I think people want it a full game now though, customers are always right, and illogical.
We will see with Blizzard DotA. Its early trials failed pretty hard and they had to redesign it. Blizzard hasn't made a good game since WoW. WC3 didn't last as long as SC and D2. D3 looks bad, so does HotS. WoW is losing alot of customers too. One could say Blizzard is on a steep decline.
There are also alot of just as good if not better DotA style maps on Bnet right now. There also is a DotA port from last time I was on Bnet I saw it. That was months ago though. Popularity won't ever make them played though. I mean if you look at it, sotis is so bad, that it will make people leave bnet for other Dota style games.
Sorry, but the customer is never right. This is a horrible saying that couldn't be farther from the truth. The rest of your post is just opinion so I don't care to argue those points with you. You aren't bringing up fact, you're just complaining in general.
tired of reading about how denying makes no sense
if the enemy kills your unit they get experience and gold
you can prevent that. stopping them from getting gold and half the experience.
it's upto both players in the lane to out last hit one another to push their advantage into the mid game.
end of story. it makes perfect sense as a game mechanic. two players competing over the same goal through two methods. last hitting enemy creeps and preventing them hitting yours.
How does that make sense? Preventing the enemy from hitting your creeps is done by. . . not letting them hit your creeps. You don't have to physically kill your own creeps to do this. If you play aggressively and push the enemy hero back away from the creep engagement they can no longer hit creeps and lose ALL of the experience. This is as far more logical method of denying. Whether you want to call this zoning, boxing, shutting down. . . LoL has this and out of the 3 big DOTA-esque games it makes the most sense.
In any other game, shooting your allies is called friendly fire. Outside of Magicka where you can put out flames on your allies with water, I don't know of a game where harming your allies was a good thing. I mean how does killing your allies make sense at all?
"Oh no you're about to die run run run! BUT WAIT *pew pew* I killed you it's all good! They didn't get to kill you."
Yeah. . . that makes perfect sense. . .
The only instance that denying makes sense is with towers, mainly because of how one might destroy "intel/resources" in a military outpost before retreating.
i played LoL for about 6 months and it bores me to fucking tears. so much so that i uninstalled it.
i dont think it's mechanics are good at all. most heroes lack individuality. it may be balanced. in a "if you want to win outfarm the enemy team since everyone scales into late game".
flash and super powered towers make it a passive farm fest.
wards last a tiny amount of time and cover very small areas of terrain.
there is no high ground/low ground. brush is completely uninsteresting.
So you would rather have the one-shot heroes that HoN has? Pyro. . . Witch Slayer. . . Deadwood. . . etc. These heroes are modeled after DOTA meaning DOTA 2 is going to have the same thing.
LoL isn't as bad of a farm fest as DOTA. LoL doesn't require you to farm up the entire game to do well. If you believe this is the case then you never really understood how to play LoL. DOTA requires farming. If your carry doesn't get farmed, then they typically suck. They're deadweight early on and only become useful if they farmed properly. In LoL, the carry might be less potent for a few levels, but once they have their ultimate they can hold their own weight. They don't need to farm the jungle for 20mins or get 500 CKs in order to do well.
You also can't argue that LoL lacks individuality. They've moved on to multiple ability resources types such as Energy, Rage, Health loss and the like. You have situational health like with Mordekaiser or Malphite. DOTA only has Mana as an ability resource.
I'm not going to entertain the rest of your post. If you're going to demonize something at least do a good job of it. Ranting doesn't suit you well. Before you try to call me a fanboy (this is a really popular yet incredibly lazy retort btw), understand that I play HoN and LoL. I find LoL more enjoyable, but I don't consider HoN an inferior game for it. Your post is full of contradictory statements given that you're accusing LoL of being something that DOTA/HoN are equally guilty of.
i was addressing the other random and retarded claims that were made about icefrog.
whatever if i was blunt. i was angry at people taking that stupid letter and blog post seriously as if they had any worth to them at all.
i never argued against denying not making sense in say in the real world or something. but this is a game and it's a perfectly fine game mechanic. just as force firing a siege tank to kill an SCV standing on/next to a dark templar/lurker to kill it without having vision. saying it has no place because in the real world you would never kill your allies to deny the enemy is silly.
"painfully biased complaining"
i thought it was pretty objective since i have played all 3 games for a considerable amount of time.
but whatever. it was my opinion. who cares if you dont think the same.
Well, the friendly fire is something dangerous. But in a war it is perfect possible. So, I think if my map will have or not...But I imagine how can a speel, that damage in area, cannot hurt my allies, if they are in the exact point I'm blowing up....Hehehe.
About denny, well, I think the time we use to do that could be used to hit the enemie, or just run. :D
But what I reallly wonder is how sad is we don't have our super DOTA (1, Blizzard Dota, wathever) inside battle.net. So was needed to someone takes the idea and put out of the Blizzards Kingdom.
SOTIS is very nice, but not so popular. And I miss Axe, and that people. I would love some Battle.net Super Dota fight, hehe.
We, players, will have to buy all of them :( and cry for someone who makes some chooseable. (Denny creep hehe).
"painfully biased complaining"
i thought it was pretty objective since i have played all 3 games for a considerable amount of time.
but whatever. it was my opinion. who cares if you dont think the same.
Yeah, except that you're putting forth your opinion as fact.
Aside even from that, you make some pretty terrible points. For example; you first complain about how removing denying has severely lowered the skill cap of the game, and in the same breath you mention that wards have a low sight radius and duration (which increases the skill cap of the game because one has to be really meticulous about when and where to place them).
Not to mention that you come up with a random quote from a random 'Chu' without providing any source and follow it up by saying he's the #1 'solo ranked player', which per definition says a lot less than anybody who plays LoL professionaly in a team (watched any Dreamhack lately?).
And then in your 6th alinea, you first say that DOTA is an 'ever developing game', contrary to SC, which is 'set in stone'. You then follow this up by saying 'DOTA 2 is just an engine+graphics update' (AKA there is NO evolution taking place) and insinuating that you like this (by saying "And that's what they should've done to SC!").
Plus, I'm not even talking about the fact that you claim to have played LoL for 6 months while disliking it. Am I seriously to believe that for the sake of random forum people, you sat through 6 months of playing a game that "bored you to tears" just so you could point out to people how terrible it is?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a LoL fanboy (even though I play it), but you made some pretty shit arguments and now you've come back to defend them with "I was addressing the claims being made about Icefrog" (even though 90% of your post didn't even mention him) and "it's my opinion". The only part of the argument that makes sense is the thing about denying.
Sorry, but the customer is never right. This is a horrible saying that couldn't be farther from the truth. The rest of your post is just opinion so I don't care to argue those points with you. You aren't bringing up fact, you're just complaining in general.
If the customer is never right, then LoL was a bad move by riot and HoN was a mistake. The customer is always right, note that its a singular term used in context to the general customer, the consumers. Knowing what the customer wants is one thing the customer may not even know. But, you're pretty damn dumb if you think otherwise.
If the customer is never right, then LoL was a bad move by riot and HoN was a mistake. The customer is always right, note that its a singular term used in context to the general customer, the consumers. Knowing what the customer wants is one thing the customer may not even know. But, you're pretty damn dumb if you think otherwise.
And again, you're wrong. The customer is NOT always right. In fact, that customer is usually wrong. If you honestly believe the customer is always right then you will forever be plagued by this horrible saying. It does not help your business, it does not help the customer and it certainly doesn't help you.
You're all using it out of context anyway. It's not meant to be applied in a sense of "a majority of people think X, company Z thinks Y, X is right". It simply means that if you've got a nagging person on the line while working at the helpdesk, you are to treat that person as if he's the freaking king because that's what you're being paid for. AKA you don't get to call that annoying guy out on being an asshole.
And again, you're wrong. The customer is NOT always right. In fact, that customer is usually wrong. If you honestly believe the customer is always right then you will forever be plagued by this horrible saying. It does not help your business, it does not help the customer and it certainly doesn't help you.
No what you're talking about is denial and arrogance. Fact, there is no other way, other than to sell perishable goods that are in demand. Demand = Want, and the more "the customer" wants, the more of it will sell, because demand is high. This means whatever "the customer" wants is always right. If people do not want to buy the product they won't. Are you really this dumb, or am I getting trolled.
I'd love to see a game development company do everything their whiny, petulant customers want in accordance to the "customer is always right" rule. A company like that would be hard to notice, since it would be gone in the blink of an eye.
The customer is not always right, but the customer is always the customer.
That is the point of the saying. Of course the customer isn't always right. "That computer is worth $5." "Oh okay, you are always right. Here you go".
Okay, maybe that was a bit too literal, but you guys get the point. Mozared has it right. The saying was made for customer service and such, so that they remember that no matter who the customer is, they are still the customer.
I just realized that this is the DOTA 2 thread. DAMN did this thread get derailed lol.
I'm actually quite surprised it's not going to be free.
If anything with LoL being massive and having half a million users at any given time vs HoN being a mere blip on the radar with only 50k it would show the difference.
Lets see how well it sells thou.
Yeah I am predicting failure if it isn't free. HoN went free to play and is drawing in massive amounts of people now. And with the F2P model, people aren't going to be inclined to switch after taking hours and hours to unlock all their favorite heroes..
Well, I think that the customer sometimes, get hostage from what he has available to buy. It hapens about Blizzard and the Dota stuff. (Piracy aside, of course).
Do you lords feels like an empty place in heart, when the matters is this DOTA 2 time? I mean, blizzard caracthers, Arthas and the Frozen Throne?
I wonder in my head, if Blizzard really could make a good Dota map, without Icefrog, Ginsoo or Eul. What you guys think??
The discussion if its going to be a failure is a failure in it self.
Dota 2 will be sold hard and that was clear when they released the whole idea.
I predict a upcoming massive community but time will tell.
you are all arguing about the customer being wrong or right which is making me lol a bit considering it's all circumstantial =)
if you want to apply the 'customer is always right' crap to business, then yes. the customer is always right. proziac, if you went to the cinema and said, can I have a medium popcorn? and the guy serving said, no, you can't. you can have a large popcorn because it's better value for money, would you be happy lol? of course not, and that's just an example of millions of times the customer is always right ;)
HOWEVER
if you apply 'the customer is always right' to game development, then fuck no, he/she can easily be 100% wrong lol. first of all, the company has made a game to profit from it normally, not to please everyone. they couldn't really care less as long as they are making money because the majority of people ARE happy with the game. secondly, your opinion could be simply ONE person who thinks something should be changed. are they going to change their game on what ONE person is saying? no, they are not.
what I think all of you arguing for 'the customer is right' are trying to say, is that, if a large base of the users has a problem with something and they all get together to voice that problem, the game company should listen, and they should at the very least, see if they have the resources to fix the said problem or whatever. or if it's something in development then they should listen to what the majority of people want etc.
just because you have bought or are going to buy a game, doesn't mean everyone one of your opinions about it are right does it?
No what you're talking about is denial and arrogance. Fact, there is no other way, other than to sell perishable goods that are in demand. Demand = Want, and the more "the customer" wants, the more of it will sell, because demand is high. This means whatever "the customer" wants is always right. If people do not want to buy the product they won't. Are you really this dumb, or am I getting trolled.
epic facepalm. . . this has nothing to do with the customer being right. You're talking about supply and demand. . .
Let me guess, you believe in "hard-earned money" or "it takes money to make money" or "lowering prices boosts business" too right?
You're all using it out of context anyway. It's not meant to be applied in a sense of "a majority of people think X, company Z thinks Y, X is right". It simply means that if you've got a nagging person on the line while working at the helpdesk, you are to treat that person as if he's the freaking king because that's what you're being paid for. AKA you don't get to call that annoying guy out on being an asshole.
The saying actually originated from business owners believing that they needed to be submissive (aka slaves) to their customers in general. Even if a customer is difficult to work with, their money "talks" and therefor is more important. Why argue with a customer when you can get their money? Given that many business owners believe this, they ingrain this concept in the minds of their employees. This is why you're mislead into believing this relates to customer service specifically.
20% of your customers create 80% of your problems
While the ratio isn't always exact, the concept is. Most problems are coming from the same group/type of people. These are often people who ALSO believe their always right given that they are the customer. This is a prime example of how this saying is detrimental. When a business adheres to this policy, customers abuse it. This saying itself creates more problems than it solves.
As for DOTA 2, I think it would be wrong to say the game is going to fail. While I don't find it that interesting, I don't doubt that many people will buy it. Thus from a business standpoint it will initially be a success. After that, I believe it will struggle to continue to be a success unless they can prove that it's worth the time and money.
out of interest, are you like a business studies student etc, or do you speak from experience from owning a business? I mean specifically owning, not being a manager, as in are you or have you been a director of a limited company etc?
I wonder in my head, if Blizzard really could make a good Dota map, without Icefrog, Ginsoo or Eul. What you guys think??
Why wouldn't they? Eul had a good first idea, but there have been plenty of good DOTA-style maps without any of those three names. Really, it's not like they are balancing gods that know everything better than others possibly can or such - they were really just at the right place at the right time.
The saying actually originated from business owners believing that they needed to be submissive (aka slaves) to their customers in general. Even if a customer is difficult to work with, their money "talks" and therefor is more important. Why argue with a customer when you can get their money? Given that many business owners believe this, they ingrain this concept in the minds of their employees. This is why you're mislead into believing this relates to customer service specifically.
Regardless of where it comes from, my point was that you're argueing eggs while everyone else in the thread is argueing chicken. You're argueing "20% of your customers create 80% of your problems". You're completely right there. Everyone else is right as well - they're argueing "[i] 'The customer is always' right means that companies should play nice with their customers in order to shake money out of them". I don't think anybody here believes that the company should adhere to the customers' every whim - just that they try and take a submissive stance there where a policy of silence doesn't hold. Submissive in the sense of that they do not call any of their customers assholes, ever, regardless of how justified that might be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorry, but the customer is never right. This is a horrible saying that couldn't be farther from the truth. The rest of your post is just opinion so I don't care to argue those points with you. You aren't bringing up fact, you're just complaining in general.
How does that make sense? Preventing the enemy from hitting your creeps is done by. . . not letting them hit your creeps. You don't have to physically kill your own creeps to do this. If you play aggressively and push the enemy hero back away from the creep engagement they can no longer hit creeps and lose ALL of the experience. This is as far more logical method of denying. Whether you want to call this zoning, boxing, shutting down. . . LoL has this and out of the 3 big DOTA-esque games it makes the most sense.
In any other game, shooting your allies is called friendly fire. Outside of Magicka where you can put out flames on your allies with water, I don't know of a game where harming your allies was a good thing. I mean how does killing your allies make sense at all?
"Oh no you're about to die run run run! BUT WAIT *pew pew* I killed you it's all good! They didn't get to kill you."
Yeah. . . that makes perfect sense. . .
The only instance that denying makes sense is with towers, mainly because of how one might destroy "intel/resources" in a military outpost before retreating.
So you would rather have the one-shot heroes that HoN has? Pyro. . . Witch Slayer. . . Deadwood. . . etc. These heroes are modeled after DOTA meaning DOTA 2 is going to have the same thing.
LoL isn't as bad of a farm fest as DOTA. LoL doesn't require you to farm up the entire game to do well. If you believe this is the case then you never really understood how to play LoL. DOTA requires farming. If your carry doesn't get farmed, then they typically suck. They're deadweight early on and only become useful if they farmed properly. In LoL, the carry might be less potent for a few levels, but once they have their ultimate they can hold their own weight. They don't need to farm the jungle for 20mins or get 500 CKs in order to do well.
You also can't argue that LoL lacks individuality. They've moved on to multiple ability resources types such as Energy, Rage, Health loss and the like. You have situational health like with Mordekaiser or Malphite. DOTA only has Mana as an ability resource.
I'm not going to entertain the rest of your post. If you're going to demonize something at least do a good job of it. Ranting doesn't suit you well. Before you try to call me a fanboy (this is a really popular yet incredibly lazy retort btw), understand that I play HoN and LoL. I find LoL more enjoyable, but I don't consider HoN an inferior game for it. Your post is full of contradictory statements given that you're accusing LoL of being something that DOTA/HoN are equally guilty of.
@ProzaicMuze:
i was addressing the other random and retarded claims that were made about icefrog.
whatever if i was blunt. i was angry at people taking that stupid letter and blog post seriously as if they had any worth to them at all.
i never argued against denying not making sense in say in the real world or something. but this is a game and it's a perfectly fine game mechanic. just as force firing a siege tank to kill an SCV standing on/next to a dark templar/lurker to kill it without having vision. saying it has no place because in the real world you would never kill your allies to deny the enemy is silly.
"painfully biased complaining"
i thought it was pretty objective since i have played all 3 games for a considerable amount of time.
but whatever. it was my opinion. who cares if you dont think the same.
Well, the friendly fire is something dangerous. But in a war it is perfect possible. So, I think if my map will have or not...But I imagine how can a speel, that damage in area, cannot hurt my allies, if they are in the exact point I'm blowing up....Hehehe. About denny, well, I think the time we use to do that could be used to hit the enemie, or just run. :D
But what I reallly wonder is how sad is we don't have our super DOTA (1, Blizzard Dota, wathever) inside battle.net. So was needed to someone takes the idea and put out of the Blizzards Kingdom.
SOTIS is very nice, but not so popular. And I miss Axe, and that people. I would love some Battle.net Super Dota fight, hehe.
We, players, will have to buy all of them :( and cry for someone who makes some chooseable. (Denny creep hehe).
Yeah, except that you're putting forth your opinion as fact.
Aside even from that, you make some pretty terrible points. For example; you first complain about how removing denying has severely lowered the skill cap of the game, and in the same breath you mention that wards have a low sight radius and duration (which increases the skill cap of the game because one has to be really meticulous about when and where to place them).
Not to mention that you come up with a random quote from a random 'Chu' without providing any source and follow it up by saying he's the #1 'solo ranked player', which per definition says a lot less than anybody who plays LoL professionaly in a team (watched any Dreamhack lately?).
And then in your 6th alinea, you first say that DOTA is an 'ever developing game', contrary to SC, which is 'set in stone'. You then follow this up by saying 'DOTA 2 is just an engine+graphics update' (AKA there is NO evolution taking place) and insinuating that you like this (by saying "And that's what they should've done to SC!").
Plus, I'm not even talking about the fact that you claim to have played LoL for 6 months while disliking it. Am I seriously to believe that for the sake of random forum people, you sat through 6 months of playing a game that "bored you to tears" just so you could point out to people how terrible it is?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly a LoL fanboy (even though I play it), but you made some pretty shit arguments and now you've come back to defend them with "I was addressing the claims being made about Icefrog" (even though 90% of your post didn't even mention him) and "it's my opinion". The only part of the argument that makes sense is the thing about denying.
If the customer is never right, then LoL was a bad move by riot and HoN was a mistake. The customer is always right, note that its a singular term used in context to the general customer, the consumers. Knowing what the customer wants is one thing the customer may not even know. But, you're pretty damn dumb if you think otherwise.
No
The customer is not always right, but the customer is always the customer.
And again, you're wrong. The customer is NOT always right. In fact, that customer is usually wrong. If you honestly believe the customer is always right then you will forever be plagued by this horrible saying. It does not help your business, it does not help the customer and it certainly doesn't help you.
@ProzaicMuze: Go
You're all using it out of context anyway. It's not meant to be applied in a sense of "a majority of people think X, company Z thinks Y, X is right". It simply means that if you've got a nagging person on the line while working at the helpdesk, you are to treat that person as if he's the freaking king because that's what you're being paid for. AKA you don't get to call that annoying guy out on being an asshole.
No what you're talking about is denial and arrogance. Fact, there is no other way, other than to sell perishable goods that are in demand. Demand = Want, and the more "the customer" wants, the more of it will sell, because demand is high. This means whatever "the customer" wants is always right. If people do not want to buy the product they won't. Are you really this dumb, or am I getting trolled.
I'd love to see a game development company do everything their whiny, petulant customers want in accordance to the "customer is always right" rule. A company like that would be hard to notice, since it would be gone in the blink of an eye.
@Tolkfan: Go
I think after 1+ year we are right about popularity though. Just this once.
That is the point of the saying. Of course the customer isn't always right. "That computer is worth $5." "Oh okay, you are always right. Here you go".
Okay, maybe that was a bit too literal, but you guys get the point. Mozared has it right. The saying was made for customer service and such, so that they remember that no matter who the customer is, they are still the customer.
I just realized that this is the DOTA 2 thread. DAMN did this thread get derailed lol.
Great to be back and part of the community again!
The customer are always right.
Except when they're retarded.
The hard part (or not so hard) is hearing the non-retarded customers above the retarded mass that whines for whinning's sake or suggest utter crap.
Yeah I am predicting failure if it isn't free. HoN went free to play and is drawing in massive amounts of people now. And with the F2P model, people aren't going to be inclined to switch after taking hours and hours to unlock all their favorite heroes..
Well, I think that the customer sometimes, get hostage from what he has available to buy. It hapens about Blizzard and the Dota stuff. (Piracy aside, of course).
Do you lords feels like an empty place in heart, when the matters is this DOTA 2 time? I mean, blizzard caracthers, Arthas and the Frozen Throne?
I wonder in my head, if Blizzard really could make a good Dota map, without Icefrog, Ginsoo or Eul. What you guys think??
The discussion if its going to be a failure is a failure in it self.
Dota 2 will be sold hard and that was clear when they released the whole idea.
I predict a upcoming massive community but time will tell.
you are all arguing about the customer being wrong or right which is making me lol a bit considering it's all circumstantial =)
if you want to apply the 'customer is always right' crap to business, then yes. the customer is always right. proziac, if you went to the cinema and said, can I have a medium popcorn? and the guy serving said, no, you can't. you can have a large popcorn because it's better value for money, would you be happy lol? of course not, and that's just an example of millions of times the customer is always right ;)
HOWEVER
if you apply 'the customer is always right' to game development, then fuck no, he/she can easily be 100% wrong lol. first of all, the company has made a game to profit from it normally, not to please everyone. they couldn't really care less as long as they are making money because the majority of people ARE happy with the game. secondly, your opinion could be simply ONE person who thinks something should be changed. are they going to change their game on what ONE person is saying? no, they are not.
what I think all of you arguing for 'the customer is right' are trying to say, is that, if a large base of the users has a problem with something and they all get together to voice that problem, the game company should listen, and they should at the very least, see if they have the resources to fix the said problem or whatever. or if it's something in development then they should listen to what the majority of people want etc.
just because you have bought or are going to buy a game, doesn't mean everyone one of your opinions about it are right does it?
epic facepalm. . . this has nothing to do with the customer being right. You're talking about supply and demand. . .
Let me guess, you believe in "hard-earned money" or "it takes money to make money" or "lowering prices boosts business" too right?
The saying actually originated from business owners believing that they needed to be submissive (aka slaves) to their customers in general. Even if a customer is difficult to work with, their money "talks" and therefor is more important. Why argue with a customer when you can get their money? Given that many business owners believe this, they ingrain this concept in the minds of their employees. This is why you're mislead into believing this relates to customer service specifically.
20% of your customers create 80% of your problems
While the ratio isn't always exact, the concept is. Most problems are coming from the same group/type of people. These are often people who ALSO believe their always right given that they are the customer. This is a prime example of how this saying is detrimental. When a business adheres to this policy, customers abuse it. This saying itself creates more problems than it solves.
As for DOTA 2, I think it would be wrong to say the game is going to fail. While I don't find it that interesting, I don't doubt that many people will buy it. Thus from a business standpoint it will initially be a success. After that, I believe it will struggle to continue to be a success unless they can prove that it's worth the time and money.
@ProzaicMuze: Go
out of interest, are you like a business studies student etc, or do you speak from experience from owning a business? I mean specifically owning, not being a manager, as in are you or have you been a director of a limited company etc?
Why wouldn't they? Eul had a good first idea, but there have been plenty of good DOTA-style maps without any of those three names. Really, it's not like they are balancing gods that know everything better than others possibly can or such - they were really just at the right place at the right time.
Regardless of where it comes from, my point was that you're argueing eggs while everyone else in the thread is argueing chicken. You're argueing "20% of your customers create 80% of your problems". You're completely right there. Everyone else is right as well - they're argueing "[i] 'The customer is always' right means that companies should play nice with their customers in order to shake money out of them". I don't think anybody here believes that the company should adhere to the customers' every whim - just that they try and take a submissive stance there where a policy of silence doesn't hold. Submissive in the sense of that they do not call any of their customers assholes, ever, regardless of how justified that might be.