Using Philosophy Problem: One Vs Many to Improve Mobas 10 fold

Not that I know what the complexity of the problem is, but I view it simply in terms of classification.

the classification of one

vs the classification of many

Where the complexity starts is with 2

You classify it as many because there is more then one....

However... there is only one more not many

That's why I am going to propose 2 changes to dota or mobas, or mobas like dota (elements so seemingly out of proportion) in order to make the game as balanced as possible with out deviating from the designers vision.

1.) Recognize that even though dota is a game of many, it is only 2vs2 per lane. So take team concept items (AoE) and look at their collective output potential when effecting 5 man and then maintain that collective output value per every man not effected.

Example: the aura is only active on 4, yet the collective output effect stays the same which means more damage or more defense. This only works down to the reduction of 2, maybe 3, since 2 is where one and many is controversial, but I still insist that dota is heavily dependent on 2vs2.


2.) look at the proportionality of skills vs raw attack and question whether it is in balance. We took the many and diminished it in to greater significance, now look at raw right click attacking and, in most cases, diminish it in to lesser significance by making it multi target in varying ways depending on the hero and also change up damage types for further thematic fortification.

This would be dependent on such things like how well skills of an individual hero work together, would be changed to reflect the theme of the character, theme revolving heavily around the complexity of the one and the many and its variations.

Then you would have a video game that would be worth while both casually and competitively

I'll wrap this up with perfect example

There are probably a lot of ranged attackers and melees with initiation abilities whos damage should be divided in half hitting two targets (heroes)

There are probably a lot of AoE abilities and Auras that should be united in to two target when only two heroes are available including self.


A shield will block for half as much on ranged, but that wouldn't have been a problem if many attacks were doing split target damage like they were suppose to.

Conversely, there are probably a number of ranged heroes who should be getting the full effects of block from the shield as melees are.

What this shows is that there is that simply cutting the block amount in half and separating between ranged and melee is not exactly a sound classification by a long shot and should be determined by other factors.

Getting last hits to work properly might seem to be an issue but there is no reason why the current single target function couldn't apply for creeps only since last hitting for gold is a special concept.

---

11:11 is the symbol of balance, where the two comes in to alignment with the two


Aura United in to Two
Focus Divided in to Two

It's a pretty complex way of describing what you want.

I'd suggest many abilities are already made this way - e.g. Mystic Flare - the damage is spread evenly amongst every target in it's AOE. So it's arguably more effective against a single target, but then it depends how much damage you're outputting compared to the total of the target(s) HP.

Other skills like Chain Frost or Eclipse also vary depending on how many targets are available.

Ultimately a lot of this comes down other balancing factors like positioning, grouping spells (like Vacuum), skill usage (e.g. landing a big ult like Epicenter effectively) and things like cooldown.

Someone read about the heap paradox recently, hmm?

The philosophy is flawed in the sense that it does not give any assumption on whether adding another grain of sand will or will not result in a heap

What should be tackled is whether adding a sand particle will categorize the result of a result of a previous operation to result in a heap. This might look like saying that we fix a unit of number to understand what can be called a heap, but it is to question if P1 and P2 and P3 are three operation of adding a particle to another particle, the paradox does not determine the assumptions of P3 and onward and *assumes* for its own benefit, that nothing can be called a heap.


Nature gives the best example: Molecules! atoms group naturally, they naturally determine their own tendency to be called a heap(molecule).
Nature also tells you everything is relative, what may be heap for you might not be a heap for someone else. A planet may have 50000000000000000 heaps but it is just one unit and cannot be called a heap. This makes us arrive at another facet of the incorrect assumption of paradox: Incorrect categorization.



Cheerio!