Dota 2 is a higher quality game than League of Legends
Debate Rounds (5)
I would like to bring this topic to light, and nobody has voted a clear opinion yet, so I disabled voting comments so people can vote their opinion somewhat anonymously.
Firstly, the rules.
Please be literate. I do not want someone that goes "FK U SHUT UP LEAGUE IS BETTER". No matter how determined you are to drive somthing home, please stay on topic and any replies like this will probably be reported.
If a point is countered and you are unable to defend it, it is considered moot.
Round 1 is for acceptance and initial definitions. Initial arguments by Con are allowed, but not encouraged.
Round 2 is for initial arguments.
Round 3 is for rebuttals and other arguments.
Round 4 is for rebuttals and defences.
Round 5 is for defences only.
If you wouldn't like me swearing, just mention it.
Please number your arguments for easy rebuttals and defences.
Thank you for reading the rules. I hope you have a fun debate.
Moot: Unusable, discredited, false.
Dota 2: A HD remake of DoTA, an MOBA, made by Valve.
League of Legends (May be referred to as League or LoL.): A standalone game made by Riot Games, which is also an MOBA.
MOBA: Multiplayer Online Battle Arena, a genre of game.
Excellent, let's begin.
1. Dota 2 is a more balanced game.
From what I've heard, LoL has an Influence Points system, used to buy your favourite champions for an edge without having to wait a day for the free champions to reroll. Now, I think this is a system that gives casual players a choice. Play more or wait for the roll to pick the one you want. Dota 2 doesn't do that. The main gamemode is All Pick, which lets players pick from the entire pool of heroes, providing that nobody else has picked the hero.
2. Dota 2 is more complex, but in a way that allows flexibiliy.
In Dota 2, you can play a match as a supporting hero, for half the game, and then buy something INSANE, and then carry the team the rest of the way through. Likewise, you can play a carry hero and keep denying creeps (that's minions for LoL.), not letting the enemy team gaining an advantage. Sure, you'll get shouted at, but without purposely trying to give the enemies an advantage, you can't be reported.
3. Dota 2 has better character design.
Let's take a look at two characters, Juggernaut from Dota 2, and Master Yi from LoL.
Juggernaut: Tribal mask that honours tradition.
Master Yi: Some helmet thing that resembles something you'd see in Splinter Cell.
Juggernaut: Practical blade, its strength comes from its wielder.
Master Yi: A huge sword with rungs, which is bright green. He's just asking for his sword to be grabbed and thrown away.
Juggernaut: Muscular, but not too over the top.
Master Yi: Scrawny, with terrible proportions.
Juggernaut: Lightweight armor, allows agility while still being protective.
Master Yi: HE HAS SWORDS ON HIS BOOTS. WHAT THE HELL DOES HE USE THEM FOR?
Juggernaut: "There is a fine line between bravery, and stupidity." Sticks to 'tribal samurai' theme.
Master Yi: "Your skills are inferior!" Indicates lack of depth.
I'll respond to his points before saying my own:
Point One: DotA is more balanced
First: Available champions doesn't actually affect how a game is balanced out. Balance is determined by champion ability and statistics, not who is available for play each week.
Second: Turn this argument in my favor: League is far more simplistic to newer players in terms of champion selection, allowing them to try a handful of free champions (that rotate on a weekly basis) and allows new players to branch out from there once they have a better understanding of the game and what they like playing, without actually harming the "balance" of the game. Compare this to DotA who just opens up every champion and throws new players into the deep end, which is less "beginner-friendly".
Point Two: Champion Flexibility
First: You can do this in League too. Popular support picks, to continue along with the example, have actually been adapted to other lanes and roles if they've been found to actually be good at more than supporting, such as Lulu and Karma being adapted to a mage, Ability Power Carry role.
Second: This is a point in League's favor: doing this in DotA gets you flamed and insulted. Doing this in League is fine and you won't get flamed. This mean that League has a better community than DotA, a community that is more accepting of experimenting and trying new things, and thus makes it a higher quality game.
Point Three: Champion Appearances
I'm not even bothering to respond to this point because it's 100% subjective. And even if my opponent doesn't like the way champions look in League that doesn't make it a bad game.
My argument is simple: the resolution is asking for pro to prove that DotA 2 is a higher quality game than League. The converse of that is for me to prove that DotA 2 is not a higher quality game than League. Therefore, my argument is this: League and DotA 2 are games of equal quality and caliber. They're both highly rated and played MOBA games with different strengths and weaknesses, but both are still solid games. Moreover, it's actually nigh impossible to pick out a "better" game without diverging into subjective tastes and preferences, as you can see from my opponent's arguments. As such, DotA 2 is not a higher quality game than League, since they're both on even footing, which means the resolution is negated.
Dota 2 also incorporates a 'Limited Heroes' mode, which gives a pool of 20 pre-hand-picked heroes, selected for newer players, as well as a 'Training vs Bots' Mode. This allows players to practice different strategies to see if they work, without any flaming. A bunch of training minigames have also been provided recently for the newest players. It also has a 'Co-op vs Bots' mode for slightly more experienced players, whose players are generally more forgiving for players that want to try All Pick heroes. There are also recommended items for each hero, and player-made hero builds submitted through Steam Workshop.
In LoL, however, a skilled, but specialised player might not be able to win against an equally skilled, but equally specialised player who played long enough for his favourite hero.
As said before, 'Practice with bots' gives a free environment for different strategies, for seeing if certain builds work.
I can't see how I can turn this in my favour. This point is moot, unless you can counter this defence.
I've included my reason for 3 in 4.
4. Dota 2 is tailored towards less immature audiences, who give a better experience to each other.
As said in my previous argument for 3, in character design, everything is practical. Nothing looks too flashy. Heroes and some items have a bio or lore. This is somewhat useful when attracting artists and writers. In LoL, however, everything is more cartoony and less immersive.
5. In Dota 2, you have to be very conscious of your playing.
For example, In LoL, if you die, you don't lose money. When you defeat Baron Nashor in LoL, the entire team receives a buff. No gold loss on death allows less punishment for tower-diving (running past a tower to kill a running hero at an early stage), since the tower-diver is killed by the turret. In Dota 2, this is different. Communication is more necessary to coordinate who takes the item which grants the buff upon killing the miniboss, Roshan.
Countering my opponent's point.
Now, this point is quite subjective, because some can say that some points are more important than others. So, care to elaborate?
I'll respond line-by-line.
"Dota 2 also incorporates ... submitted through Steam Workshop."
1. League does this too. In terms of game modes League has a game mode where you can play against bots to practice other builds and stategies, as well as a Co-op vs. Bots mode as well. In addition the tutorial for new League players offers the same "training minigames" that DotA offers. Not only that but Riot includes reccomended builds for every champions, and there are numerous player and professional builds available for viewing for any champion. There's literally no difference between League and DotA here.
"In LoL, however, ... long enough for his favourite hero."
1. That's kind of why it's a game...
2. This is the same thing in DotA too: you can come up with a really unique and cool build for a hero in DotA but you can still lose against someone else in DotA.
"As said before, ... certain builds work."
This doesn't respond to my point. Your argument is saying that if you wanna try out non-conventional builds and don't want to get flamed you have to play against bots to practice it. I'm saying that in League you can try non-conventional builds out in regular games and still not get flamed, as well as take the non-conventional build against bots to practice it.
"As said in my previous ... cartoony and less immersive."
And as I said before, I'm not going to bother responding to this argument because it's based off of personal tastes and is 100% subjective. There's no way to objectively measure anything about this argument, thus making it impossible to weigh in terms of the round.
"In Dota 2, you have to be very conscious of your playing."
1. Turn this argument in my favor. Being less conscious of your playing in fear of being penalized for dying means that you have less to worry about when you're trying to make a big play, leading to more hypy plays, which means that games are, on balance, more action-packed and enjoyable.
2. But even if you don't buy that, you still have to be really conscious of your play. Even the slightest positional mistakes can lead to big gains in global objectives for the enemy team. For reference, watch the video of a Counter Logic Gaming verses Curse Gaming professional match where the entire game revolved around just lane rotations and map positioning rather than fighting and kills. ;
Elaborating on my argument:
I'm a little confused with what my opponent doesn't understand, since the argument is fairly straight-forward, so I'll try to rehash it out. The debate that we're having is if DotA is a superior game to league. My opponent is arguing that DotA is, indeed, a superior game. I'm arguing that DotA is not a superior game. This gives me a few choices in how I want to do this. I can either argue that League is superior to DotA, or that DotA and League are equal. And while I've listed numerous reasons why League is superior to DotA in response to your arguments, my main position remains this: both League and DotA are games of equal calibre. There's no way to actually objectively measure the two games against each other. The only arguments that can be fielded against one game or another game are subjective preferences, as you can see from Pro's point about character models and how people look, which is based on entirely personal preference. Because there's no way to actually determine which game is better without devolving into personal preferences, there's no way to actually say that one is better than the other. This has two implications in terms of the debate:
1. It's impossible for pro to prove that DotA is better than League, which means you negate the resolution and vote con because he failed to uphold his burden of proof.
2. You default to saying that they are both better games until someone can provide an objective metric to decide on which is a better game. Since no such metric exists, and saying that they are both equal is a negative position to take rather than an affirmative position to take, the resolution gets negated and you vote con.
"This is the same in Dota 2..."
That's not what I meant to ask. What if, say, Player A was very specialised on a champion because he played one week of him through the random champion roll, but didn't grind enough for him? He would be beat by Player B, who is equally specialised, but has bought his favourite champion. Player A would have to wait for the champion roll or grind for the IP.
"If you wanna try non-conventional builds and don't want to get flamed..."
That's not what I meant, either. I'm saying if you want to try out non-conventional builds you should play 'co-op vs bot' matches, just to see if they have glaring weaknesses that are easily counterable. (Easily, not the same as simply.) After that, you're actually quite welcome to do so in any other sort of matches.
Alright, I don't have anything to say.
"Playing in fear..."
No, it's not. Most Dota 2 players just play carefully, not in fear. In LoL, the 'no gold reduction on death' leads to carelessness, leading to deaths having less of an impact on your playing.
"Leading to more hypy plays..."
Dota 2 gives players a chance to use skills with an even lesser time gap, by allowing players to queue skills together. If you don't buy that, then try watching 'The Play'. It's footage from a Dota 2 tournament called The International. I don't know how to link videos like you did, so just type 'The Play Dota 2' in the search box in Youtube, and watch it.
Countering my opponent's point.
This is very subjective. What's stopping people from saying that some points are more important or better (even though they're the same quality but different)? As you said, no such metric exists, so we can't be sure that they are the the same.
I shall go line by line again. I will also give a summary of how the debate has shaped up so far at the end of this round, given that the debate is almost over.
"That's not what I meant to ask. ... or grind for the IP."
1. This is literally what I responded to. Carry over all my previous responses that he never responded to.
2. Doesn't even matter because builds in League are flexible. What I mean by this is that even though the champions may be different, their roles and strengths are usually similar i.e. all mage champions usually benefit from x and y builds, all tanks usually benefit from a and b builds, etc. So even if the champion you were using it on a week ago went off free, there's probably a new champion you can use it on that became free. Wash, rinse, repeat until you have the IP to get the champion you want to match the build you want.
3. Even if he's winning this argument, though, that doesn't provide any kind of objective metric to base a "which is superior" decision on, rather it's just him saying "I prefer to have every character playable from the word go", which is entirely subjective. So even if you like his argument here, it's not sufficient for him to win the debate.
"That's not what I meant, either. ... in any other sort of matches."
1. This is still what I responded to. Carry over my responses.
2. My response still applies. League doesn't flame you for trying new builds in any kind of queue, meaning you're free to experiment in any kind of game mode. And this turns the argument in my favor because if I'm winning this argument then I'm showing how League has a better community of players than DotA does, which improves player experience and enjoyment.
Also, a note for voters, he concedes to my response to his argument about how the characters look/act in game, which means I'm successfully refuting the argument there.
"No, it's not. Most Dota 2 players ...less of an impact on your playing."
1. League players play carefully too (refer back to my argument about how the slightest positional errors can lead to big gains in global objectives). No difference.
2. This doesn't respond to my argument at all. The lack of a definitive "death penalty" like the one in DotA encourages people to try to make those hypy plays, which leads to more action-packed and overall enjoyable games.
3. Turn this argument in my favor: having deaths not have as big of an impact on your playing is actually better than having it impact your playing because a) it means that dying a few times early doesn't mean it's game over already and b) it leads to more come-from-behind wins in the late game, which means that not only are there more enjoyable games to play even if you get behind, but also that come-from-behind wins are more enjoyable to play, especially for the team that's coming from behind.
"Dota 2 gives players a chance ... to queue skills together."
1. So does League. No difference.
2. Non-responsive to my actual point. It doesn't matter if it's present in DotA, I'm saying there's more of it in League.
"This is very subjective. ... that they are the the same."
There's nothing to stop people from saying that. But that would be a subjective basis a.k.a you saying x is more important is subjective because it's essentially you just saying I prefer x, which doesn't prove that x is actually better. In order to actually say that x is superior to y, we need an objective metric under which to measure x and y. You've yet to provide any such metric, and since the last round is only for defense and not for new arguments, you cannot. This means that at this point it's impossible for you to prove that DotA 2 is better than League of Legends.
This debate breaks down really simply -
1. You negate off of my main argument: that DotA 2 and League of Legends are of equal caliber because there's no way to weigh between them without delving into subjective opinions. And since we need an objective metric to decide if something is superior to something else, it's impossible for him to affirm the resolution. He hasn't provide any kind of way to show how something is superior to another thing, we have to way to weigh arguments for one side or for another side. We just don't have anything to work with in regards to that. This means he has failed to uphold his burden of proof, while I was successful in mine, so you negate the resolution.
2. But even if you don't buy that, I'm sufficiently refuting every single argument he's provided, along with multiple case turns where I show areas that League of Legends is superior to DotA 2. So even if we're evaluating the debate based off subjective preferences, I'm still winning.
Terrencegan forfeited this round.
Whelp, that's an anti-climactic ending. I'll summarize the round again just for added clarity.
My main argument that effectively goes unresponded to is that there's no objective way one can say DotA 2 is superior to League of Legends simply because there's no objective metric which to weigh the two. Any kind of argument that can be made in terms of which game is better, whether it be the availability of playable champions or what they look like to how the game feels, are based entirely off of subjective preferences, not anything actually objective and/or factual. It was on my opponent to provide some sort of metric with which we could measure the two against each other, and he never did so. At that point you negate the resolution because he failed to meet his burden of proof while I'm better meeting mine because I can say either "they're equally good games" or "you can't measure the two so the resolution cannot be true" and win.
But if you don't like that argument, I'm winning on literally every other argument being presented in the round. He's no doing enough work to answer back all of my responses, as well as numerous points where I'm turning his arguments against him and showing how League of Legends is superior in quality to DotA 2. You can take any one of those and negate off of that.
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.