Dota 2 community. Here's the thing; there will always be bitter people from both communities and there will always be nice people. It's almost as if it comes down to luck on who you meet.
Something like this can happen in any game, not just these two, and it's just a matter of who you're playing with. It's seriously just the luck of the draw, because there are good and bad people in both communities. In dota 2, people were recently starting to make smurf accounts so that they could beat noobs. There is a post about this guy, who was playing with his friends, who were at a very low level, and would lose because there was always some guy with a smurf account . But someone like me would never do such a thing. It just depends on the person, and once again shows, that the argument over the community is pointless because good and bad people exist in both.
I once again thank Pro for his arguments, and look forward to the rebuttals next round =)
I. Learning Curve
"It's great that Dota 2 sets up controls like LoL, but I fail to see any crazy advantage here. Sure, it saves you maybe 5 minutes of setting up the controls, but that's about it. Plus, many people who play Dota 2 as their first Moba won't find any advantage out of that option."
But the thing that sets it apart from the other MOBAs is that the convenience is there if you need it. They try to adjust the settings to your liking so that you become used to the game faster. It's been shown that people work better in a more comfortable environment, or an environment that they're used to. If the option is there from those converting from one MOBA to Dota, whether it be League or another, they feel at least a bit more comfortable before beginning to learn the game.
And I agree with your second half of the argument. For those who are new, the option is pointless, with no need. So they will get used to the controls Dota 2 itself has to offer. Or better yet, create a set of controls that feels comfortable to them! I use the SERT keys to replace QWER, and use other letter keys near those to activate my items. And it feels so much more comfortable because everything is together in one place. So new players can just find what's best suited for them in the options.
"If you take up a task that's hard, then it will take a long time to perfect your skill, and thus it will be more rewarding. That logic makes sense. But also, if you take up the easy task, it still takes a lifetime to actually master it, and become good at it, and still it will be very rewarding when you achieve your goal."
Again, my opponent makes his point clear, and it is indeed a good point. Both would be happy. However, this is where problems start to occur.
Imagine another scenario. A three year old presses a key on a piano. He is happy that he was able to accomplish such a task.
Five year old him is happy after learning his first easy song on the piano.
20 year old him is happy after mastering multitudes of Beehtoven's old masterpieces.
The trend here is that the piano player's skill level increases, as does his standards. He doesn't find it rewarding to do the simple things, because they simply don't have any real challenge or fun associated with them.
The same concept is applicable in these two MOBAs. If a League player is continually dominating every one of the matches he plays in, he won't find any challenge in the game, and won't find it fun. After all, challenge is the reason MOBAs exist. The player strives to show his true power against players equal or better in skill compared to him. It is a true test of what he has learned over his time in playing the MOBA. And if you find a good challenge, and you play well, you have fun. This is why I switched to Dota 2. I was doing really well in LoL, and the opponents weren't much of a challenge anymore, except for the occasional match. Starting a new and fresh MOBA inherited more challenges with it, and the feat of overcoming the obstacle and learning a new game made me happy that there was actually a challenge awaiting me.
In this argument, my opponent states the reason LoL has worse graphics, and comes back to my old idea of graphics do not define if a game is good or not.
Well, as I stated in my previous argument, when a game is played as much as LoL, they could have at least attempted to improve the state of their map. It has been essentially the same map since the start, with NO ATTEMPT to change it graphics-wise for about 4-5 years. I understand your argument about the engine and its capabilities, but that could have been refined and improved upon as well before the SR change. And finally, when Riot actually did announce the graphics change on their map, I liked it a LOT more than the old map. They actually ATTEMPTED to try and make an improved map for the community!
I resume my case from the previous argument: If a game is played as much as LoL, Riot Games should have noticed that their map and graphics were outdated, and they should have worked to improve it. And while they are currently working on VUs for characters and the new map update, their ability icons as well could be greatly refined on, as they do not look like the standard a game as popular as LoL should be holding.
My opponent states that he agrees denying is a skill players have to learn and master. He also states that it is possible for a lane to go without denying, which is also true. However, I don't agree with how he said it limits gameplay if you don't get punished for executing a deny.
Most MOBA players in the competitive scene analyze and study their opponents, learn their weaknesses, and punish them for said weaknesses. In lower levels of play, most new players don't punish players for doing tasks that should be punishable. If one player gets too risky for a last hit, you could kill him, but your carry says you can't, so you don't. Then you grow into the game thinking about which deeds are punishable and which aren't. Then when you get to a ranked/competitive scene, people absolutely dominate you because you get too risky and think it's an OK thing to get a little too deep into enemy territory if it's for a deny/last hit.
Denying, does, in fact, PROMOTE gameplay instead of hinder it. Valve gives us the possibility of such a mechanic existing so that those playing actually use it to their advantage. The advantages of denying:
You deny the enemy gold.
You deny the enemy XP.
You may lead them into a trap for a last hit, deny the minion, then kill the overextender.
All of these reasons are GREAT reasons to deny, so when you say denying limits gameplay, I don't understand your reasoning. It opens up a broad spectrum of options for you to do if you can't find a good last hit. And if all else fails, and you can't deny, you just harass the enemy for getting their last hits! The existence of denying allows players to creatively outsmart their opponents in other ways LoL can't do.
Creep-stacking is also essential for junglers who need lots of farm early on. It helps them to gain a boost over the other jungler if they decide not to do this.
Let's say Lycan is jungling against an Enigma. The Lycan uses his wolves to aggro the monsters out of their spawn area, and when a minute hits, he has a second pair of creeps that he can easily take down! If he knows how to pull off this mechanic, he could easily be lots of gold ahead of the enemies, and pull of some ganks, and therefore cause his team to get ahead and win.
This encourages newer players who aren't aware of this mechanic to grow in their understanding of
In scenarios like this, where you have to learn and think creatively, I don't understand how you think such things limit gameplay when they do in fact promote it.
IV. Popularity and Community
I bring this up again for a reason many LoL players use to show their game is better. "Our game is more popular than yours, therefore it's better" is a lot of what I hear from those who argue about how LoL is better and this a very pointless reason to argue for your cause. Even if your game is more popular, that doesn't make said game better.
As well, my opponent doesn't directly address my argument of how LoL has a worse community than that of Dota's. He just states how both have bad people in the communities. However, when I've played on LoL, just to have a fun game with my friends, there's always some whiner, whether it be on our team or the enemies', that always complains "omg team fed 1 kill gg" or something amongst those lines. I HATE playing with those people because they aren't fun and won't be quiet and actually play the game. And this is more so present in LoL than in Dota 2, which is why I prefer the community in Dota 2.
Thank you for reading, and good luck in the next round. :)
TheCookingCardsman forfeited this round.
Thank you to anyone who read this debate, and please vote Pro. I hope Con is able to make one last argument before voting occurs.
TheCookingCardsman forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.