Talk:Defense of the Ancients

Unlabeled Complaint

Tens of thousands of people on multiple continents play DotA and it is a professional esport with its own section on Gotfrag, an honor bestowed on very few games. It is played competitively on at least 3 continents and even has its own large tournaments with over 20 nations represented; so theres your notability. by the way this is an awful article and the previous Allstars article was much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.214.162.67 (talk) 05:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If you think that the article should be a different way, just talk about it on this page. Don't just vaguely say the article is "awful." worthawholebean _talk^contribs 05:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Creeps?

"and are assisted by allied heroes and AI-controlled fighters called "creeps"."

Creeps are the monsters that are fought in the woods. The units that assist you have no true name. (That I know of) They are definitely not creeps though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.104.223 (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually yes they're called creeps. The ones in the woods are neutrals. Everyone on the official forums refers to them as such. You're thinking ladder Warcraft. Gaara the Fifth Kazekage (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability

This has been tagged for notability for some time. No one has bothered to address that. If after all this time, proper reliable sources can't be given to establish notability that is a clear indication this article should not be here. I just had a look at the previous AfD, and every keep comment was in the vein of WP:ILIKEIT and didn't actually address the policy issues with this page. If someone has evidence of notability please provide it.--Crossmr 19:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability, well. Do you know what is Warcraft III? DotA Allstars is on Battle.Net hall of fame(Allstars). What is better notability for this article you can follow.

Also USEast(Azeroth) realm on GMT+0: Sat Jul 14 7:20 AM:

There are currently 101609 users playing 2210 games of Warcraft III The Frozen Throne, and 255591 users playing 54604 games on Battle.net. 54604 games and around 25-40% of them is a DotA games. All the time. This article was marked to be merged with DotA Allstars, and some random guy merged them. It was stupid though as he never had any ideas what is even DotA. Just need some time :) comment added by DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 07:19, 14

Excuse me? If you're going to insult me, leave it on the talk pages, don't badmouth me on the DOTA talk page. Firstly, you should read my response on my talk page. Secondly, I have played DOTA, and I sure as hell know what it is. I haven't played on Battle.net in about a year, though. So, insulting me was rude enough, but insulting me with lies and slander? That's just downright rude. Mrmoocow 20:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

None of that establishes notability. While it may be popular within a community, there is no evidence of any greater notability. No one has provided any reliable sources which demonstrate this. Notability has to be verifiable by editor X who has no knowledge about the subject, currently that is impossible.--Crossmr 13:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Truly common around new things in the world and/or Internet. comment added by DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 16:56, 14

Hence the problem. This may one day be something which is notable outside the community and independently verifiable as such, however without that the article doesn't meet the guidelines for existence. The previous AfD showed that, in that no one could really demonstrate its meeting the criteria, but instead just strong-armed it into existence. I'll give a little while longer for someone to demonstrate notability here, but this has already been tagged for quite some time.--Crossmr 19:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the song that was linked that reached #2 on Finland's music charts? Does that count as notability? Deletion of the article altogether seems a bit excessive, at most it should be merged with the Warcraft III article because of this. --Rambutaan 06:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Its an unusual way to establish notability. Can we get a reliable source on english translation of the lyrics to look at it?--Crossmr 06:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's notability guideline in a nutshell is that a topic is notable if it has significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. A Google search for "dota" brings up 9 million sites, and "defense of the ancients" brings up 300,000. I realize that the article's subject is not well known in the US and having an article on a "custom map" seems unorthodox, but where I'm coming from DotA is practically a household word-- and I don't even play it. The answer to the question of DotA's notability is a resounding "of course". TheCoffee 17:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Google hits is not notable coverage. That test was taken out long ago because it was recognized that it was not a reliable way to measure notability. If there is significant coverage from reliable independent sources it can be linked and added to the article as it should be. Until that is done, the notability is in question.--Crossmr 05:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

On the topic of Google hits, I might point out that searching dota returns 10.6mil, magic the gathering returns 3.63mil, shigeru miyamoto returns less than 1.00mil, and lord of the rings returns 8.17mil. Whether DotA or MtG is the more notable I leave to others to decide, but I do point out that MtG is the original trading card game. Furthermore, DotA as a gaming topic is far less notable/important than Miyamoto. Whatever the case, I think the lord of the rings search makes it pretty obvious that Google hits is not a valid method of verifying notability (or lack thereof). Ong elvin 13:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok about the Google point, it seems that the reason that Google has been abandoned as a Criteria for Notability is that it gives a huge number of mismatches along side some good matches. Hence by that logic, if a number of references are given to websites that are completely dedicated to JUST DotA Allstars or atleast dedicate a siginificant portion of their website to DotA Allstars, that should be sufficient for notability.Farqis 11:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I notice that no one has still yet been able to provide any other notable and reliable coverage of this game. Notability always requires multiple sources of non-trivial coverage and the best that has been provided is a highly unusual source of it being included in a song that was (maybe still is?) popular.--Crossmr 13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just remember, the song (which is stupid, yet the Swedes or whoever love it) is about DotA Allstars. Really, I have never seen any other DotA variant being played in Azeroth or Loarderon in two+ years of playing. Defense of the Ancients seems pointless, as most of the notability (hall of fame on bnet) is for DotA allstars. David Fuchs ^(talk) 13:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A hall of fame on Bnet doesn't establish notability either. The sources also have to be independent from the subject, and battlenet and custom wc3 maps aren't exactly fully independent of each other. --Crossmr 14:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The links provided here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defense of the Ancients (3rd nomination) need to be worked in to the article. It is not enough that they exist, they have to in the article to show the proof of notability.--Crossmr 12:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

On DotA Allstars's talk page, there is a discussion for merge: I strongly support taking what's good here, combining it to the Allstars article, and improving it from there. Always easier to make one article better than two. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Post-merge todo

Ok, I've been bold and merged both, and have started adding in the refs that were brought up at the DotA Allstars AfD. Besides sourcing some more statements, the biggest issue on the todo is to source and cut down the DotA history. We don't need to talk about terrain changes from ice to grass: we should talk about the change in creators and added leagues, but we don't have to differentiate versions by headers. David Fuchs ^(talk) 19:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to kill the changelog (unsuccessfully) a few years ago. So I had to step it down to just significant changes to stop it turning into a full changelog. (Fanboys :/) *shudders* Anyway, I'm happy with this merger. I've always known that DotA didn't need its own page. Now, about the Creep link... Ong elvin 13:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually tried to credit some of the creators of DotA as well as list their contributions for Eul, Meian, Guinsoo, and Icefrog(i.e. hero and item creations/modifications). I honestly thought that players would like to know the developers of DotA and their contributions, so I downloaded all kinds of previous versions to do research. Unfortunately, my post was reverted back by DarkRahn. Is there any advice to improve my post so that the information remains? I'd like to know more about how to make the information I posted in-line with the wiki-philosophy and helpful to the DotA community. Mejai 13:01, 27 September 2007

No, at all. As I commented on my talk page it was deleted on purpose. This info belongs to DotA wiki though, that we(TDA) working with. --- DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Sir(or madam), am I to understand that only clan TDA has the right to choose what gets to be posted or not posted on the DotA wikipedia page? Because from the implications of your post, and the history of this page; that seems to be what you are saying. I merely asked the format you were looking for to make a post on this page so that it does not get deleted. Instead of claiming that the "info belongs to DotA wiki though, that we (TDA) working with", I ask that you let other DotA players have a say as to what is posted about DotA. Mejai 13:01, 27 September 2007—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mejai (talk • contribs) 03:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of August 8, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The WP:LEAD really needs to have at least two paragraphs, and fully summarise the article. I can help with this if you aren't sure what to change.

2. Factually accurate?: Do you have a link for ref #19? Otherwise, good

3. Broad in coverage?: I think you could trim down on the external links - do you really need that many? It looks like a bit of spam.

4. Neutral point of view?:

5. Article stability?

6. Images?: Could you use "Defense of the Ancients" instead of "DotA" in the fair use rationales? Why isn't [1] being used?

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Giggy ^Talk 23:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've added into the lead more about the objectives, a blurb about the development, and about its appearances in tourneys. Anything else for that? I fixed the DotA -> Defense of the Ancients and added rationale to the commented-out image. I also killed all but two external links: i don't think the leagues were needed, some were already used as refs, and then a few were linkspam I hadn't seen before. David Fuchs ^(talk) 01:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

All good -

- Passed. Giggy ^Talk 02:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Title Change

The name of the page had been kept to be that of the General article i.e. Defense of the Ancients because it was thought that information about other DotA variants would also be added. On the other hand Allstars page was merged into this page with the idea that they are both basically one thing with Allstars being the latest form. Both of these ideas have some contradiction with one another. I propose that we change the name of the article to "Defense of the Ancients: All Stars" or "DotA: Allstars" because:

1. The page does not mention any other DotA variant except Allstars. It would be impossible to add information regarding another other variant without pondering over some kind of division by section where each variant has it's own section. The current structure of the article does not allow that. Each variant will have it's own history, fame, etc (if at all)
2. Allstars page was merged here due to a lot of overlapping information between the two.
3. It is a fact that Allstars is the most notible variant of the classic DotA, and even it has had difficulty showing its notibility. Any other variant would be way less popular and would definitely be impossible to show as being notible. The only other notible variant besides Allstars is the Allstars AI version which is an offshoot of Allstars itself. It has been said by IceFrog that the code is being restructured so that both of them can be merged. Information about AI should also be included in the article btw, under the history and development section.
4. In common terminology when somebody talks about "DotA", everybody understands that they are talking about "DotA Allstars".
5. The whole of the "History and Development" section contains History and development of Allstars. The only part belonging to even Classic DotA is that Eul created it and made it open before abandoning.
6. All the Recognition and Popularity that the relevant section shows as shared feat of Classic and Allstars by the statement "DotA has experienced increasing popularity over time" is of and by Allstars alone.
It is surprising to see that a "Creep" from Warcraft gets it's own page while Dota Allstars doesn't. Farqis 14:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have agreed before, but I have changed my mind. It is clearly seen that DotA Allstars dominates all other dota-like maps, and DotA Allstars commonly named as just "dota". Therefore I do not see the reason for renaming it. --- DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 16:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason is the same as that I'm commonly known as "Farqi" but my full name is Farqaleet :)Farqis 09:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok since nobody is interested in discussing alot of points I'll start with one. I propose that in the Recognition and Popularity section, the statement be change from:

DotA has experienced increasing popularity over time.

to

DotA AllStars has experienced increasing popularity over time.

Refer to the point 6 at the start of this section. Farqis 02:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

direct source for Eul giving the map up as open source

Right now it cites the techtree page for it. Eul's original posting is here: http://www.thewarcenter.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19852 I dont know if that meets standards, I'm new to the editing game Avohir 04:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The website can be cited since it contains the actual post by Eul in which he publicly said that he was going to make it open source. Farqis 08:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

can someone make the edit then? semi-protected means I cant Avohir 12:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Done :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 12:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciations

I'm wondering what's the "correct" (or most famous) pronunciation for the word DotA. I pronounce it as dot.a while some pronounced as doe.ta. It's kind of weird for me for the second pronunciation. --Manop - TH 08:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's the "doa-ta" pronounciation- at least, that's what Basshunter says. David Fuchs ^(talk) 12:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I have heard doe-ta exclusively. Never heard the dot.ta and yes doe-ta is what basshunter saysMarcusyoder (talk) 05:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Classic dota development has not been closed.

Classic dota development is still underway. 4.2o came out recently and another new version came out recently. Sorry cant remember the version tag. But anyone spending time playing roc dota can tell you that it is not closed to development. Marcusyoder (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct. As of now, 4.3b has been circulated pretty freely. 4.4a was recently released, although 4.4b is expected to be released to fix some major bugs. I propose 2 changes to the article. 1) In the first line, "Defense of the Ancients (often referred to as DotA) is a custom map for Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne", the words "The Frozen Throne" should be removed. 2) In the "External Links" section, dotaforum.com should be added, as that is where new Classic DotA maps are being released. I hardly see how popularity should be an excuse to ignore the existence of something. 71.37.150.137 19:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone who plays Dota should go and get a life and kill themselves afterwards and then they'll go to hell and burn and get poked up the ass with pointy pitchforks by a million Shuyi Wangs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathalos09 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, please do not troll since they often fail. --- DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 17:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Broken link

Reference link #21 is broken. Maybe someone who speaks Dutch could find the correct page...? --128.12.103.70 (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Authors

Is there any information on the authors of the various versions of DotA (Eul, Guinsoo, IceFrog)? Any credible sources on their information and such? 76.116.109.221 (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt it, aside from fansite interviews. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 05:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Defense of the Ancients = Defense of the Ancients - Allstars?

Ok, I've got reverted my edit because "Sorry it is. E.g., see ESWC game list 2008 on eswc.com. Discuss before such changes plz." Dude, what the hell is E.g.? Second, why would I care about the popularity of DotA Allstars? Dota Allstars isn't Defense of the Ancients, like BSD isn't Unix. Third, in my personal opinion, having a picture about three different kinds of DotA (Outland, Classic, and two Allstars), and you decide that it's best to revert your edit to Dota Allstar.

The article isn't Dota Allstars, the article is DOTA. DEFENSE OF THE ANCIENTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RuineR (talk • contribs) 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the edit summary doesn't allow much text, one has to use abbreviations. "e.g." stands for the phrase "for example". About your edits, you removed the following lines from the InfoBox
1. developer
2. latest_release_version = 6.49b
3. latest_release_date = 27 October 2007
What you are talking about, hints towards the notability of the original version of DotA as and when left by Eul, and it's comparison to the notability of DotA Allstars. The argument that one of these is "TRUE" DotA while the other is not is extremely debatable (and trust me it has been debated time and again. Refer to the archived discussions at the top). As each of the variants you mentioned is a modified version of what Eul him self left, hence one variant's claim is no better than anothers.
Secondly the term DotA in general refers to DotA Allstars. I mentioned the link to eswc.com just to give an example where the Tournament game list says "DotA: Defense of the Ancients" which automatically means DotA Allstars without any explaination required. I don't want to get into another "notability" debate but I'm sure you'll agree that Allstars is the most advanced/developed, most followed with the biggest community(rivaling communities of other bigger games like CS), and probably the only variant that has many many world wide online and LAN tournaments arranged for it. (Refer to the page itself for links). I'm sure that these can be the most fair metrics to use, to decide which DotA variant's information should the reader of wikipedia be provided in the InfoBox. If any other variant can rival the above mentioned things, then it deserves a shot at getting it's information placed in the Info box. But what one cannot say is that Allstars does not deserve to have it's information placed in the Infobox.
Also please sign your messages by putting four tildes like this ~~~~ at the end of your posts. The bot is just a helper in case somebody forgets. Farqis (talk) 15:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Allstars, with the original only mentioned in the history section. Allstars is notable; the other maps are not. David Fuchs ^(talk) 15:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a social networking tool or a supermarket that shows only popular products, it's an online and free encyclopedia. Allstars should be mentioned in the article, but the whole article shouldn't be about it. The original Defense of the Ancients is barely mentioned, there is no information towards other versions like Outland, and the article is misleading, implying that Defense of the Ancients is Dota Allstars. -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 14:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Um... no. Allstars is the only notable version of DotA. End of story, sorry. David Fuchs ^(talk) 17:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You're taking it a bit too far there. Yes, Allstars is the most "notable" and to many people DOTA = Allstars, but that's not true in an encyclopedic sense. The articles were merged in order to emphasize that WP is not a game guide. I support adding information about versions such as Outland in their own sections, of course.

Last but not least, since this article it NOT about Allstars, it shouldn't have a 'latest version' information. If anyone's interested, they can check the external links. » byeee 19:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

And I disagree. We had them listed, we removed them because there was bunch of trash info(some also were hoax, because nobody cared). --- DarthRahn(^u/_t\^c) 17:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WoWWiki has a more complete article describing Classic, Outland, and it also describes CHAOS, which is a highly popular, (I don't have a relevant source to claim this but it should be noted by anyone that plays on the Asian realm, or outside and "private" servers.) if this?

serves as legitimate information about the DOTAs that aren't considered hoaxes. -- ...RuineЯ|Chat...  17:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend for those trying to remove information about the Latest version, developer, etc that they carefully read the article again. The whole artilce is about DotA Allstars. Please do not reply with DotA != Allstars. You can refer to archived or current discussions for more details on this. The fact stands that Allstars is the most notable version (I even find it strange calling it Allstars since it's always called just DotA). Every section in the article discusses only Allstars from beginning to end. If you don't like it, then bring proof of better notability of any other DotA variant. Otherwise learn to live with it.Farqis (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, having the infobox showing general information of DotA as DotA Allstars with a picture image showing different verisons of it, is wrong and missleading, and it shouldn't be part of the article. I'd suggest making another infobox about Allstars on the page, as the current one doesn't reflects Allstars or Classic or any version. -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 16:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

OUTDENT<==
That's a good idea. The only thing remaining in the current info box that's actually worth anything is the picture, which could be added separately. I recommend that an infobox be added for Allstars and the picture be of the current info box be added as a separate picture. I'll make the changes in a day or two, unless a better suggestion comes up.--Farqis (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Players of DOTA

Jason Dy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.180.33 (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Disappointment

I would like to express my disappointment on featuring this article. Despite my love to this game\map\mod, I don't think this article deserves being featured, as I said in the discussion: it is not comprehensive, and lacks a few details. Even though you might ask me:"What can we write else that is also encyclopedic and has good sources?", I personally think that lack of good sources is a good reason to intentionally omit this information and deny its existence when discussing the featuring of the article.

Countless time have I seen excellent, magnificant featured articles (the best examples I can think of right now are the Astronomy articles, like the recent Neptune feature). This isn't one of those. It is short, not comprehensive, and while it is written well, it does not deserve being featured, in my opinion. Anyway, I do not intend changing the policy neither here nor in other wikipedias, but I just want to express my feeling and general disappointment recently. YemeniteCamel (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And as I pointed out in the FAC, it's as comprehensive as it can be without relying upon non-reliable sources or going into the realm of minutae (i.e., gamecruft). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And as I pointed myself: It is not a good reason to simply deny its existence. Simply the fact there is no reliable sources for something, doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the article and yet call the article comprehensive and even feature it. Featured articles should be comprehensive, and if there is a limiation, well, we don't simply deny what's limiting us. YemeniteCamel (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are what gives us a measure of comfort that what we are reading is closer to truth than lies. Everything that is "notable" is mentioned, and if other aspects become notable, a by a reliable source mentioning them, it will be added. Articles are comprehensive in their inclusion of all notable aspects, not all aspects generally. It sounds like your problem is more with the policy WP:RS than this specific article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember sometime ago that writers relied so much on a "reliable source", they wrote a completely false data about Bhutan's population, even though someone pointed out it is clearly wrong. No, they didn't listen, because they relied on their source. Their source was holy and anyone trying to say else was wrong, according to them. YemeniteCamel (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I wouldnt agree more with User:YemeniteCamel. This "article" is nothing more than three to four description based topics on the game mod. There is no item/hero/history listing nor is there even a detail handing-down-of-the-torch information on Eul, Guinoss or IceFrog, all it says is blah balh blah..."developed by an author under the alias Guinsoo. After version 6.x, another author by the ..." and thats all about its creation, leaving alone everything else. For just any article I think this fits the Wiki standards, but sadly for a featured article this just is very disgusting. The user who nominated this micro-mini jargon as well as the mod who approved it are utterly unfit for writing/approving anything and its safe to say that they would be better off playing the game, sadly on the basis on which this article was approved to be "featured" just shows that "gamers will inherit the earth" and all that trash that comes along with it. Was†ed(Ag@in) _{‡ † ©} 09:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To point out again: comprehensiveness is bounded by coverage in reliable sources, and that wikipedia is not a game guide - so the in-game commands are automatically thrown out. The reliable sources hamper the comprehensiveness of the history section, because much of the info relied on forum postings, which were not admissable as reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who you have a grudge with Wasted, but I don't really care, so either contribute to wikipedia or quite whining. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If its a grudge you say, then i got one aginst the users who nominated such a iffy article for a FA status ofcourse, was that so hard to guess? Not to say that i did not contribute(to this article atleast) but is was just edited out by some cleanup junkie who might have not even played the mod even once in his life. Its true that such topics are hard to find any comprehensive or plausible information on, but atleast with this shoddy half hearted, right-or-wrong(no-wait-no-citations) article a FA status is just a joke. Dont need a game guide on Wiki to give a game article any credibility but atleast need something worthy of a FA status. Go "contribute" anything worth giving the article a FA status and dont "whine" back some other retortle.Was†ed(Ag@in) _{‡ † ©} 13:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ingame Commands

Would it be possible to add after the gameplay game modes, a small section on the in-game commands like -cs and -ms for example? Maybe not a big blurb, but at least something.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr eat alot (talk • contribs) 02:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a game guide, so it shouldn't tell users how to play the game. x42bn6 Talk Mess 07:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

These commands are not how to play the game, but rather the different commands programmed into the game. Some beginning game commands decide the game mode. Maybe a section on different type of game modes added over time? --68.238.223.57 (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. I guess you can just ignore the second part of the post then.. --Mr eat alot (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya, uh would It also be possible to add some note about the Animal Couriers as well as the Rune Power-ups in the river which crosses the middle of the map?

Allstars

> "Allstars is the version that made Defense of the Ancients popular."

My experience was that DotA was popular prior to the Allstars variant (and indeed prior to The Frozen Throne). Martin (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

ill second that. Dota was huge before tft. 24.108.208.160 (talk) 00:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Screenshot

The screenshot included in the article at this point is boring beyond belief. Can someone who has access please upload a screenshot of an awesome MYM teambattle or something similar? The current picture makes DotA look incredibly bland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyAhchay (talk • contribs) 11:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

roleplaying games

I think the roleplaying games link should be removed. "leveling up" and "acquiring gold" is hardly, laughably, barely the definition of a role-playing game. It links to a subject area that is not related in the slightest. We go from DoTA to an article that discusses little about computer games at all. Even the article on roleplaying games says,"A role-playing game has no winners, the main purpose of the game is to have fun playing it." There are winners in DoTA. What is worse is this is a featured article too, but it is faulted in this, and shows a lack of misunderstanding on the subject matter. As an encyclopedia, this is a poor representation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ТРОТЅИ (talk • contribs) 02:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I believe this article lacks a specific listing of criticism for this custom game.

First off, to many non-dota playing players in the west, this game has killed Battle.net. Rarely do any other games in the west than Dota, causing many west-coast players to migrate to the east. Although, now it seems that the east is slowly being taken over by Dota as well.

Second off, the lack of inaccessibility to new players. Dota is a game taken even more seriously than matches of the actual game. The game has a complete anti-new player sentiment to it. One need only look towards the length the hosts go to kick new players- Ban lists, autokickers, and an elitism that has caused a schism within the Frozen Throne community.

Third off, the spread of elitism to other custom games. Many Dota-esque games, such as Anime Wars, have followed in a similar vein to Dota as the games became more competitive to match Dota's popularity. Unfortunately, this has also spread to other games, most noticably in the west, where it is now acceptable to kick downloaders without any remorse.

There are many more complaints about this game, no doubt, including actual gameplay complaints, but these are just general complaints that can be used to guide a complaints section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.178.107 (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If we find significant criticism to DotA that is articulated on articles of a reputable nature, like say game magazines or major gaming websites then there would be no issue or problem with placing such criticism into the article. However what you just said can be pointed out to be Original Research and thus would not constitute a valid reason to place into the article. Ulaire (talk) 11:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

yes we are putting in a criticism section it is all very true and one does not need to look far to see it- and what others think. And you don't need a magazine to post it. Why would a magazine post critisism of dota anyway???? they are going to either A. talk about it or B. not. They are not gonna waste time talking about some custom map in a video game.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.71.0 (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

movie

will the warcraft creators make a movie out of this game? its better having a 3d effects having a combination of both the game strategy and the story of the heroes. vahn_dinio 17:02 May 14, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahn dinio (talk • contribs) 08:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a game, it's a map. My bet is no Turtleboy267 (talk) 08:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Core Elements

Most of the game's elements are not present. I am disappointed because this is a featured-semi-protected article. More improvements would be nice, otherwise, consider this article as a stub. Lonerguy_87 07:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No verifiable reliable sources exist for this information, and Wikipedia is not a game guide. x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I mean the elements in general about dota, not the gameplay itself nor the strategies on how to play dota. Can those be included? Lonerguy_87 18:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Still the reliable source issue, unfortunately. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, understood, that's a shame, many things can still be added to improve this page. I understand its really hard to find reliable sources for this kind of article. Lonerguy_87 18:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a bit more comprehensive before FAC in terms of explaining gameplay, but the statements had to be stripped to meet criteria. Hopefully as DotA endures there will be more about it and we can add back in content attributed to better sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For example, just stumbled across this and will integrate it in. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice! I hope more of this kind of source would surface, these sources, of course, needs to be stripped to be able to meet criteria. We're getting there! Lonerguy_87 17:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)