Talk:Defense of the Ancients/Archive 2

Aeon of Strife
I think Aeon of Strife should at least be mentioned at some point in this article considering that is what the original Dota was based on... the game design is exactly the same.
 * This article is not about game modification but about all of them. Also please sign up your posts by typing four tildes( ~ ) after the post. —comment added by  DarthRahn(u/t\c )  17:47, 16-May, 2007 year (UTC).

No need for fanboyism on a Wiki article.
removed a portion of the article which claimed the game to use "popular heroes" (This is an opinion, not fact) and written poorly in general. I also removed a portion that completely contradicted the section before it in which it claims a sequel was made when two paragraphs earlier the article states there was no sequel...

Also removed a few pointless sentences ( (the official multiplayer gaming server network for Warcraft III by Blizzard Entertainment). ). This sentence is pointless when a simple click on the word Battle.net will suffice. --Lucavious 17:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

DotA Allstars
There is already a DotA Allstars page. Why does this page exist? It should be merged or deleted. And I don't think that Dota Allstars should be merged into here - because it is the notable topic. Mention of classic dota could be included in the history section of Dota Allstars. The writing on this article is much better, I would like to see that sort of writing end up in DotA Allstars. --JRavn 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

DotA Allstars and DotA are two totally different things. DotA is the genre, DotA Allstars is a game in the genre. And I know that DotA is an Aeon of Strife game. It should not be merged, deleted maybe. Youngminii 08:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The genre is really AoS - DotA it really just a successful spin on it.

DotA is not a genre, it is a custom game that has had lots of spin-offs (like wintermaul). I agree with JRavn, this page shouldn't even be here. Nobody plays the original anymore, they haven't for an extremely long time. I have only ever seen it on the European server on Battle.net once, and that was around 2 years ago. DotA Allstars is extremely popular, so I would say merge a few parts into the DotA Allstars page. Emperor Jackal 16:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Important Note on Vandalism!!
Please do not edit, change or delete any part of the sections of the version of DotA that you do not like. Please only make contributions and do not name clans or users that do not make consistant balance changes and new features to the map. This is a form of vandalism and your ip address and isp are so conveniently provided by this site.

--- There have been several edits being in favor of Classic/Outland/Allstars, and some irrelevant comments something like: "allstars sucks, way too imbalanced" or "classic sucks" .... if you wish to contribute please do NOT insert such comments; instead put any information regarding your favorite DotA variant into the appropriate category; and please do not remove entire sections of the DotA version you dislike. Thank you all for the cooperation.

suggest removal of DotA:Allstars lingo
Since the lingo of Allstars is available at Defense_of_the_Ancients:_Allstars, maybe we should consider removing the Allstars-lingo section in the DotA page and instead put a link from the DotA page to the Allstars page (in the section which says "Specific to Allstars only"... Any comments??

Comment: I think the biggest problem is that if anything, it shouldn't be in any article at all in my opinion, since the list is just general terms that many, many games use, even outside of the blizzard community. Claiming that stuff is allstars-specific is very innacurate.

hey uys i think this article should be merged with "Defense of the Ancients: Allstars" cuz it creates alot of confusion for those who want to know abt "DOTA" the link is given down under!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allusions_in_DoTA

Please revert
..to the correct non-vandalized version. I accidentally rolled back to the wrong version and can't find the last decent version within the history. Bobo. 11:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Jargon
Pardon my french, but the "Defense_of_the_Ancients" section of the article is utter and useless Bullshit and trolling. Do we really need those made up stuff included? What's this? An encyclopedia or a "r33l h4xX0Rz' guide to da über-game"? The leet article is an example victim (lost featured status) of such trolling. Misza 13 T C 16:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No comments? Ok, so I went bold and removed the entire section as unencyclopedic. If you feel otherwise, please discuss here before adding back. Misza 13 T C 12:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability
Is any of this published elsewhere? Can it be verified? Is it original research? This reads like a detailed game guide, updated by the developer and many gamers. Much of it is not at all encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and the parts that make this a gaming guide probably need to go. At the top of the list of items to remove would be the recent addition of "game modes". --Habap 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

WCG 2005
Can someone provide a link that shows DotA being used at WCG 2005? All I see on the WCG 2005 website is the use of WCIII:TFT for competition, with no further details. --Habap 17:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

DotA-Allstars in WCG: Singapore 2005 was a joke (figuratively). The fact is, they used an old and bugged version of the map, with many, many restrictions. It was an UNOFFICIAL game at the event, only for Singaporeans, and is not an official game like CounterStrike etc. Wilsonho 10:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Banlist and Hacks
y is this in this article instead of the warcraft3 article?--1698 20:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it has different style of playing. -- Bocom

External links cleaned
I`ve cleaned the external links section, the links are now in order of their relevance and importance. --Cristian.
 * I didnt put the clean up there, but i think only the two official links should remain --1698 03:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've cleaned up the article as best as I could and commented out some things; if anyone can fix them, then please do. Here are the changes. And how about the tag? x42bn6 Talk 13:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've commented out the external links because they are AllStars links, but I don't know if they should stay because AllStars has its own article. x42bn6 Talk 01:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove Kill Section
The part of how much the kills are worth, is strictly Allstars and is no way a representive of all dota. Remove it please or add it to the Allstar section. --- TeXaN@allrealms

Make it clear in the first part that its allstars.
Agility in Roc Dota or as you call it classic dota isnt a strict 1% increase. Also the 25 level cap isnt in RoC dota either. Honestly some people dont appreciate you editors making it clear that the dota your mainly focusing on is Allstars. Clean this stuff up.
 * The part about Wikipedia is that anyone can clean up the mess. :)   x42bn6  Talk 02:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I've commented out the killing levels and 1 Agility gives 1% increase in attack speed. I have a feeling the latter is wrong because I've seen the Bone Fletcher attack twice as fast (minus Strafe and items) and it certainly doesn't have 100+ Agility.  Regarding the first part, I think most variants have some sort of bonus for multiple kills without dying, so if that is true, then I'll modify that part.  So, any help or confirmation?  Sources would be nice.   x42bn6  Talk 02:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

you can open the map to see one agility equals 1% faster attack speed. And, unless you actually watched the replay or tried it out in single player, checking against the clock and slowing the gamespeed, I highly doubt that what you "saw" was accurate. Err yea, directed at the guy above me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.241.216 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't have Warcraft installed at the moment so I can't... But I'll find some reference first then uncomment it out.   x42bn6  Talk 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Article is a game guide
This article basically amounts to a game guide, including instructions on how to do things, on top of overly detailed descriptions. At this point, it completely fails WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. I'd prefer to keep this article out of AfD - I believe Defense of the Ancients is probably a subject notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, if the unverified claims, original research and general lack of real claims to notability continue to run rampant, another AfD nomination is inevitable. I'm going to do some work on it, myself, and cut all the mentions of non-notable versions of the map, and mentions of people other than "Eul" and "Guinsoo" - vanity mentions of other people only make an AfD nomination more likely. JimmyBlackwing 20:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Eul and Guinsoo are the authors of the original DotA and arguably the most popular variant DotA AllStars respectively - they should stay. But by all means, mess around with the article.  It's not helped by the fact that so many uncited statements are around.  :(   x42bn6  Talk 05:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I can't pinpoint what's wrong with this article but it really doesn't seem to live up to the standards of a typical Wiki article... I think it simply needs to be rewritten completely and leave out the any names unless it's the creator. The fact that it's a popular sub genre below Warcraft III doesn't make it anymore above the rules than another article. --Lucavious 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Article rewrite
I went through the article and did a rewrite of most of the stuff. I tried to keep the article just DotA specific, since most of the original applied only to DotA Allstars (which already has its own article, no need to duplicate or confuse information). I also tried to keep everything verifiable and removed a lot of the statements which sounded like original research. It could probably use some expansion to the Gameplay section, such as a short Items subsection. --JRavn talk 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is this even here?
A while back I remember seeing a Tides of Blood (a similar custom map for Warcraft) article on Wikipedia, and then saw it removed, saying custom maps are not suitable wikipedia material unless they have achieved some sort of recognition beyond the immediate scope of the parent game (like CounterStrike.) Why is this DOTA article now permitted? Can I make a TOB article?


 * I believe the main reason is that DotA is allegedly the most popular variant and (more importantly) is used in professional tournaments. Check out the dicussions in the AfD's listed way at the top of this talk page. So, if TOB gets used in professional tournaments, it might deserve an article. --Habap 21:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention in the article of it being used in professional tournaments. I have never heard that. Please include in article with source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.80.211.11 (talk • contribs).


 * Ah, someone had removed it. I put it back in. Thanks. --Habap 16:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's rather poor since ToB is widely regarded as better. Wanka 16:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you've got citations from articles that agree with that assessment, maybe it deserves an article also. --Habap 18:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Widely" is a very dodgy word. Proof is required before such statements are allowed in.  Tides of Blood may be better, but DotA is much, much, much more popular - the number of variants and games on Battle.net is proof of that.   x42bn6

This has been long debated, and there has been no concensus on multiple AfDs and merges for both articles. So they are staying, the focus now is making them high quality. I believe the current concensus is that the DotA article is for a general overview of the DotA concept, it does not apply to any particular War3 custom map. The DotA Allstars article is devoted directly to the DotA Allstars custom map released by Clan TDA. We want to avoid duplication as much as possible. --JRavn talk

There is no such thing as "DotA concept", the original concept for DotA came from the Starcraft map "Aeon of Strife" and that type of maps are called "AoS", short from "Aeon of Strife".

This article should be deleted. The "DotA Allstars" article is better and covers the same topic, if something important from it is missing just add it there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.228.34.76 (talk • contribs). x42bn6 Talk 20:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to file another AfD go ahead. It's been done 2 or 3 times so far, with no concensus. Personally, I think our time is better spent improving the article and removing duplication. --JRavn talk 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The interesting thing is that there are pages on maps such as Eve of the Apocolypse, if non-proffensional-tourny maps aren't to be shown. And LOTR maps. If those deserve pages, then a map such as Tides of Blood which was, for a time, the most popular map on wc3, deserves a page. Even if you add up the amount played of all 3 eota maps, it probably doesnt get close to Tides of Blood. So there's a weird imbalance.--Uberfoop 08:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
There is little reason that these articles need exist, period (note that DoTA Allstars was voted to be deleted or merged into Warcraft III, while the consensus for DoTA was keep.) Either way this info should be consolidated. David Fuchs 00:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the vote on Allstars was no consensus. I don't play, so I have no emotional attachment, but if you look at the various AfDs and merge proposals, I don't think there's a consensus in favor. --Habap 11:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection?
This article has been attacked by so many newcomers recently, all the edits seem to be just reverting vandalism. What say you lot for semi-protection? x42bn6 Talk 19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Article quality is going down and lots of vandalism. --JRavn talk


 * I came to the talk page explicitly for the purpose of asking this question myself. Please go right ahead. --Ozy 00:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. One of these weekends I want to improve the quality with some slash and cite, but half my edits are reverts. AGREE!!! David Fuchs 00:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I just came to this article for information and I found that all the information was deleted by 75.7.24.243's vandalism. Protection please. Youngminii 08:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Another article promoting players!?
In the music online game O2jam, there was somebody writing an article promoting a so-called great player from Singapore. NOW I see another article about someone claiming he's so great in DOTA. Who the heck is promoting Singaporean players!? I vote for the deletion of that section. It violates the rules and regulations in wikipedia about neutrality. Otherwise, people would start writing about each nations "greatest" player.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.92.66.27 (talk • contribs).
 * Removed fanboyism via revert.  x42bn6  Talk 22:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Frozen Throne Spin-off Mission
Does anyone agree with me in thinking that there should perhaps be a section mentioning Blizzard's mission in the Blood Elf/Naga campaign in which Illidan must be rescued from the cage? It seems almost identical to DotA, except with a moving cage instead of having to destroy a base. I can't remember off the top of my head which number it is, but I think the name is 'The Search for Illidan' and comes straight after the 'Tower Defence'-esque secret level, adding further weight to the argument of it being a battle.net spawned level (ie it being 'bundled' as such with the TD). Wyvern King 20:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Do we have any physical evidence? Not really, so I don't think we should add it. David Fuchs (talk &bull; contribs) 23:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Related to Aeon-of-Strife, but not necessarily Defense of the Ancients.  x42bn6  Talk 22:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Should the line [...]
Shouldn't this be "Each hero can learn 3 abilities with 4 levels each, and a special "ultimate" ability with 3 levels."? There are *three* abilities which can be leveled up four times. And there is one "ultimate" ability which can be leveled up three times. The current wording makes it sound like there are four abilities which can level up four times, in addition to the ultimate which levels up three times. yawgm8th 07:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't true for all versions of DotA
''Heroes can gain up to 25 levels in the newest and most played versions of DotA. Each hero can learn 3 "standard" abilities, upgradable 4 times each, and a special "ultimate" ability, upgradable every 5 levels, starting from level 6. The heroes are divided into 3 groups which emphasize one of the 3 hero attributes: strength, agility, or intelligence.''

I remember seeing some versions where there were deviations from this standard TehNomad 17:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * But it is for most. If you know what other versions had, by all means add in that info. But Allstars, DSC and the original, I believe, followed that formula. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk &bull; contribs) 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, it sounds really dodgy and stoic - I cannot imagine that these mapmakers cannot think of a better formula. If one can find a map that disagrees with it and is fairly notable, then that part will go.  I have always been against that paragraph anyway.   x42bn6  Talk 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There aren't any versions of dota that deviated that ever really got popular. The most popular aos-style map that deviates that comes to mind is Tides of Blood, which hardly has a community anymore (although there are still games played sparsely on the east gateway). But yea, it used to compete with Enfos and was extremely popular. After those 2 maps stopped updated DotA Allstars pretty much took over. But since Tides of Blood isn't a Defense of the Ancients map, it doesn't disagree. --Uberfoop 05:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)