Talk:Hero Difficulty

Chen vs Enchantress
Chen requires more micro than Enchantress?
 * I would say so. Not only does Chen have more creeps to control at once, he also has more active spells to use.
 * --PimpadelicX (talk) 08:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Editability
I assumed this page was taken directly from PlayDota (that's why it has a source link at the top), but I see a lot of people in the history editing this to add their opinion. Should this page not stay as the original author wrote? --PimpadelicX (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've decided to change it back to the way it originally was. Nobody really edits this page, so I doubt anyone will read this for a while. If you're reading this, hats off to you for actually reading the Discussions page.
 * --PimpadelicX (talk) 06:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

SF's and Io's survival priority
Well, there's written that Shadow Fiend's survival priority is 3, which means "Stay long enough in battle to do enough harm". But imo SF must not die in battle at all. When he dies, he loses souls. Those 18 lost souls (if you died with full 36) mean you have to farm them again. And when you have less souls you are more likely to die again because of lacking damage. Then you have to farm again, but now you need to farm 27 souls... What I mean, a death pulls SF back for 2-3 mins, and that's awful for such a hero.

So I propose to change SF's survival prority to 5.

Also Io's survival priority is 2, so he "Just needs some quick seconds to throw all spells and do the job". Well, what about his 3rd skill when connected to the main carry? It is a massive DPS increase for him (main carry), so wisp's team is more likely to win the battle. I guess survival priority of wisp should be changed to 4 ("Stay long enough in battle to continuously support team").

That's all for now, tell me if I am right or not :)


 * The argument for survival priority being 3 is that his death causes his ultimate to cast again, dealing even more damage to nearby enemies, potentially turning a fight. Also, while collecting souls can be annoying after death, it is not very difficult in the mid-late game, and he will most likely be farming anyway because he's the carry.
 * As for, it is a support and it's life is expandable. While it is very helpful to have the in play, if we're basing this off of the hero priority, I would not sacrifice Level 3 priority heroes such as , , or  to save an Io's life. Every hero is useful when they are alive, but if someone has to die, I would make it a support whose money loss does not affect the team as heavily.
 * But anyone can make an argument to change the position of certain heroes, because Dota is a complex game. I would say is normally an expandable hero, but if he has an  he becomes a much more vital asset to the team, especially a team fight oriented team. In my opinion, I would leave it as is because everyone has their own opinions, and this guide is supposed to be the opinion of R.B. Economy from PlayDota.
 * --PimpadelicX (talk) 09:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

This page is weird
I added this note to the general wiki discussion, but I should add it here as well.

This is an odd duck. It really belongs in userspace, I think, but I respect Pigbuster's decision to dissociate himself from it. I think linking to it from the front page is a poor idea. The idea behind community guides was that the creator exercised total control, but with a single officially blessed hero difficulty guide it's not clear how disagreements should be arbitrated. Should it be a free-for all? Should R.B. Economy have the last word forever? What about the fact that R.B. Economy hasn't updated his guide since 2011? There are no good answers except to remove the guide entirely, which I'm reluctant to do unilaterally. Until consensus is reached on a solution, I think I'll take up PimpadelicX on his proposal to revert and lock, and add a disclaimer to the top of the page. I don't feel strongly about this, so feel free to overrule me. --Kroocsiogsi (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would just delete it - Lemoncream (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Small mistake in the table
Tinker - 4 5 4 4 3 4 The sum of that is 24, not 25.

I was comparing Invoker and Meepo
Surely, Invoker's Micro Management level should be 4 instead of 3 because Invoker has a maximum of 2 Forge Spirits or do we see them as not useful enough to micro compared to Visage's Familiars? Meepo's Farm / Last Hitting level should be at least 4 because Meepo requires key items: Aghanim's Scepter and Blink Dagger, surely at least Aghanim's Scepter.

In regards to the newly released Oracle.
I believe that 's rating in the chart should something like: 3 3 3 1 2 4 16. --Markov25 (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm point of view. Playing oracle for a while:

Knowledge = 5 ; Oracle need to know so much heros mechanism (spells, abilities, autoattack, damage type...) and anticipate them. A simple Oracle mistake due to lack of game knowledge can be fatal for all team. Map Awareness = 3 ; Oracle is fagile need to be aware of incoming gank. Can assit ganker Positioning / Reflex = 4/5 ; Oracle is fragile positionning is important. Classic combo Purifying Flames+Fortune's End failed have a lot of consequences. False promise need a good timing or to prepare a gank at the right time, protect someone from incoming dmg (lina, zeus ult...) etc... Farm / Last-Hitting = 1/2 ; urn / mana boots / mek / wards Micro Management = 2 ; Eurl combo, Orchid... Survival Priority = 4 ; If killed early in TF = no false promise bonus, heal or even purge from Fortune's End.

TOTAL = Around 20-21 imo

Mana Management
Just looking over the heroes and I have noticed that there is no rating being applied to the need to manage mana. Many heroes require to different degrees to manage their mana levels to be effective. Take Zeus for example; Zeus has horrendous mana issues and is practically useless if he does not have enough mana to cast at least a few spells; it is quite vital that he does not squander his mana by using it efficiently (don't skill up arc lightning early as it reduces his ability to last hit due to having less mana per creep kill, etc.) as well as knowing when he has to do something specific about it (go back to fountain/grab rune for bottle/use arcane boots (or soul ring) regularly/build for mana regen (bloodstone, euls)/etc.).

Basically, I feel that some heroes are getting an "easier" rating because mana management is not being taken into account. This specifically came up as an issue for a friend - he looked at the chart and assumed Zeus would be easy as long as he had some map awareness only to then be taken aback by how difficult it was to control Zeus' mana (which is why I used him as an example). The chart lists map awareness as being the only difficulty in playing Zeus, suggesting that Axe for example is far more difficult to play than Zeus if you have good map awareness; yet my friend (who has good map awareness and has friends who can report things of importance to him) finds Axe far far easier because mana management isn't something that is such an issue for Axe.

There are heroes like Crystal Maiden who does not require much mana management due to her passive allowing her to use her mana far less efficiently - also, Lion, Alchemist (after 6), Outworld Devourer (after 5), etc. Outside of heroes who have easy mana return, there are heroes who are not so dependent on mana and managing it in the first place, like Riki, Troll Warlord, etc. These heroes are potentially easier for someone to play than other heroes (who otherwise might have a higher rating) if it mana management that they find most troubling, but again the chart does not help here.

I know this is R.B.Economy's chart, but would it be possible to add mana management to it as a seventh aspect?