3 ms·

I'd say that those were crazy things, but not too much. AI understood that teamfight were impossibile to win, and so the really weird choices (sven dying for th

I'd say that those were crazy things, but not too much. AI understood that teamfight were impossibile to win, and so the really weird choices (sven dying for the tower lol) . I'd say that matches with such lineup are not too much and so they didn't really know, but they did an awesome job and kept things balanced for so long

Rychard 8y ago
> really weird choices (sven dying for the tower lol) Taking a tier 2 tower nets everyone on the team 120 gold (a further 150+ gold goes to the hero who gets the last hit), and losing Sven probably gave the opposing team less than was gained. Perhaps the AI simply placed more value on increasing the total net worth of the team than it valued saving the life of one of its core heroes. Additionally, there was no guarantee that he would have been able to escape, as Sven was deep on the enemy's side of the map, and there's a very real possibility that he could have been ganked from someone in the jungle had he attempted to retreat.
- drusepth 8y ago
  Dota player here: other metrics that could have been involved in the trading decision are: - Potential chance the enemy team would deny the tower before another friendly hero could take it (netting Sven's team 0 gold for the time spent whacking away at it) - Map vision (removing a T2 often cuts a significant section of map awareness away, since the tower is no longer providing vision or protection) - XP gains (Sven won't gain any XP while dead, nor from killing the tower) - Creep equilibrium (this is less important, or at least thought about less often, later on in the game and past T1 towers, but might've been a factor in drawing the creep clash point to a particular location) - Dictating team net worth averages (to some extent, if they predicted a loss in opponents forcing a teamfight or predicted a likely pickoff, gold lost could be minimized now by taking a death early, lowering the average net worth on the team). Obviously, there are others and these can also be mixed and matched in various ways (e.g. cutting off map vision so they can more safely farm additional jungle creeps). Not saying any of these aspects _were_ a part of the decision to trade Sven for a tower, but.. just wanted to include a few more subsurface aspects that _could_ be used in such a decision.

Rychard 8y ago

> really weird choices (sven dying for the tower lol) Taking a tier 2 tower nets everyone on the team 120 gold (a further 150+ gold goes to the hero who gets the last hit), and losing Sven probably gave the opposing team less than was gained. Perhaps the AI simply placed more value on increasing the total net worth of the team than it valued saving the life of one of its core heroes. Additionally, there was no guarantee that he would have been able to escape, as Sven was deep on the enemy's side of the map, and there's a very real possibility that he could have been ganked from someone in the jungle had he attempted to retreat.

drusepth 8y ago
Dota player here: other metrics that could have been involved in the trading decision are: - Potential chance the enemy team would deny the tower before another friendly hero could take it (netting Sven's team 0 gold for the time spent whacking away at it) - Map vision (removing a T2 often cuts a significant section of map awareness away, since the tower is no longer providing vision or protection) - XP gains (Sven won't gain any XP while dead, nor from killing the tower) - Creep equilibrium (this is less important, or at least thought about less often, later on in the game and past T1 towers, but might've been a factor in drawing the creep clash point to a particular location) - Dictating team net worth averages (to some extent, if they predicted a loss in opponents forcing a teamfight or predicted a likely pickoff, gold lost could be minimized now by taking a death early, lowering the average net worth on the team). Obviously, there are others and these can also be mixed and matched in various ways (e.g. cutting off map vision so they can more safely farm additional jungle creeps). Not saying any of these aspects _were_ a part of the decision to trade Sven for a tower, but.. just wanted to include a few more subsurface aspects that _could_ be used in such a decision.