Jump to content

Talk:Dota 2/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Move Requested

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: As of now there's not really enough info on the game to see what kind of accepted nomenclature and styling will be used. Feel free to reopen the discussion when more commentary is available. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


DOTA 2 → Dota 2 — Valve Corporation has exclusively referred to the title as "Dota 2", not "DotA 2" or even "DOTA 2". It would be appropriate to have it retain its correct name. DarthBotto talk•cont 17:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The logo image in use is in all capitals, and the trademark request is also in all capitals. Gamespot, Gamespy, Ausgamers, and Escapist used DOTA2. Eurogamer, Icefrog on his playdota blog used DotA2. IGN used both. The new post on valvesoftware.com used Dota 2. Not saying the move isn't correct, just combing through some of the usual sources. ferret (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I think the main issue was you didn't do a move, but copy and pasted the content from one article to another. ferret (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
A normal move is not possible since the redirect page has been modified since creation. A move request is now the appropriate avenue. I provided DarthBotto with a link to Wikipedia:Requested moves, where the option for an "uncontroversial request" is provided. DarthBotto chose this method, which I think is fine. The sources vary, so it could probably use some discussion. Reach Out to the Truth 18:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, well, I am a little stumped, as well. IceFrog did refer to it as "DotA 2", which contrasts from Valve's method of writing it. I would rather have the page being named "DotA 2" or even "Defense of the Ancients 2", (if that is even it's real name). So, let's try to get some additional opinions. DarthBotto talk•cont 18:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment – Valve (publisher/developer) refers to at it as Dota 2, IceFrog (lead dev) refers to as DotA 2 & the logo is stylized as DOTA 2. It's the sequel to Defense of the Ancients which is usually stylized or shortened to DotA. I say for now we leave as is until we have a more consistent stylization of the name. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  21:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • How the logo is stylized means nothing. For example the logo of hl2ep2 is written in all capitals: Half-Life 2: Episode Two and the logo of hl2 has the "2" differently written compared to the other letters: Half-Life 2. The trademark means nothing as well. Search on http://tess2.uspto.gov/ for the trademark of Half-Life, it's HALF-LIFE but this isn't how the game is called. IceFrog's comments on his forums mean nothing as well, since well.. it's a forum. Valve's press release refers to it exclusively as Dota 2, which must be its true name since well, it's a press release?
    • In any case, I have emailed mr. Newell asking for clarification. I'll post his response when/if I get it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.56.89 (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
      • The reference to the stylization of the logo is due to the prequel being referred to Defense of the Ancients (aka DotA), while this is similar being referred to as DOTA 2, Dota 2, DotA 2, etc. And referring to Half-Life 2: Episode 2 is not helpful, since the title is composed of words in the spoken English language, while Dota is not. I was referring to IceFrog's blog post, not he has posted on the forum... And please common wiki usage, e.g. wikilinks & signing you posts with ~~~~. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV tag, Neutrality

The basis of this article seems to hold no ground, a simple anecdote of opinions based on what the game "might" become including many praising remarks of valve and many derogatory remarks on Blizzard and the Warcraft version of DoTA. The article mentions disputes at the end but fails to present alternative standpoints. 

               In a few words: Sounds like an advertisement.
               All opinions should be removed before neutrality tag is removed.
I've rewritten most of the sentences in the gameplay section. I will give you a bit to review and make a reply here, but plan to remove the tag shortly. ferret (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:VG assessment

For now, I am assessing this as Start-Class. The one thing that needs improvement is the lead, which needs some expansion. Two short paragraphs should suffice for an article of this size right now. Once that is expanded, I'll be more comfortable with bringing it up to C-Class. –MuZemike 00:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Assessed now as C-Class. Still a rather short article (but it's still an upcoming game), but the prose and referencing look pretty good. –MuZemike 16:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Valve Task Force Re-vitalization

Attention, all contributors to the Valve Task Force and the articles it constitutes!
I am here to announce that I will be re-vitalizing the Valve Task Force, aimed at universally improving articles constituting Valve Corporation, their employees, associates and products. This specific task force has been dormant for quite some time and with two very notable releases coming out this year, I feel like this is the appropriate time to re-stimulate the general aim of this group. For those who are not already members of the Valve Task Force, feel free to add your name to our members list and contribute to whatever articles you feel your contributions may prove beneficial for. Valve, its products and notable employees have proven to be essential to the progression of the video game industry, so I'd like to make a call of arms for this cause. DarthBotto talk•cont 22:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Ancients"

The term "ancients" for the goals is wrong. In DotA terms, the term "ancients" refer to the tough creep spots found near the river on both sides of the map. A more accurate description of the goal would be, maybe, "shrines". (I know the argument against this is that the base is referred to as "ancient" in the title, but in-game, people using the term ancients refer to the aforementioned creeps) --80.99.41.101 (talk) 19:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it free?

Is the game going to be free to play ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.2.59 (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, the refference about it being in retail came from 2010, and back then Heros of Newerth was P2P, so it was practicle to assume Dota 2 would be P2P. Now Heroes of Newerth is free, it would make Valve reconsider. Ironically near the same date, Team Fortress 2 was made free, so possibly Valve wasted their freeness to that game before Dota 2, not sure if they can afford to free Dota 2. --75.159.2.59 (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Most probably it is going to be free. Main purpose is to rather increase steam online by another million, for which purpose dota's playerbase is perfect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.204.10.98 (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Recurring Issues

I find this article to be great in quality and completion, considering what has been presented thus far. In my opinion, it is well on its way to achieving a Good Article status and more importantly, a Featured Article status. However, there are some things that should be addressed before anyone edits this page.

  • IceFrog's name. Since Dota 2's announcement, there has been circulating rumors about the lead designer's name. The source of said rumors was an anonymous blog. Blogs generally are not useful pieces of information, the more truth to this observation from unofficial and unverified blogs. The news articles that use his name reference the blog as a source, rendering them non-viable sources for this article. The only way we can use a name is if either IceFrog or Valve themselves comes forward, using his real name. Until then, we're going to simply go with "IceFrog", even if his best friend were to write an article using a supposed name.
  • The game's name. There was some confusion over the title of this game. However, Valve has exclusively referred to it as Dota 2, with the "A" at the end lowercase. It is stated in the IGN source by the game's director, Erik Johnson, that it's a thing, rather than an abbreviation.
  • The game's genre. This is tricky, because many dispute that it can be even described as having a unique genre, as the spin-offs based on DotA are more of clones than creative endeavors. However, despite there being a less-definable way to describe it, the idea of calling it a Dota genre has been applied to its main page, while there is consensus to use "Action RTS" on the pages. This is true, as it fits the profile of an action role-playing game and also a strategy game.
This is not good practice. The words Action RTS link to the seperate dota genre. If It is enough of a genre to have page and be linked it is enough of a genre to be listed here, being as it is DOTA 2. Also having one genre displayed and one genre being linked to causes confusion and simply, both cannot be true. If there continues to be a dota genre, dota2 is the most deserving of it, and should be listed as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.211.42 (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Action RTS is a redirect for Dota (genre), and is a part of the Dota (genre) article. Consensus currently is that, per Valve's declaration and various sources, the genre is Action RTS. This is wikilinked directly to Dota (genre) to bypass the redirect. ferret (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Short and sweet. Look at the page to DotA- it's one of the finest articles in the video game section of Wikipedia. It's promoter, David Fuchs, has watched over it and kept it high quality, allowing good and useful edits, much like I have with this article. With that, it's a relatively short article that gets right to the point and doesn't create elongated sections or use words as fluff. With that in mind, when there is new developments, such as "The International", we should keep it where it belongs. There was originally a whole section created for the tournament, but it's been moved, spliced and diced and now fits nicely into development, because it's a crucial part of the game's development, as the public debut. When the electronic sports scene develops, we can add a section for reception and legacy, with "The International" as the most-awarding tournament for a single game in electronic sports history. In addition, when we have a full unveiling at Gamescom, we'll have all the materials to name the factions, the number of heroes, game play changes, graphic changes, user interface and most-importantly; we'll be able to add a screen shot.

I hope there is agreement on these issues and please, share your viewpoints. DarthBotto talk•cont 08:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

    • Well, I should respond positively to the ego-stroking. I agree with almost everything, although I should point out DotA is short and sweet in part because there aren't the sources to really support something larger—Dota 2 has the promise to be more of a AAA game release from a AAA game developer, so there's likely to be much more info in the end, such as lots of scored reviews, etc. So it depends on the eventual coverage, although of course we're not a game guide and we observe summary style. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Page Outdated?

Seems to me this page is outdated. I don't know anything about DOTA myself, else I'd update - but as Steam is advertising "The International DOTA2 Championships" for 17–21 August, it seems wrong that this page states that the game is "upcoming". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.29.211 (talk) 09:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It's okay , you can put on announcements made by the officials, but thanks for remembering that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, Valve is . --75.159.2.59 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As a regular dota2 player, I can say with security that this page is WAY outdated. The screenshots are old, and it is missing vital info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.143.96.87 (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I see little value in updating the screenshots (at this time). What information would you posit is missing? Be sure to compare this to Defense of the Ancients, which is a featured article, and consider the implications of the video game guidelines. --Izno (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dota 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: –MuZemike 22:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Quick-failed – I'm sorry, but this article in inherently unstable, as it is a game still in development. As this article gets closer to release, it's only going to get more unstable. This fails WP:GACR#5 and needs to wait until sometime after its release when it has had a chance to stabilize a little more. –MuZemike 22:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

VG assessment (withdrawn)

After taking MuZemike's comments into consideration, I've decided to take this article's rating in a different direction entirely. Comments from MuZemike, David Fuchs and Vantine84 from the peer review and one-on-one talks paints a picture that this is a very good article with the quality of a GA, but it is not yet stable, as it is still bringing in new details about the game. Due to that nature, it fits the criteria for an A-class article, as those do not have the same requirements as a GA, but look for quality and reliability. However, the level of dedication to this page, matched only by its refined quality displays its qualification as an able A-class article. DarthBotto talk•cont 18:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You and the other editors of this page have done a great job. The article as it stands fails B-class criteria #2 "The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies." There's no reception information, so it should really be C-class and can't be eligible for GA or A-class until the game is released. That's also assuming that nothing else changes between now and the game's release, stability and completeness will both cease to be issues in the future, but till then I wouldn't worry too much about the article's rating. Someone another 19:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, I don't believe it needs an A-Class rating as of now, so I'm shelving this proposal until this article has a reception section. This article has earned a B-Class rating, so I won't challenge its grade improvement, (in fact I welcome it). As far as omissions and inaccuracies, I must beg to differ, however. It has virtually every reliable testimony added and provides what is available. The reception section will be added and I promise that it will match the quality of what has been developed thus far on this page. DarthBotto talk•cont 02:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I think we can reasonably say it's B quality, as we have used the information which we have available, and it meets the rest of the criteria. I do not think it merits the A rating, as it certainly isn't a complete description, and we know that. Of course, I'm biased; I switched the rating from C to B to begin with (without knowledge that VG follows the criteria that MILHIST originally established). --Izno (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a clean-cut yay or nay IMHO, but I'm not going to bang on about it, we've all got things to do. My motivation for posting was concern, I noticed the the article up for GA then up for A-class assessment in quick succession and I was hoping to post.. something that would discourage the A-class attempt before someone else came in and slapped it down in a negative fashion. Not that that would necessarily happen, but y'know turning positive vibes into negatives would suck and having thought it I didn't want to chance leaving it. It'll doubtless be ready for GA when the information becomes available so it's all good. Someone another 03:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. I don't think anyone's terribly worried about it of course. I think it would have been easier just to say it's not A quality given that it's lacking the same things which stopped it from going to GA. But again, we've all got things to do. When the rest of the game is out, we'll probably be able to send it straight to GA, give or take. --Izno (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from JesseColton, 23 September 2011

IceFrog mentioned on a recent blog post that the Dota 2 beta would be released earlier than planned, giving players an opportunity to play the heroes seen at The International.

This is exciting news for the local DotA community, and should be included in wikipedia ASAP. JesseColton (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 19:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Dota 2's closed beta exists for a two months now. In last two weeks there had been giveaway about 3000 keys to different communities, sites, et cetera, resulting to 300 players online at the saturday's night. :) Currently, with such small amount of testers, i doubt it will be released before 2012. Bug tracker is full, and only growing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.204.10.98 (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Done A mention and reference were included before you even posted this in the first place. Check the end of the article. DarthBotto talk•cont 18:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggested source

This IGN article explains the mechanics of the 3 hero attributes and hero abilities; a must for the "Gameplay" section. Hula Hup (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC) Done

Citation problem

The article presents its sources as publishers. Sites should be included in a "Work" field inside the citation, not in the "Publisher" one, which is reserved for the site's owner (for example, IGN's owner is IGN Entertainment). Hula Hup (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggested source

An IGN article that would be good for a future "Legacy" section. Hula Hup (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Minor problems

I've adjusted this sentence as the source does not mention a time frame. Gabe Newell stated that after Gamescom they would be ramping up to send invites. We'll probably need to revisit this but I changed it to something workable in the meantime. The source is good for details in the article but didn't provide any specific beta timeframe, as you noted. ferret (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • In the lead, the sentence "Dota 2 marks Valve's first fantasy, as well as Action RTS game" is an excessive detail. The lead must be as brief as possible and only present the most important info on the article's subject. Done
Agreed, removed. ferret (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • In "Gameplay", I'm afraid the factions are described from a POV ("light", "nature-oriented", "dark", "volcanic-themed"). Neutrality is one of the 5 core policies. There seems to be no source supporting these characterisations. It has been pointed out in the article's peer review that any role held by the factions should be mentioned, but stating that their bases resemble something is unfortunately personal opinion and has nothing to do with their role in the game (appropriate adjectives would be "good" for the Radiant and "evil" for the Dire, but I have know idea if any source states this, maybe there's one or multiple in the article supporting this); I've said in the past that the Radiant's base may look like a forest to X and like a garden to Y and the Dire's base may look like a volcano to X and like a cave to Y, what they look like is completely subjective. There is also a problem in expression, as a faction cannot be "oriented" or "themed", their bases maybe. If there was a source supporting the labels, the correct wording would be something like "The Radiant's base is verdant, while the Dire's base is built on volcanic terrain", but, still, these are trivial details irrelevant to the factions' purpose. For now, we should better just say that they're 2 opposing factions and wait for a source saying their alignment to come out (if there isn't one). Done
There's a source saying the factions are meant to mirror the alignments of the original factions, i.e. good and evil, but I can't find any text sources that directly support the theme descriptions. Removed details. ferret (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Question: Source 7 is a video. Can videos be used as sources in Wikipedia? Hula Hup (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe this is an issue. ferret (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Genre

  • In both the infobox and lead, the game is stated to be action RTS, which is an unofficial term only used by Valve, according to Dota (genre). It would be advisable to substitute with "Dota" in both of them for consistency and to avoid confusion of readers unfamiliar with the topic. Presenting a term used by a company as a genre is incorrect. Hula Hup (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I partially agree with you, but the genre "Dota" isn't really an official term either, as evidenced by Dota (genre) which lists at least 6 different names for the genre. The article is mostly acting as an umbrella for the many media names. As well, most DOTA style games get flagged as RTS or RPG in their reviews, not as Dota. Since the redirect is a valid redirect to the genre page, and "Action RTS" has relaible sources backing it, I believe it should stay as is for now until we get to the point where previews/reviews of the game are calling it something different. I can also find a source where S2 (Heroes of Newerth) referred to the genre as a whole as Action RTS, rather than Dota 2 specificially. And the major sites like Joystiq, Gamespot, IGN, etc, all have it flagged differently as RTS, RPG, and Strategy. I'm going to break this out as a seperate discussion section as I believe we should get consensus on where to go here. ferret (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I believe we all know that, technically, the game is a real-time strategy video game with elements of a role-playing video game, but, whatever consensus says. The infobox says action RTS and the lead says action strategy video game. At the very least, they should say the same and not further confuse readers, especially ones with no knowledge of the subject. Hula Hup (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
The game developer calls Dota/Dota 2 Action-RTS. Why is this termed as MOBA? By definition, counter strike, unreal tournament are also MOBA. If you really are against adding Action-RTS, add Action, RTS. Under no circumstances, Dota/Dota 2 should be called MOBA. 27.147.199.131 (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC) CvP, PlayDota.com Staff.
I've tweaked the lead to match the infobox for now. Both are subject to change if consensus says so, but you're right they should match. ferret (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
DOTA 2 isn't an RTS at all, it's a MOBA. You can only control one character at a time, and it's not like Valkyria Chronicles at all. Please change the genre to Multiplayer Online Battle Arena. 68.190.116.202 (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
ARTS is valid for the moment, but the ARTS article is about to be renamed to MOBA. Wait until the move occurs and then update the relevant usages of ARTS. -- ferret (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to add my input about that argument. Dota 2 is an RTS since it has customizable control groups, micro heroes and certain items that revolve around the control of multiple units. Also, Valve uses the ARTS term since the MOBA term is unknown to those unrelated to the genre in any way. Overall, the public was more receptive to ARTS than MOBA since they could picture the nature of the game by its genre. --Vi3trice (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of Sources

Sadly, this article formerly located inside of the wiki is inaccurate especially when it says, "In fact, DOTA is likely the most popular and most-discussed free, non-supported game mod in the world, judging by the numbers" due to the lack of supporting evidence or statistics. Citing this source made it quite misleading. Please do not link to this article again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.39.180 (talk) 09:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

GamaSutra is a reliable source, the problem is that the "Cultural impact" section presents the opinion of the article's writer as a fact and that the article is also outdated in terms of DotA's popularity, as it was published in 2008. A phrase like "As of 2008, DotA was considered the most..." would be better, but the best option is to find another more recent source which also doesn't present DotA's domination in its genre as a probability ("DotA is likely..."), but as a fact. Hula Hup (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Then we need to find a newer source that states the same fact, because we can't simply jump into, "Valve has been working to get...", because to establish the importance of the competitive scene, we need a brief prose that represents the magnitude of DotA's popularity. That being said, I hope we can find something more recent, because settling for something that states "almost", or that the current source is an opinion piece, or else downgrading its popularity won't work well. DarthBotto talk•cont 17:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
I just tweaked it to show the timeframe and source of the consideration. Especially the phrase "widely considered" should have multiple sources backing it. Not perfect, but a bandaid for the moment. ferret (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

New section

Hey everyone, I plan on adding a section about the game's backstory/synopsis when the story about the Mad Moon mentioned in the comics is readily available. It should be substantial, in comparison to the other sections, so we should be good for having a background.

Now, to convey the back story, what do you guys propose we'd name the section- "Plot", "Synopsis", "Setting", "Back Story"? DarthBotto talk•cont 10:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The correct name is "Plot", according to WikiProject Video games. What is the Mad Moon story? You mean the comics mentioned in the Dota 2 official blog (with the shopkeeper on the cover)? What is the comics' relation to the game? Hula Hup (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The comics mention the Mad Moon, but there's a more in-depth plot being developed by Valve that is available in the developers' forum that I read, which explains things more specifically. It covers different characteristics about the world, including the geological history, as well as how the Radiant and Dire were formed, essentially giving the basis to Dota. Here's the brief version provided by the Dota 2 Wiki that explains it. I'm not sure if me linking the post in the developers' forum would be of much use, as I do not know if people are able to view it without a beta key. Rest assured, this isn't necessarily official yet, but it's the outline for what will be counted when Valve publishes the full synopsis for the Dota universe.DarthBotto talk•cont 20:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Official title

I notice there's been warring over this but no discussion (at least not here), which is bad. So I'll get things rolling:

  • User:Bens dream cited Defense of the Ancients as rationale, but the title of the original doesn't necessarily indicate the title of the sequel.
  • The source for "Dota 2" states, "For us it's just a word, or a brand name." This doesn't really do it for me either. Sounds more like they're saying how they feel about the acronym and regard it internally.

That said, [1][2][3][4][5] -- The official site (though it be a blog) refers to the acronym, and the gaming sites, which in my experience use the official titles, all show this as Dota 2. The Gamespot page even makes a fairly blatant distinction: "Dota 2 features the characters and factions from the original Defense of the Ancients title with new features."

Until a reliable source is found that says otherwise, Dota 2 seems to be the safer bet. Welcoming other sources though.

PS. Don't refer to each others' reverts as vandalism. Vandalism is intentional damage, while this is a difference of opinion. Equazcion (talk) 05:43, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)

Well, calling it "Defense of the Ancients 2" or even having any discussion about this isn't relevant anymore. There was a little confusion when I created the page, (whether it was "Dota 2", "DotA 2", or "DOTA 2"), but it's actually been well-documented and included in this page that "Dota 2" is not an acronym, but a concept. So, it's a firm and grounded fact that the game is simply "Dota 2"; users just need to realize this before edit-warring, (which has happened on a couple occasions). It was wrong of me to call it vandalism; it was merely a good-faith edit to be reverted, nothing more. I think this has been blown way out of proportion and I can take partial blame for that. DarthBotto talk•cont 19:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Suggested source

If another source with the same content as this isn't already in the article, feel free to add this. Hula Hup (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I added a source with that material already. DarthBotto talk•cont 02:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
A "19 most rage-inducing games that fill us with hate" list for "Reception", criticising the player community's occasional rude behaviour and the anger caused by it: [6]. The site is reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Hula Hup (talk) 17:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a section on the lawsuit between Valve and Blizzard

It's pretty important to discuss in this article, relevant to the development. 71.53.2.237 (talk) 13:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the Development section. -- ferret (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
And for clarification, there previously was a section concerning said controversy, but in the last peer review, it was heavily requested that it be included as a mere footnote of a more prevalent section, rather than a key mark of this article. DarthBotto talk•cont 09:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

System requirements

As you may have noticed, I have taken the liberty of adding the system requirements template to the development section, which has become customary for video game titles on Wikipedia. However, there are a few issues we will need addressed. First and most important, we need the system recommendations and requirements for Mac OS X. Second, we need a reliable source to show this. When Valve has updated Dota 2's page on their Steam website, that will be the source, but for now, I'd like to see a bandage. If anybody could oblige this, it would be greatly appreciated. DarthBotto talk•cont 11:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Mac?

Why is Mac listed as a platform? I was under the impression that the game is not available for Macs yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.78.232 (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It is currently available for Mac for the beta, but not for Mac OS X. When it is fully released, it will be available for Mac OS X, but not as of yet. As a game that is still technically upcoming, PC, Mac and Mac OS X are still to be listed as the available platforms. DarthBotto talk•cont 17:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Citing the "steep learning curve"

There is a sentence in the "design" section that requires greater detail and possible citation.

"The game will also feature tutorial sessions for further assisting players to mount the steep learning curve before competitive play"

The "steep learning curve" for Dota 2 is well documented and should be represented here. This guide, for example, is referenced widely by experienced players when trying to teach people how to play the game...

B0TTiG (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. If you are simply suggesting a change as a matter of normal talk page collaboration, you do not need to use {{edit semi-protected}}. For edit requests, please be specific about what you want added to the article. BigNate37(T) 17:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Name of genre

Wikipedia has decided to call the genre MOBA. However, Valve calls DotA 2 an ARTS. Both of these terms link to the same page on WP, so it makes no difference there, but you will not a find more RS for DotA 2 than Valve itself. Unflavoured (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

There's not really anything to be said that hasn't been said on the multiplayer online battle arena talk page. Valve can call the genre whatever they want on their website, but that doesn't mean it's separate in definition from what constitutes a MOBA, per what has been defined by Wikipedia. This really isn't my own opinion, so much as what was decided through more than two years of discussion by consensus. DarthBotto talk•cont 03:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
But these are two separate issues: What to call the genre, and what to call DotA 2. We can come to the consensus that the genre is called MOBA (I disagree, clearly, but I am not trying to change the MOBA page), while at the same time using ARTS on the DotA 2 page, since it links back to MOBA anyway. As an example: Kaiser Aluminum notice that "Kaiser Aluminum is an American aluminum producer" yet the "aluminum" links to "aluminium." So we have categorization that is backed by a RS, and a precedent. Logical , yes ?! Unflavoured (talk) 04:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Using a different name, that's implying that it's a different genre, which it's not. Why would we call it something else than what the other pages have? What's the unique quality that sets it apart, other than that it's something that Valve calls it? DarthBotto talk•cont 00:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Both ARTS and MOBA link to the same page. The page itself says that these are two names for the same genre. Why should we call it an ARTS !? Because that is what it is officially called by the company that makes the game. There is a much better case for calling it an ARTS than a MOBA. Unflavoured (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, this is, once again, an issue that you should keep to the MOBA page, because whatever rationate you bring here is null and void, so long as it's an issue that doesn't apply to other pages. Editors will want to keep consistency, so you could change the link to "action real-time strategy", but it's going to be reverted back by someone other than me. There's really no point in keeping this argument to me, when there are plenty of other editors who can give consensus. DarthBotto talk•cont 00:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Consensus can change, and new arguments can be more logical than old arguments. We cannot simply refuse to edit wikipedia because of the possibility of a revert in the future. You say that there is no point in keeping this argument, so I want to know your (your, not others) opinion on what to call DotA 2: A MOBA or an ARTs ?! Not the consensus on the name of the genre, I know the consensus on the name of the genre, I want to know your opinion on what DotA 2 should be called. If you, and most of everyone else, agree that DotA 2 should be called an ARTS, then we will have a new consensus, won't we ?! Unflavoured (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, well, I personally prefer "action real-time strategy". Most certainly I do. However, I wouldn't change it on this page by my preference along. If you would like to re-check consensus, I would urge you to bring up this issue to the MOBA page, so we could check consensus once more. DarthBotto talk•cont 03:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I have checked on most sources, and there are more people using the term MOBA than ARTS... for now. In accordance with WP policies, we will need for that to change first, before we change the name from MOBA to ARTS on that page. But here on the DotA 2 page, I think we should use ARTS, also in accordance with WP policies. If everyone agrees with this, and RSes are provided, then there should not be an issue, yes ?! Unflavoured (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd still oppose using MOBA on this page, not for my personal inclination, (which is towards ARTS), but because it would disregard the policies you mentioned, in relation to the MOBA page. As for policies that might relate to the Dota 2 page, I'd say that too is not relevant. Why I say this is because ARTS is a term backed by Valve, but not a defining characteristic that sets it apart from MOBA. In actuality, I'd say it's somewhat of a game guide asset, considering the endorsement of the term you want to use would utilize a statement made by Valve. I don't have anything else to say on this matter, other than you shouldn't be inclined to edit pages based on personal inclination, rather than working to create a cohesive, encyclopedic structure. DarthBotto talk•cont 00:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been asked to voice my opinion on the topic. First I'm going to elaborate on 3 other opinions of mine.

  • Both ARTS and MOBA are incorrect: the game is either a real-time strategy game with role-playing game elements or a role-playing game with real-time strategy game elements. I think the infobox and the lead and "Gameplay" sections should have described its genre as one of the two italicised genres (I don't know which one is more accurate), with incorporated elements mentioned in the lead and "Gameplay", as well as in other sections, if needed.
  • Including the word "action" in the term "ARTS" is also incorrect, because mentioning the greater genre (i.e. action) to which a sub-genre (i.e. real-time strategy) belongs to in the sub-genre's name has no meaning at all, it's purely redundant.
  • ARTS is just another name for MOBA.

Consensus is currently in favour of having MOBA as the name of the genre's article. Since the genre's article is named "MOBA", then this term should be used in the articles of games that belong to this genre. I hope I helped. Hula Hup (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if people look at the talk history for the MOBA page, they'll know that I do not like the term. However, they will also see that I'm obligated to keep things encyclopedic and neutral and from that perspective, I have to consolidate pages to be congruent with consensus, even if I don't like it. I totally get the perspective that Unflavoured has, since I was making nearly verbatim edits when I first created this page, but by this point, it just wouldn't be fair to the editors who have also edited and gave consensus. Thanks for the input, Hula Hup. DarthBotto talk•cont 22:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

DOTA 2 isn't MOBA. Here is official video form DOTA 2 channel, which say that Gabe Newell (main VALVE developer for DOTA 2) is calling ARTS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGxFIdxwH14&feature=g-subs-u . please change it, i think many players were woted for wrong answer beacuse of this wikipedia page. (filozof) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.29.16.158 (talk) 14:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad to help. Hula Hup (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Just an opinion on this, but it doesn't matter what Valve wants to call it. The genre of game is considered MOBA. They can label it as an Action RTS, but it doesn't change the fact that any 3rd party gaming company or news source is going to tag it as a MOBA. Rveillet (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

DarthBotto

For whatever reason, DarthBotto has taken it upon himself to force the useage of the term MOBA for the genre on Wikipedia. Valve itself refers to DOTA 2 as an Action RTS. "Lots of people have tried to assign various genre names to Dota, but we think Action RTS is probably the most descriptive." Considering this, there is no logical reason why ARTS should not be used in the main DOTA2 article, especially considering that it links to the MOBA page. If you browse the talk pages of LoL, DOTA2, and MOBA (and perhaps others), you will see an editor who is working feverishly to push a single name for a genre which DOES NOT HAVE CONSENSUS. I am not skilled in using Wikipedia, but hopefully someone with the know how (meaning Wikipedia is like a damn lawyer convention with all the wikipedia-legalese these days), as it is damn frustrating to see one person pushing their agenda against a wall of opposition. It would seem Wikipedia is no longer the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit". 69.14.148.16 (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You are simply incorrect. DarthBotto has not single handedly set Wikipedia's direction. If you read the talk page of the MOBA article itself you would see that this has been widely debated and the current usage of MOBA does have consensus. -- ferret (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
The ferret speaks truth. Although many of us dislike the use of "moba" as a descriptor for the genre, it is the term used by the gaming press, which are for the most part considered reliable sources. Naming the genre otherwise would have us run afoul of the community policies of no original research and neutral point of view (in combination). --Izno (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
It's very obvious that you are not, as you stated, "skilled with Wikipedia"- it could not be any clearer. If you actually looked at the talk pages, which you obviously haven't, you'd see that I was one of the biggest advocates for action real-time strategy, back when it was unclear whether multiplayer online battle arena or action real-time strategy would be the central term. I had the page renamed action real-time strategy and it remained that way for nearly half a year, before there was overwhelming evidence that multiplayer online battle arena was the central focus. With consensus, which you don't seem to understand here, we begrudgingly accepted the situation and renamed it multiplayer online battle arena. There are proponents for any number of names for the sub-genre, whether it be "Dota genre", "MOBA" or "ARTS", but what we have found is that nobody how popular it may be, there will always be someone who is displeased with the current name. In a personal light, I dislike the term, but per consensus and reliable media, I feel we have to accept it.
On the subject of you not knowing what you're talking about, this happens to be a personal attack. You have dedicated an entire section for sullying my name and good faith on Wikipedia. Under no circumstance is this acceptable. Consider this your warning. DarthBotto talk•cont 05:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll make one last comment. Look at this: Talk:Heroes of Newerth#About changing the genre 23/11 -10 despite the genre discussion. Do you know what that is? That's an editor stating the exact opposite of what you're attacking me for. Like you, he made the assumption that I have an agenda to help some corporation get their term into the media, when it seemed like action real-time strategy was part of said agenda. The point I'm making is that no matter which way we swing on Wikipedia, there will always be backlash for the naming on most any page that can even be slightly ambiguous in nature. As an editor, my responsibility is to keep things in a fairly representational, cohesive fashion; I don't give a damn about an agenda and more importantly, I don't give a damn about the basis of your accusations. DarthBotto talk•cont 06:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Number of heroes

IIRC the number of heroes needs to be updated to 106(?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NCihcahpopllaes (talk • contribs) 16:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you are confusing Defense of the Ancients and Dota 2. Dota 2 has a slightly lesser number of heroes. --Izno (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Release Date

Is there any evidence that actually supports the "TBA 2012" noted in the infobox? I'm fairly certain Valve has alluded that the game will be released late 2011 multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.247.144.94 (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

They may have alluded to such a thing previously, but the latest definitive estimate from Valve is Gabe Newell stating that it will most-likely be available in 2012, so that's what we're going with. DarthBotto talk•cont 04:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Article says "an upcoming multiplayer online battle arena". Does the whole article need updating? --BenTremblay (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 April 2013

Please change Multiplayer Online Battle Arena to Action Real Time Strategy because that's what the creators(Valve/Gabe Newell) call it and also out of respect for the Dota/Dota 2 community. Thank you in advance. Marlonsking1526 (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As said in the above discussion, a consensus "was made in the MOBA articles talk space" and "The term we use here is MOBA, for the simple reason that it is what reliable secondary sources use. Valve is not one of those in this matter." Samwalton9 (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 04/23/13

Dota 2 is currently only available on Windows and not yet on Mac OS X. Editors should change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.204.193 (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Izno (talk) — Gmt2001 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Genre Edit War (March 2013)

Due to an edit war appearing to start I am going to stop reverting changes related to the genre of this article. The user Thysios (talk | contribs) seems to be adamant to label Dota 2 as an ARTS against the consensus that was made in the MOBA articles talk space. Since there has been 2 attempted reverts of this users changes, one by Izno (talk | contribs) and one by gmt2001(myself) (talk | contribs) based on WP:COMMONNAME, and the user has counter-reverted them both, I can only assume that this user will continue this as an edit war if we continue to attempt to revert the changes. Thysios' counter-revert reason for the second counter-revert is stated as Valve calls DotA 2 an action RTS. Not a MOBA. This user is also attempting to start a similar edit war, though not as strongly as here, in the articles for other similar games Defense of the Ancients, League of Legends, and Heroes of Newerth. I will also recuse myself from reverting genre related changes to those articles until the issue is resolved. The user has been given a regular warning and, following the second counter-revert, given a WP:3RR warning, both of which can be viewed on his user talk page (direct link). — Gmt2001 (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Changing the genre en masse is frankly inappropriate. Thysios should come and discuss. The term we use here is MOBA, for the simple reason that it is what reliable secondary sources use. Valve is not one of those in this matter. --Izno (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Correct, that is what i was meaning to refer to when i mentioned the discussion on the MOBA talk page. I recommend you try to refrain from reverting his changes any more so that you do not get punished too if we bring this to the administrators. As i understand it, posting for the administrators to investigate a user for edit warring will bring all participants under scrutiny and would all be subject to a ban if their counter-edits break edit war rules. — Gmt2001 (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I just checked and saw that you had done a third revert which was third counter-reverted followed by you doing a 4th revert. I am considering reporting him for edit warring now. If he does it again then i will immediately post a report. — Gmt2001 (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Would Thysios like to discuss before continuing the edits? Please reply here. — Gmt2001 (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I'd give a heads-up that I suggested on Reddit that some effort be expended to improve this article, and one of the first things that was brought up was the inappropriateness of the "MOBA" label. I requested that they leave it alone for now since it isn't something that can be changed without discussion, but I just thought I'd comment here that the Dota community as a whole rejects the MOBA tag, so hopefully the conversation can be re-opened. · Andonic contact 19:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately the community and their support or opposition to the label doesn't really come into play in whether or not the tag is used. Most of us here don't like the label either, but since Wikipedia has to rely on reliable secondary sources, we're stuck with what those reliable sources are using. Nothing about that has changed, and an effort by a community to help update the article doesn't bring anything new to the table. If someone has significant sources that show a shift in the language used by the RS's in referring to the genre, that's a different story. -- ferret (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I realize that, however, there has been a noted increase in third party sources noting that MOBA is an inadequate and lacking term for the genre; I unfortunately don't have them on hand but I've come across numerous instances in the past. I'll be sure to catalog them going forward and hopefully at some point have enough to justify effecting a change here. · Andonic contact 22:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
It would be something for discussion at talk:multiplayer online battle arena, anyway. But yes, sources are good! (On a side note, I'm not quite sure why we didn't just use Aeon of Strife as that's what this genre has been known as for a decade, but who am I to question the sources myself? :). --Izno (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Game premise/synopsis?

Can we include a section for the game's backstory/context? -017Bluefield (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source where we could get such information? I thought most lore was taken from piecing together information from each character's story and voice lines. I may be wrong! Samwalton9 (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Good question. Two possible sources would be the game itself and the website. Problem is: both are primary. -017Bluefield (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

New screenshots?

The screenshots that are currently used do not accurately depict how the game currently is. Changes by Valve to the HUD, icons, textures, etc. have changed how the game looks and feels. Also with the upcoming International tournament, it would be appropriate to change the screenshot to how the game actually is. Possibly a screenshot from the upcoming Qualifying tournaments (preferably a pro match) would be good. Flarepik (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I can take some tonight if no one else has done it by then. Samwalton9 (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
That would be welcome, although you need to be sure that the screenshots a) represent a definite correlation to key concepts of the game and b) provide a consistent context, (like in the case of the comparison, where Dragon Knight is positioned in an identical manner and the camera is aligned. Leave the image from The International 2012, though. DarthBotto talk•cont 23:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that screenshot (with the Sand King) is from The International 2011, because the HUD is from the older versions. That's actually one of the reasons that I thought changing the screenshots would be a good idea. Also, with the upcoming The International 2013, I thought it would be good to update the screenshots for those new to the game. Flarepik (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new image for the Dragon Knight comparison, and have taken a few for the other screenshot replacement which I'd like some opinion on. It's quite hard to get a screenshot that isn't a mess of spell animations. I've taken these from the Defense 3 finals, but I'm tempted to look at some other games and see if I can do better - [7] - Samwalton9 (talk) 12:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The screenshots are pretty good, but they are similarly lacking in spells or item usage. The only skill that is evidently used is TA's trap. Also, the replay panel in the top right is a bit distracting. But it's ok since the International Qualifying tournaments will give us plenty of time to catch a good moment. Flarepik (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Correction, I missed refraction, but both skills are still from TA.
Fair comments, I'm not hugely happy with the ones I linked either. I'm not sure how to get a replay screenshot without the replay panel though, any idea? Samwalton9 (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I would say that an initiation of a 5v5 teamfight would be good. Obviously we don't want an explosion of skills and abilities but enough so that it's clear that each hero has individual skills. I've started watching the Qualifiers so hopefully I'll have a stash of decent screenshots soon. Flarepik (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Also to get rid of the replay panel, just click on the eye symbol above the panel.Flarepik (talk) 11:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

IP Users Editing Genre (May 2013)

To the unregistered (IP) users, please do not change the genre to anything other than Multiplayer Online Battle Arena. A consensus has already been reached that it is the most appropriate name for the genre. (see MOBA Talk Page)

To the registered users who are watching the page, I have Requested Page Protection for the article as a result of the recent IP edits. — Gmt2001 (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

RPP successful, we now have indefinite semi-protection. — Gmt2001 (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for requesting this. Reverting vandalism to this page is getting tiring. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Released or not?

The article says "Dota 2 is a [...]", "Dota 2 is currently compatible only with [...]" and "Release date(s): TBA". So, has it been released or not? If not, (I'm an IP editor and the article is semi-protected) can someone update the article to say "Dota 2 is an upcoming [...]" and "Dota 2 will be compatible only with [...]". --82.170.113.123 (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I believe this detail was removed by the mass of I.P. addresses that were canvassed with the Reddit rewards program that was presented. Thankfully, semi-protection has been indefinitely restored since then. I've taken your recommendations into consideration and have made some proper contributions to this this matter. DarthBotto talk•cont 19:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 14:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2013

Please update the system requirements from compatible operating system to Windows 8 and hard disk space to a minimum of 5GB. Sources : http://store.steampowered.com/app/570/ and I use it daily. You could also confirm the exact space requirement within the steam client. Proxypanther (talk) 13:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The system requirements are not listed on the steam store page. Can you find another source which actually lists the information? Right now the requirements that are currently shown in the article, retrieved from "Can You Run It?", are the only requirements available that I know of. — Gmt2001 (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Linux client is coming up as well on 21 June 2013

Not only a Mac OSX client will be seen in the (near?) future, Valve is also working on a native linux client for steam for linux. Please add those information to the article. cRaZy

If you have a source to back this up, I will. --Lonaowna (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Holiday events

I'm tempted to add in information on the holiday events in Dota 2 (The Greeviling and Diretide) to the Gameplay section, but just wanted to check that others thought it was a good idea. They are sourced plenty ([8], [9], [10], [11], [12]) and could add a good subsection to Gameplay in my opinion. Let me know your thoughts. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I would be in support of this, so long as it's substantial and not just a small floating thing out there. DarthBotto talk•cont 20:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Updates needed, officially released now.

Game was officially released today. We'll need to do some clean-up to make it "post-release". I'll try to do some work tomorrow if no one else gets it. -- ferret (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding a "release" section would be good. Probably covering its beta stage to the throttling of the influx of new players. Flarepik (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Dota 2 Test on Linux

Dota 2 Test is available on Linux Steam client now, add this.

If you have a reliable source reporting this then it can be added. Samwalton9 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, official Dota 2 forum for developers http://dev.dota2.com/showthread.php?t=96878 and omgubuntu.co.uk news http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/07/dota-2-for-linux --158.181.181.55 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Typo in Mac requirements

Someone misread the requirements for the mac client, it's currently listed as requiring "Mac OS X Lion" and "10.7 GB RAM", where it's really "Mac OS X Lion 10.7" and "4 GB RAM" http://dev.dota2.com/showthread.php?t=96894

Fixed, thanks! Samwalton9 (talk) 19:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
That someone who be me! Thank you for catching that! DarthBotto talk•cont 22:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Please can someone change the first comma of the third sentence to a semicolon? It bugs me. Also, Roshan Cheese drop.

Only saying this because it makes it very ambiguous -- I first read it as being that the client was available for Windows, OS X, and Linux, and the rest of the sentence was momentarily very confusing and I had to reread. As I can't quickly correct this minor issue I am making a post here.

As well as this, at the very end of the Gameplay section, no mention is made of the Cheese that Roshan drops after his third death. Can someone put that in, too?

Typhoon946 (talk) 00:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Apparently I have to sign this, too.

I have taken the liberty to implement your wise suggestion regarding the semicolon. However, we cannot add the information pertaining to the cheese, as that would stray into game guide territory. DarthBotto talk•cont 11:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Who can add the cheese modification then? This is a reliable source with the details: http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Roshan#Aegis_and_Cheese Gankbanger (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I added the cheese modifier when I wrote the article, but it was removed because it gave the page the context of a game guide. And no, a wiki is not a reliable source. DarthBotto talk•cont 19:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Have a read of WP:Gamecruft! Cheese would be unnecessary detail. Samwalton9 (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Forbes review

I do not think that the Forbes review is their official review. They have recently taken to a Huffington Post style of journalism where users can contribute their own articles, which I believe this one is. Taking a look at the author, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that "The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer." I think this could do with looking in to. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not that I look at it, it's quite possible that it's not a representative review. Therefore, I would be alright with it being removed from the chart. However, it may still be appropriate to include the review in the written body section. What are your thoughts on this? DarthBotto talk•cont 18:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:NEWSBLOG covers this situation. Following that, if we are to include the review at all, we would attribute the review to the individual author, not to Forbes. With that in mind, I'm not sure if this review is notable. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it's notable, but just to be safe, I've removed it, since I think the reception section will already have sufficient reviews that are not ambiguous in nature. DarthBotto talk•cont 23:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 May 2013

I would like to request an edit for this article. It is because in the first sentence, the game Dota 2 is described as a "multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA), where in fact, the production staff from Valve have openly declared from the start that they would prefer classifying it as an action RTS (real time strategy) game (source: http://blog.dota2.com/page/12/)

I hope you could sort these things out; thanks.

-allstars101 Allstars101 (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Per Consensus, the genre is being referred to as Multiplayer Online Battle Arena on Wikipedia. If you would like to argue your case, take it up on the Multiplayer Online Battle Arena Talk Page. This has been discussed countless times. — Gmt2001 (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
That is not the end-all of the discussion for this page. Just because the consensus on the MOBA page is to use MOBA as the title does not mean the Dota 2 page must indicate MOBA as its genre especially since the developer, Valve, has indicated a preference for the term Action Real-Time Strategy, which is listed in bold in the first line of the MOBA page, indicating it is an accepted alternative albeit one less frequently used in the media (which is what I find to be the consensus justification for naming the page MOBA instead of ARTS in the MOBA talk page). An analogous situation: Helen Mirren's wiki page describes her as an "actor" because she prefers the term, even though almost all media (notably all major film awards) refer to female actors with the term "actress." Should we change Helen Mirren's page to reflect the "consensus" even though it's using an acceptable alternative? I don't think so, and I think Action Real-Time Strategy is the more appropriate term to which to ascribe Dota 2's genre on the Dota 2 page; it would still link to the page titled MOBA. Blckmgc (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Please read through the discussions here. Basically, regardless of what Valve call the genre, on Wikipedia MOBA and ARTS are currently the same page, summarising the same genre of game. The page was moved from ARTS to MOBA per a consensus found in the talk archives, and thus would need to be moved back to ARTS for Dota 2 to be classified as such. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
That's faulty logic. If I want to be called a dinosaur but everyone else recognizes me as a human, would a page about me have my species listed as "dinosaur", even if it links to "human"? We can dance around this issue for ages, but the only way you can change how things turn is by requesting a name change to the MOBA page. To be honest, I wouldn't be opposed to that, but I do recognize consensus nonetheless. DarthBotto talk•cont 08:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
No, neither of you understand what I wrote. What the MOBA page is called and all its talk history is irrelevant. The MOBA page itself lists ARTS as an alternate name, in bold, in the very first line of the article. Why does Wikipedia have redirects at all? So we don't need to make every link identical to the name of the page it references. Also, nice job with the straw man to try to attack my "faulty logic." "Dinosaur" is not an accepted equivalent to "human." As I already stated multiple times, the MOBA page states unequivocally that ARTS is an accepted alternative to MOBA, and as such it is the more appropriate term to use within the Dota 2 page, as the developers have publicly stated that that is the term they prefer. Blckmgc (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a valid request, and as a seasoned Dota player I can attest for the preference of the ARTS over MOBA name. Here is a link of a wikipedia page for a game using the Action Real-time Strategy name while linking to the consolidated ARTS/MOBA wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirMech Gankbanger (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
What matters is what reliable sources are referring to the genre as, not what individual editors can attest for, and reliable sources call the genre MOBA, therefore we call it MOBA too. As for the AirMech page, see WP:Other stuff exists. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Sorry Blckmgc and Gankbanger, but Samwalton9 is correct. Wikipedia needs to defer to reliable sources, and based on Sam's survey and my own, sources overwhelmingly refer to Dota 2 as a MOBA. It might be worth mentioning somewhere in the article that Valve prefers "action RTS", but the article itself should classify the game consistently with its sources. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Adrian, this seems like a lost battle, but if I may, since you are mentioning reliable sources, I challenge anyone to produce any reliable source that classifies Dota 2 genre as " MOBA"; you will soon find most do not, including those sources cited by Samwalton9; none of them classify the genre as MOBA. Sure the name is used in some (but not all) of the reviews. But the genre itself is either Strategy, RPG, Action or a combination of those. Here are some reliable and well known gaming websites that prove my point: ign.com, where the genre is identified as RPG; PC Gamer, cited by Samwalton9 as a source, sets the genre as Strategy, RPG; Game Informer sets its genre as Action; and the most popular resource so far, gamespot has its genre as Strategy; Game Trailers has it as Strategy, RPGand finally Steam itself has it as Free To Play, Action, Strategy. My point remains, MOBA in itself is not a formally used genre, it is a made up name by Riot (makers of League of Legends) that does not convey the elements of gameplay in Dota. The correct genre is instead a combination of Action, RTS(Strategy) and RPG, just like TV shows can be described as political/comedy or suspense/triller/drama or romance/comedy. Cheers Gankbanger (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You know, I may have to concede that you have an argument. Would like to hear people's opinions on this. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what you're saying, Gankbanger. I'd have no objection to "Action/RTS/RPG" or whatever you think is appropriate and justified by sources. Alternatively, you could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games whether the project has any preferred source for genres; I'd guess not, given that Defense of the Ancients, a featured article, is classified as a MOBA without a supporting citation. (Genres have a history of being contentious at Wikipedia – there's even a special template to warn people about them!) I've closed the edit request as I think the discussion is a bit more nuanced than an ordinary CAT:ESP request now. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Guys this all stems from long and quite heated discussions over the years at the article Multiplayer Online Battle Arena, which lists "Action RTS" as an alternative name. Current consensus is that MOBA is the most commonly used genre name in reviews/previews/reliable sources, etc. Efforts to change the genre name should head to the MOBA article first, which is recognized as the umbrella article for MOBA/ARTS/"DOTAesque". I don't think anyone can argue that Dota 2 doesn't fall into the "MOBA/ARTS/DOTAesque" genre, but if the name is an issue for you, Talk:Multiplayer Online Battle Arena is the best course to present your views. Until that article is renamed though, all the various "MOBA/ARTS/DOTAesque" games should use MOBA as the genre field. I personally prefer ARTS myself, but MOBA was not arrived at without a great deal of thought and discussion. I need to reiterate though, MOBA is basically being treated as the "common name" for a number of related genre titles, including Action RTS. -- ferret (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

FAC plans

Hey everyone, I've been considering this for after the launch of the game and with the way the article has come together with the missing components, such as critical reception, I plan on nominating the Dota 2 article for featured article candidacy. The page is approaching satisfactory degree of stability, the articulation is on par and all content that has a reliable source has been added for a comprehensive package.

I will call for a peer review once we have gained consensus for reception, which should be within a week or two, in addition to adding a third paragraph in the lede about said reception, possibly a section about the fictional universe's backstory and that we have reliable sources for the OS X and Linux system requirements. Until this article is ready, I implore that everyone approach editing this article with the degree of scrutiny necessary for achieving FA status and that we might have some help with finding the proper third-party sources. DarthBotto talk•cont 23:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I think FA is a way off yet, but I see no problem in aiming for it and will help all the way. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
You might want to ping David Fuchs, who did the DotA (1) FA. --Izno (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Peer review

I have a peer review open. Everyone, feel free to give ample criticism! DarthBotto talk•cont 20:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"Aesthetics of the original mod"

What aesthetics of the original mod? The mod didn't change any of the visual style of Warcraft III. It is Wc3's aesthetics. 190.103.67.169 (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Map composition and visual style that were present when one plays DotA, obviously. Even if it's in Warcraft III, what was integrated into Dota 2 was based off of what is present in the original map. DarthBotto talk•cont 21:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Updated gameplay image

I've been having an attempt at taking new screenshots to update the gameplay section's image, and after about 30 screenshots have ended up with 3 that aren't terrible (Turns out that taking a good shot is really hard). Will continue trying to take better ones unless you think that these are good enough. Samwalton9 (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I also think that a screenshot of just the map would be good, thoughts? Samwalton9 (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd go with the second screenshot in the middle. That way, it can be mentioned that a team is defending against creeps encroaching upon their base, which is the most relevant topic of what is included. On account of the map shot, I would hold off until the GA nomination, to see if it is something the reviewers would encourage. DarthBotto talk•cont 20:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I've updated the screenshot and will let you update the text below it as I'm not sure exactly what to write. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Temporarily unprotected

In response to an editing initiative on Reddit, I've unprotected the page temporarily. To all the new contributors: please note that the MOBA/ARTS classification has been extensively debated (discussions are archived), please do not change it unless it is found to be appropriate according to the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia (essentially, discuss here first). · Andonic contact 08:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the greater bulk of that thread has devolved into the usual MOBA/ARTS debate... The first non-established edits since unprotect was genre changes.. -- ferret (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this excessive vandalism forced my hand and I was subsequently compelled to reinstate the semi-protection. DarthBotto talk•cont 20:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Dota 2/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Andonic (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Method and contact

I haven't reviewed in a very very long time, so please bear with me since I may need to reacquaint myself with some aspects of the process. If anyone has any questions or needs clarification on something, I am available via e-mail, reddit message, as well as on Steam, and of course here on Wikipedia through my talk page. I will try to be as clear and direct as I can be, and am happy to work with you to improve the article according to your vision, so if you have any suggestions for me I will try my best to take them to heart.

I already gave the article a careful read, and though it's in pretty good shape, there's also a lot of room for improvement. Please forgive me if I'm ever overly critical; my hope is that after this GAN you guys will have a fairly easy road to FAC. My only request for now is that anyone who will be actively participating in the GAN process please sign below; I'll feel more comfortable knowing who you guys are. =)

Tomorrow I'll probably read through the article again and copyedit as I do, and then later in the weekend make some preliminary comments about the more long-term changes that need to be made. It would be a pleasure to help out with the work directly, but if you prefer that I take a more observational role, that's fine too. We can play it by ear as we go. Cheers, · Andonic contact 02:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Participants

Review

Feel free to add your own bullet points to mark issues as addressed, or ask for clarification if I haven't been clear.

  • Introduction
    • Paragraph 1:
      •  Done Saying the game was released on July 9 is a bit misleading, given how accessible the beta was (i.e. the vast majority of active players were already playing prior to the formal release). Might warrant a mention that the game was in a nearly 2 year long closed beta prior to its official release.
    • Paragraph 2:
      •  Done "session-based" is probably confusing to people who aren't already familiar with the game. There's a few ways to rephrase that, ultimately I think "match" already implies that each game played is discrete, the primary thing to clarify is that no bonuses or upgrades are carried over from one game to the next.
      •  Done "consists" is improperly used.
        • suggestion: Each match of Dota 2 involves two teams, each containing five players and occupying a fortified stronghold at either end of the map. Victory is achieved by destroying the enemy's Ancient, which is invulnerable until certain objectives are achieved.
      •  Done "and focuses on improving its abilities, acquiring items, and fighting against the other team": Improving abilities can be equated to "leveling up," which might be a better way of phrasing that. As for "fighting against...", that's more the method by which the other goals are accomplished, so that could be phrased to differentiate that.
      • I'm sure you've already read it, but I'd recommend taking a look at how DotA's introduction lays out the core details, and maybe modeling this intro after that one.
    • Paragraph 3
      •  Done "Development," "lead developer," and "lead designer" are moderately redundant to each other. Also, is IceFrog not still lead developer, in a sense? I'm not exactly sure what his role is, but if he's still effectively in charge, unless Valve has explicitly given him a new title, it might not be necessary to give his role in each game differently.'
        • I cut "lead" from "developer", since he is the sole developer of DotA. But to answer your inquiry, he is still the developer of the original and is considered the designer of Dota 2, although he does not have full creative control. DarthBotto talk•cont 19:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
      •  Done It should be safe to cut out the mention that the game runs on Source from the introduction--the infobox already lists it as being a Source engine game, you can save more in-depth information for the Development section.
      •  Done "one of the most successfully delivered MOBA games" is rather poorly phrased, for a few reasons. 1. There's very few critically successful MOBA games, so in and of itself that doesn't mean much; 2. successful delivery isn't really something that's often lauded (so even though it was a fact praised about Dota, it's best to leave that for the Reception section, and in the intro just say it was well received).
      •  Done If someone could double check the citation I added at the end of the last sentence and add any additional relevant information, I'd be much obliged.


  • Gameplay
    • General:
      •  Done Given its nature as a multiplayer game, it could be useful to briefly describe how matchmaking works, mention that even though there's only one map, there's a number of game modes with differing tactical possibilities, or something along those lines.
      • I'm concerned about the amount of WP:Jargon in this section. The prose is well written and the terms are mostly explained, but there's no less than 8 words in quotes here. This should probably be cut down to 2-3. For example, instead of "Featured across the map are units referred to as "neutrals", which are not aligned to either faction and are primarily located in the forests", try: "Primarily in the forest areas of the map, there are neutral units which are not aligned to either faction". Forbes72 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Paragraph 1:
      • I copyedited the first paragraph and changed a few things, might be good to review my changes to make sure I didn't muddle anything.
      •  Done I think the information in the last sentence could be incorporated into the rest of the paragraph, it feels a little bit like it's hanging on the end restating things that were already explained to a reasonable degree; that might just be bias on my part since I'm familiar with the game--but nevertheless it should be restated, not quite sure how.
    • Paragraph 2:
      •  Done This one was pretty rough, gave it a copyedit but it still needs some work. It's hard to explain a game as complex as Dota in one paragraph, so the ideal solution might be to divide the information. The majority of paragraph 2 covered heroes, and it is fairly comprehensive. I moved the sentence that covers item slots to the last paragraph, and recommend that the sentence "The towers and and stronghold defenses are invulnerable to attacks...etc" be moved into the paragraph that covered towers/defenses (if not deleted--it's fairly specialized information, not sure it is necessary to cover that).
    • Paragraph 3:
      • Instead of launching straight into an explanation of gold, I recommend describing the various stages and processes of the game (i.e. explain laning, ganking, pushing, supporting). Once distinctions between classes of heroes have been established, it is relatively easy to explain items, and from there you can cover how gold works.
      •  Done "Killing creeps and neutrals grants..." This sentence again feels like very specialized information. That's the second time I've said that, so to clarify, I think it reads more like something that would be found in a guide rather than in a summary of the game.
  • Development
    • Concept:
      • Paragraph 1:
        • "Erik Johnson addressed the confusion..." Prior to this, there was no confusion (or name change) mentioned. Not only should this come earlier in the paragraph (seems to represent a philosophical direction Valve decided to take), but I'm not convinced that the public confusion is the best way to highlight the shift. Up to you guys though, there's a lot of ways to handle this one.
          • I examined the concept section, as well as the introduction paragraphs, and have initially concluded that giving the context of the Dota franchise with its capitalization and what-not in its current position is appropriate. Pertinent information required for the establishment of the project is given before the logistics is provided. Is this agreeable? DarthBotto talk•cont 07:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Paragraph 2:
        •  Done "Said intellectual property...", the last sentence of the Concept section, isn't related to Dota 2 (or even DotA) much at all... I'm kind of on the fence as to whether it should be there or not. It does provide some closure to the nomenclature wars explanation, but the same could be accomplished differently without dedicating a sentence to it. Maybe inserting "now known as Heroes of the Storm" or something along those lines would work?
    • Design:
      • Paragraph 1:
        •  Done "As the sequel to Defense of the Ancients" modifies "the development," see dangling modifier.
        •  Done "the development was concentrated," should use a different verb, concentrate in the sense being used is pretty rare; it is quite a flexible verb, but a different one would be better here (maybe "focused").
        •  Done "the aspects of its predecessor developed" There should be a more straightforward way of saying that Valve's intention was to preserve the spirit of the game and merely update its veneer.
        •  Done "[factions] from Defense of the Ancients" Probably unnecessary to mention DotA since it's pretty clear that's the original that's being replaced.
        •  Done "cornerstone features of the characters' alignment preserved" Does that refer to their lore alignment (i.e. Dire/Sentinel?). The sentence following that either clarifies this phrase (diminishing its utility), or refers to something else--in which case this one should be a bit clearer.
        •  Done "Non-computed" Does that mean that results don't affect MMR? The sentence prior, as well as the "unranked practice matches" immediately following, seem to imply that, but I'm not sure that's the best way to explain that if it is the intended meaning.
      • Paragraph 2:
        • Nothing really wrong, a few transitions could be softened, but I'll rewrite that when I copyedit so don't worry about it.
      • Paragraph 3:
        •  Done Might be good to explain what joinDOTA is briefly.
    • Merchandise:
      • Paragraph 1:
        • Pretty decent overview... I'm sure it can be improved since it reads a bit list-y, but not quite sure how yet. I'll come back to it later.
        • I might be biased since I'm very involved in the trading scene, but what would your thoughts be on moving this (and the summary of cosmetics in the Release section) to a separate section explaining the free how and why the free-to-play model works? It's a very unique F2P system, almost perfectly user-friendly in a market saturated by "evil" F2Ps, so it might merit a mention.
  • Release:
    • Paragraph 1:
      •  Done "in order to accommodate the full transfer of intellectual property developed for Defense of the Ancients." I'm not quite sure what that means so I left it alone for now--perhaps you have an idea? I've never heard of intellectual property being "developed."
      •  Done "The new plan described by IceFrog" Was thinking of changing this to "IceFrog's new plan," which reads a bit better, but wanted to check that it was actually his plan rather than Valve's (i.e. did he announce Valve's plan, or modify it?). I can see that the blog post announcing the new plan was written by him... but maybe you have a better idea of how to process that.
      • There's a huge amount of time between "Simultaneously, Valve announced that the non-disclosure agreement for the beta was being lifted, allowing testers to discuss the game and their experiences publicly" and "Dota 2 transitioned into launch mode on June 21, 2013 and was officially released on July 9, 2013." I know this is the section covering the release... but that could be handled better I think. I would suggest adding a "Beta" section to Release to comment more extensively on the late beta's transition to full release. I think the only reason we have a Release section at all is because we had such a long beta and lead-up to full release, so it might be worth expounding on that (correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem to be typical in other game articles).
      •  Done The last three or four sentences are all structured "On <date>, x occurred," and it reads a little list-like.
    • Paragraph 2:
      • "Income for Dota 2 would, however, be maintained through the exclusively cosmeticDota Store, where players could purchase in-game items." I think it was Total Biscuit who said that the real/actual way Valve makes money from Dota is by having so many people sign up to Steam (and subsequently spend money on other games). Any chance that could be included? Not sure if TD is allowed on wiki.

Status?

What is the status of this review? It is over three weeks since the first parts of the review were posted here and a single response was made, both on October 1, and that's a long time. The bulk of the article has still to be reviewed, and the bulk of the review thus far has yet to receive a response here. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

All the issues Andonic presented have been addressed and he's acknowledged that on my talk page, but he has a busy schedule and warned me that it would take some time for him to get around to complete the review. I should probably ping him, just to be sure. DarthBotto talk•cont 05:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
As DarthBotto said, most things have in fact been addressed (I think generally they're crossed out when finished? that might only be for FAC). I apologize for the slow pace of my review, unfortunately I have largely stopped contributing to Wikipedia, and have replaced it with other projects that require my attention. As such, it is difficult for me to find uninterrupted time to copyedit and review the article. · Andonic contact 22:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I suppose we could mark things as being done or crossed out, but I also see that there is an understanding from the parties that the recommendations that being made are nonetheless being rectified, so the necessity of marking everything isn't the most pertinent issue I'd say. DarthBotto talk•cont 08:02, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - How will you address ongoing updates? The Development section mentions post release updates such as LAN play and the coaching system. But there have been more. I think you should move post release updates to after the release section, or as a subsection of release, in order to preserve chronological order. I would also move the free-to-play comments in the release section into the development section. These comments, particularly about ongoing updates may not be relevant for good article standards, but will be if you're considering featured status. - hahnchen 17:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Since everything's been addressed and the review has otherwise gone stale, I'm closing this and passing it. Wizardman 23:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll keep posting here as I make my way through things. Nice running into you again, Wizard. :) · Andonic contact 14:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 October 2013

Clarify that it is not a Multiplayer online battle arena and that it is an Action Real-time Strategy game. MOBA is League of Legends, ARTS is HoN and Dota and Dota2. 132.170.46.255 (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: We're not splitting hairs for individual pages. If you wish for the term to be adopted by Wikipedia to be "action real-time strategy", like in times past, open a discussion at the multiplayer online battle arena talk page. We can secure consensus there and make any proper adjustments then. DarthBotto talk•cont 01:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

More Media

As per the feedback for this page, this page needs more pictures, videos and sounds. Aste9 (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Videos and sound? The only suggestion anyone's had for additional content was for maybe a map image. DarthBotto talk•cont 18:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, there's a limit to the number of screnshots/media a video game article can contain. Mind you, that was the policy around five or six years ago, so maybe I'm not remembering correctly or it has changed... but someone should double check before implementing any changes on this front. I can't quite recall where copyright policy is managed, apologies. · Andonic contact 16:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Action real-time strategy

Do not alter the genre's name into "Action real-time strategy" or any other, as most third-party reliable sources use the term "multiplayer online battle arena" which is also the term currently favored by consensus. What now? Gabe Newell referred as the genre of the game of his company as ARTS, there isn't really anything else to say there... you can say a lot of things, but many people calling something wrong is not going to make it right, the term "moba" is incorrect, and although action real-time strategy is not a perfect definition is more close to define the genre...CombatMagic (talk) 12:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

"many people calling something wrong is not going to make it right", however we are obligated to report what the "many people" say, because that is how verifiability and reliable sources work. Whether me, you or single authors believe otherwise is irrelevant, because we have to represent what the majority of sources say. You can make a note that Newell advertised the game as ARTS if this is covered in secondary sources, but that is not enough to relabel the entire genre. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Take this discussion to the MOBA talk page, then. State your rationale there. DarthBotto talk•cont 19:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Extra "Gameplay" Detail.

Hi,

As a user who is very passionate about gaming and considers himself extremely knowledgeable about DOTA 2 mechanics and gameplay, I believe there is more to be said about the gameplay in the article. Several key factors such as generic tactics, team composition and detailed explanations of the map are utterly ignored.

This is a game that has an extremely steep learning curve and I believe that readers would greatly benefit from a more widespread view of gameplay mechanics would be highly beneficial.

Not only this, but I feel that a re-format in some places would be beneficial to the articles fluiidity.

I am not looking to add a 2 page essay to the article, but a couple of extra paragraphs would certainly be an improvement


— Preceding unsigned comment added by Destructopuppy (talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dota_2/Archive_1&oldid=1142758980"