League vs Dota Megabrawl: Arcen Games Edition

[Hearteater]

When you balance from the top down, you're asking players to get better.  When you balance from the bottom up, you're asking the best players to get worse.  This seems like an obvious choice to me.

You are making the assumption that there are only two methods.  And further, you've assumed Riot is using "Bottom Up Balance" and DOTA2 is using "Top Down Balance".  In actuality, Riot is using "Equal Balance, Top and Bottom".  That means mechanics that cannot be balanced in both areas are not added except in the rare case that the champion has a counter mechanic that works in reverse.  Strategic Stealth (what Eve has now) is an example of a mechanic that is stronger against pros than new players, because new players don't have the map awareness to be looking at the map anyway and so aren't really affected by stealth as much.  But for pros, that information denial is much more powerful.  As a result, Eve's kit can get abilities that work a bit better against new players because her stealth isn't benefiting her as much there.  The question of whether they've done this successfully for Eve is still unanswered, but early indicators are she's still too weak.

Meanwhile, DOTA2 uses "Balance Through Obscurity".  There are so many moving parts to DOTA2, and so much is out of balance that every game contains huge swings of imbalanced interactions for both sides.  Any example I could bring up of some unbalanced ability/item/hero can be countered by some other unbalanced thing.  Games are won be the team that exploits their mechanics the best.  No team can find the ultimate exploits because the game gets patched and new heroes added constantly.  Basically, everything's broken, and there is so much stuff, that the game remains playable.  It isn't a particular ideal method of balancing things, it is more the method used by a lot of mods and a few indies.  Given DOTA2's origins, it almost needs to go this route if it wants to retain a lot of the stuff from DOTA1.

[Wingflier]

Strategic Stealth (what Eve has now) is an example of a mechanic that is stronger against pros than new players, because new players don't have the map awareness to be looking at the map anyway and so aren't really affected by stealth as much.  But for pros, that information denial is much more powerful.  As a result, Eve's kit can get abilities that work a bit better against new players because her stealth isn't benefiting her as much there.  The question of whether they've done this successfully for Eve is still unanswered, but early indicators are she's still too weak.

Well let me know how that turns out.  It seems to me that if a hero can be handled by bad or mediocre players, it wouldn't be a problem for pro players either; which is why I don't understand your assertion that you can balance for both top-level and low-level play at the same time.

Meanwhile, DOTA2 uses "Balance Through Obscurity".  There are so many moving parts to DOTA2, and so much is out of balance that every game contains huge swings of imbalanced interactions for both sides.  Any example I could bring up of some unbalanced ability/item/hero can be countered by some other unbalanced thing.

Wait a minute, if everything is imbalanced, wouldn't that make everything balanced?

This spiel sounds nice, but I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.  If you can bring up some examples of things that are outrageously imbalanced, countered by other outrageously imbalanced mechanics, maybe we could have a discussion about that.

Games are won be the team that exploits their mechanics the best.

Games are won by the team that uses current game mechanics the best?  Well isn't that the way it should be?

No team can find the ultimate exploits because the game gets patched and new heroes added constantly.

What?  DotA 1 gets patched every 6 months or so.  New heroes are only added every 6 months or so.

League of Legends is the game that is constantly patching and adding new heroes...

If you're talking about DotA 2, they have a new patch every week because they're trying to get all the DotA 1 content into the game, not because they're addressing major imbalance concerns.  None of these content patches address balance issues at all.  Once all the DotA 1 content is ported, I'm sure the patching will slow down significantly. 

If you want to talk about a game that constantly has to patch imbalances and add new heroes, you should be looking at your own.

Basically, everything's broken, and there is so much stuff, that the game remains playable.

Define "broken".  Your entire argument seems to hinge around that fact that everything is "broken", so it's all "fixed", or something like that.  I really don't understand what you're trying to say.  If everything is broken, then how does it all work together so smoothly?  You would expect a broken machine to break down, not perform well.

I wish you could explain a little better what you're trying to say.  Maybe you could give some examples of incredibly broken things in the game, which are countered by other incredibly broken things.  None of this seems to make much sense to me.

[Hearteater]

I see no reason to explain further when you aren't interested in explanation.  You just want to argue.  I'm not going to get into a nitpicking game of DOTA2 abilities, heroes and items, because I could not care less about that game.  It is badly balanced.  It isn't even a question.  It violates a slew of good game design principles.  It does this because DOTA1 was a mod, and a very good one, that wasn't a professionally developed game.  DOTA2 is a port, and so it inherits the same issues.  Will that change in the future?  I have no idea.  But trying to claim it either well designed or well balanced is silly.  But if you truly aren't just trolling, consider why the below statement of yours is incorrect.  That'll put you on the right track.

Wait a minute, if everything is imbalanced, wouldn't that make everything balanced?

[Wingflier]

I see no reason to explain further when you aren't interested in explanation.  You just want to argue.  I'm not going to get into a nitpicking game of DOTA2 abilities, heroes and items, because I could not care less about that game.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be obtuse here.  You seem to have a very good understanding of why all the mechanics in DotA 2 are broken, but you haven't given a single example.  I don't understand where you're coming from, and you accuse me of wanting to argue when I ask for a better explanation?

It is badly balanced.  It isn't even a question.  It violates a slew of good game design principles.  It does this because DOTA1 was a mod, and a very good one, that wasn't a professionally developed game.

I mean this quote just seems to illustrate your closed-mindedness on the issue.  Even I am willing to admit I could be wrong about LoL (I think I've been corrected quite a few times throughout this thread ).  I would never say, "This game sucks, it isn't even a question".  I don't even think LoL's balance is particularly bad, I just think it's a very boring and uninteresting way of doing things.  I mean Checkers is balanced right?  But I wouldn't want to play that either...

Who decides what are good game design principles?  DotA 1 had a huge following of over 10 million players.  I suspect that DotA 2 will be at least as popular, probably more.  Just because the game design principles don't cater to the player, but ask the player to adapt to the game, doesn't mean they are bad principles.  Personally, I love those kinds of mechanics, because they are so rare anymore.  Look at the market nowadays, it's saturated with games that are super-easy and cater to the players.

Whatever happened to the old games that kicked your ass over and over and you loved them for it?  Megaman didn't care if you were an old man with Parkinson's, it's going to kick your ass anyway.  Doom didn't care if you had beaten the entire level after restarting 15 times, some levels had a fatal trap at the end just for the hell of it.  I think these new style of "kiddie" "casual" games have ruined the game industry.  Game design hasn't gotten better, it's gotten softer.  We now cater to the casual audience, and games these days are much worse because of it.

DotA 2 isn't made for a casual audience, and that's what makes it unique in today's gaming world.  It asks the players to get better, it doesn't come down to their level.  In today's politically-correct, the-customer-is-always-right, money-first world, I HIGHLY respect that.  I respect that both DotA 1 and DotA 2 have put the quality of the game before doing what's most financially beneficial to the developers.  I like how all the content for both games has been completely free from the very start.  Very few games can say the same thing. I like how all players start out on an equal footing, and that winning the game comes from outsmarting your opponents, playing well, and working with your team, not buying champions, unlocking runes and masteries to have an advantage over your opponent.

To me it seems obvious that money is always Riot's first priority, and everything comes secondary to that.  I think they balance for the largest group of players, not because it's in the best interest of the game, but because it's in the best interest of themselves.  No competitive sport in the entire world changes its rules for the worst players who play that sport, and it would be ridiculous to do so.  You balance for the best players, and ask everyone else to get better.

[chemical_art]

You say others are closed minded, but anything riot does, good or bad, to you will always be about money.

Erm.

You can cling to DotA 2 because it is hard, it makes you feel special to be elite, etc. But those are neutral things. There was a reason those early games were hard in the were they were. Seeing how these games are not around today in the same extent they were then, it shows actually a large number of people did not prefer them, but rather played them because there was not another option. A casual game is no more right or wrong then a MOBA game or RTS game or FPS. They are different.

Just because something you don't like is popular does not make it bad. It does not make it good either. It is neutral. Just like games that kick your bum isn't bad or good. That, too, is neutral.

To follow your logic, AI War should not have difficulties below 8.6. "Kiddies" or "Casuals" not allowed on the fun.

[Wingflier]

No, that's a caricature of what I'm saying.  I think there are good reasons to think Riot's game design is focused around how to make the most money first, how to improve the game second.

To give an example, LoL has probably 25x the players of DotA 2 (its in beta) + HoN combined, yet both HoN and DotA 2 have unlocked all of the content of their game for free, and are relying on COSMETIC ONLY micro-transactions to sustain them.  It's working out great so far.

League of Legends, with a MUCH larger playerbase, only unlocks a fraction (maybe 5%) of the content to the starting player, and asks them to either play for more, or pay for more.  You could never possibly unlock all the content by playing (it would take tens of thousands of hours, and with new content constantly being released).  So if you want to have ALL the playable content (incuding all champions, runes, and rune pages), you would have to pay money at some point.

I know their model would still work even if everything they sold was only cosmetic, but they wouldn't be making nearly as much money.

In addition, they release new champions straight into the game, often in a fairly unbalanced state, right into competitive play.  I don't know what better example you need of a wanton disregard for the state of the competitive aspect of the game. 

DotA waits 6 months or so before releasing a small number of heroes, and only after months of design and testing, which is why their quality is usually so much better, and why they don't have to be constantly remake heroes like they do in LoL.  After these heroes are released to the public, it's another few months before they released into competitive play.  They give all the teams ample opportunity to use said hero(s), find great team comps with them in it, and ideal counters if they are used by the opponent.

That's much better than saying, "Well, here's a new champion that completely changes the game right before a big tournament.  Good luck!"

Riot makes, god only knows how much money from players when they release a new hero every few weeks.  People love having content that nobody else has, or hasn't gotten enough IP to unlock yet.

In other words, I don't think Riot focuses on money first because I hate them, it's because there's so much evidence to support that theory.

[Hearteater]

I didn't say DOTA2 sucks.  I said it is badly balanced, and violates a slew of good game design principles.  It can still be a great game while making those mistakes.  It just isn't as likely.  And game design principles aren't random opinions.  The field of game design has matured into a much more organized and introspective field that has learned a ton about how to make better content.  This is why a lot of indie games have a "feel" to them.  They haven't been as professionally worked over.  But some people really like indie games for that raw feel.  Which is why violating game design principles doesn't make your game suck.  It just makes it more likely to suck.  But DOTA2 is using a proven non-sucky pattern in DOTA1 to avoid that pitfall.  To some people, that will be appealing.  But to the huge video gaming audience, a more professional game design is more appealing, and that is why DOTA2 will ultimately need to change or deal with living in LoL's shadow.  Before LoL, DOTA1 was the only option.  Once DOTA2 has to compete with a more main-stream game, it'll lose a large portion of its audience.  It doesn't help that LoL has such a huge head start.

[chemical_art]

So despite LoL having a fraction of the game enabled, it has a much larger audience despite DotA being around earlier.

I wonder why?

It could because LoL is simply much more friendly to new players.

For new players there is no need for runes or skill pages. Not until one has played like 20 hours into the game does these things matter. LoL does not for free enable all the units at once. They enable a select group with a few newbie friendly characters, a relatively new unit, and a mix of units for different roles.

These things might sound appalling to the DotA audience who want everything out the door, but for new players this is what they want. They want to be broken in gradually. It is for this reason the vast majority of games do not give all the players the options at once. So for AVWW you don't get all the spells at once, for RTS games in campaigns you don't get all the units at once. Yes, there are other reasons in the illustrations above, but one role of this is to not overwhelm the player at the very beginning.

LoL encourages players to sample a a number of units with free, and when they find a unit they like they can buy it from the store with money earned from playing. This, too, is good for new players. With a gurrenteed character, they are encouraged to learn that character well. Again, this might be thought bad for DotA 2, but for LoL it works, and the large numbers of LoL proves it.

Money can be bad, but it is not the end of the world, either. For LoL there are a dozen characters that can be unlocked within 5 games of play. These characters are newbie friendly and are not weak for anything short of competitive play, and even then some can shine.

So you can debate whether LoL or DotA 2 is better in the competitive scene. However, for those of us who just want to play with others who don't spend their gaming lives playing one game, LoL is much more friendly from start to end.

[RCIX]

These two sentences contradict each other.

Riot would never add a mechanic that disables an entire enemy team, even if it is easily preventable by staying apart, or picking hard counters (like Silencer) to prevent it from anywhere on the map.  Yet you said yourself, there's a feeling of accomplishment for landing the black hole.  And if your whole team gets hit by it, you feel like you deserved it.

No, it doesn't actually. And Riot did add wide AoE disables. In fact, several. Amumu's ult, Galio's ult, Malphite's ult, Orianna's ult (though that's best tacked on to a good melee initiator champion thanks to the ball mechanics), Nautilus ult.

I'll bet you cash that there's someone out there right now that thinks black hole is the most retarded skill in the game, but that has absolutely no problem with Furion.  That is what I love about DotA, it doesn't care about you and what you want.  It will find your weaknesses as a player, and as a person, and it will exploit the hell out of them until you want to break your keyboard.  The weaker players will quit, and blame the game for being unfair or unbalanced, but the stronger players will stay, and grow, and learn to stop blaming the game and strengthen their own weaknesses.

So wait a minute, this is a desirable thing in my entertainment... how?

I can't even remember, throughout these 9 years, how many times this game has made me scream and hate myself for making the smallest mistake; how many times I've considered quitting because of the ridiculous losing scenarios, how many times I've cursed the designers for their horrible balancing methods (though this was primarily S2, because S2 balance != balance).  But I can tell you, without a doubt, that it has made me a better person; not just in DotA, but in life as well.  Everytime I lost a game, this hatred swelled up within me, and I wanted to blame my team, my hero, IceFrog, and everyone else, but deep down inside, I knew that some of the blame belonged to me too.  I used to be one of those hateful ragers that everybody talks about, I would slam my teammates for making mistakes, and be an asshole just because I wanted to win so bad.  To me, DotA is a lot like life.  It doesn't care about you, it doesn't care about what you want.  It's going to beat you down, over, and over, and over again.  Then, it's going to kick you while you're down.  And laugh while it's kicking you.  But everytime you get back up, you'll be a little stronger.  Everytime you get defeated, you will have taken something profound with you.  You can't expect life to change to cater to you, you have to conquer life, that's the only you'll ever be successful.

There are various mechanics I dislike in League as well (I've come to the conclusion that what I'm looking for exactly doesn't exist, and am stuck with League for now at least). And yes, I realize I make mistakes. I don't stress them because hey, it's a game and I'm trying to have fun and I bet everyone else is too. But does that make the game design for me, as a solo player any better? No, no it doesn't. It sucks that I can't carry because my allies fed. It sucks that the only reason I lose my lane often is being counterpicked or junglers camping my lane. And it's not worth the extreme amount of effort I'd have to go through to even think about being able to man-mode through it anyway, if I could even learn how to do it. Because it's a game, I'm here to have fun, and These. Things. Are. Not. Fun. Period.

I won't push this off into a philosophy discussion, but I am of the opinion that life isn't fair by and large because no one bothers to make it fair for anyone else. Consider this my only comment on the topic, since that's a far more murky and divisive subject than even the most heated MOBA debate.

Just like you get a feeling of accomplishment from catching 5 players with a black hole, so too will you get a sense of accomplishment when you finally understand how to counter Furion; what heroes to pick, what heroes to ask your team to pick (they will listen), and how to play every game.  If you stick with it long enough, you'll realize that it wasn't Furion that was the problem, it was you.  It wasn't the spoon that bent, but yourself ;p

And I can usually slam shaco into the ground now when he tries to gank, since he's basically relying on his autoattack and the fear from when he could actually stompgank at this point. I still hate his design. Why? In order to be a balanced character at high ELO, he'd have to ruin games at low ELO ones and in oder to be a balanced character at low ELO ones he has to be worthless if anyone has a clue. I don't know any other way to say or explain that leaving a champion like that strong is bad design, lazy design, and a sign of not caring about most of your playerbase.

(Ironically I understand both sides of the coin, having played Fizz and Darius extensively; both hated for their "noob friendly mechanics")

I see no reason to explain further when you aren't interested in explanation.  You just want to argue.  I'm not going to get into a nitpicking game of DOTA2 abilities, heroes and items, because I could not care less about that game.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be obtuse here.  You seem to have a very good understanding of why all the mechanics in DotA 2 are broken, but you haven't given a single example.  I don't understand where you're coming from, and you accuse me of wanting to argue when I ask for a better explanation?

Well yeah, Hearteater isn't exactly being fair. You have shown bias, but at least you're still willing to listen and consider the other side, unlike most people who'd have ragequit around page 2 ;p

It is badly balanced.  It isn't even a question.  It violates a slew of good game design principles.  It does this because DOTA1 was a mod, and a very good one, that wasn't a professionally developed game.

I mean this quote just seems to illustrate your closed-mindedness on the issue.  Even I am willing to admit I could be wrong about LoL (I think I've been corrected quite a few times throughout this thread ).  I would never say, "This game sucks, it isn't even a question".  I don't even think LoL's balance is particularly bad, I just think it's a very boring and uninteresting way of doing things.  I mean Checkers is balanced right?  But I wouldn't want to play that either...

That last sentence, ironically, fits Dota well (and is basically what I said previously).

A great example is Dazzle and his ult. He's probably perfectly balanced in competitive play, right? Maybe even underpowered? The things you can pull off with Tryndamere's ult is utter BS; having a targetable one on a 15 second cooldown is that much more so. Granted, the sheer quantity of CC counterbalances this to an extent, but it's still to the point where his ult is basically W and he has 3 other lame (or low-visbility for their power anyway) skills, and is probably used poorly in normal pubs (save the occasional Dazzle duoing with some carry and making him impossible to kill, which is the exact design problem).

Whatever happened to the old games that kicked your ass over and over and you loved them for it?  Megaman didn't care if you were an old man with Parkinson's, it's going to kick your ass anyway.  Doom didn't care if you had beaten the entire level after restarting 15 times, some levels had a fatal trap at the end just for the hell of it.  I think these new style of "kiddie" "casual" games have ruined the game industry.  Game design hasn't gotten better, it's gotten softer.  We now cater to the casual audience, and games these days are much worse because of it.

DotA 2 isn't made for a casual audience, and that's what makes it unique in today's gaming world.  It asks the players to get better, it doesn't come down to their level.  In today's politically-correct, the-customer-is-always-right, money-first world, I HIGHLY respect that.  I respect that both DotA 1 and DotA 2 have put the quality of the game before doing what's most financially beneficial to the developers.  I like how all the content for both games has been completely free from the very start.  Very few games can say the same thing. I like how all players start out on an equal footing, and that winning the game comes from outsmarting your opponents, playing well, and working with your team, not buying champions, unlocking runes and masteries to have an advantage over your opponent.

In my opinion, life is already hard enough and you don't need your entertainment beating you over the head on top of it. In any case, I'm not looking for that, I'm looking for a fun time.

To me it seems obvious that money is always Riot's first priority, and everything comes secondary to that.  I think they balance for the largest group of players, not because it's in the best interest of the game, but because it's in the best interest of themselves.  No competitive sport in the entire world changes its rules for the worst players who play that sport, and it would be ridiculous to do so.  You balance for the best players, and ask everyone else to get better.

And to me, it seems obvious that giving a middle finger to anyone but pros in Dota is always Icefrog's first priority, and everything comes second to that. To be quite frank, I honestly don't understand the philosophy you list above. No other highly successful entertainment system snubs the vast majority of it's audience, and it would be ridiculous to do so. You design so everyone has fun, and ask the pros to work with that.

Yes, that was a parody of your section

(And the "riot only does it for money" argument is very old. Yes, technically you could argue that most of what Riot does is for money and have some sort of argument, but that's ignoring the "feel" behind riot posts, as well as all the free stuff they're giving out. SR visual rework, champion reworks at no cost (visual and gameplay), free candy in the form of IP boosts or more whenever they screw up and sometimes when they don't, randomly handing out a boatload of RP to basically everyone last year, ...)

[chemical_art]

[Prepare your sarcasm shades]

Arcen charges for full access to their games, while Riot allows gamers to play their game for free and allows the potential to get everything with enough game play.

Since you cannot get full access to Arcen games without playing, and since Riot is obviously in it for the money, then therefore Arcen must be even more into the money then Riot!

[It's a joke, ok?]

[keith.lamothe]

If we weren't going for your money, you wouldn't have gotten as much value for it!

Oh, wait... *causation loop detonates*

[Wingflier]

So despite LoL having a fraction of the game enabled, it has a much larger audience despite DotA being around earlier.

I wonder why?

It could because LoL is simply much more friendly to new players.

Well, because it caters to a casual audience.  Certainly you're not suggesting that McDonald's is a good restaraunt, Justin Bieber is a good artist, and Call Me Maybe is a good song just because they all have a lot of fans?

Besides, DotA 1 had more players than LoL for a long time, but the engine is really outdated, and is based on an entirely different game (Warcraft 3).  I mean the LoL engine is bad, but it's not that bad.

These things might sound appalling to the DotA audience who want everything out the door, but for new players this is what they want. They want to be broken in gradually. It is for this reason the vast majority of games do not give all the players the options at once. So for AVWW you don't get all the spells at once, for RTS games in campaigns you don't get all the units at once. Yes, there are other reasons in the illustrations above, but one role of this is to not overwhelm the player at the very beginning.

Well yes, if I'm going to play a competitive game, I want all my options from the start.

Starcraft 2 would be a horrible game if you had to "work" to unlock the units in multiplayer.

In DotA 2, you're welcome to ONLY use the noob-friendly heroes if you want (it tells you which ones are on the wiki and in the game), and play against easy bots, but that's up to you.  DotA 2 offers a lot more freedom to the player.  I'll take freedom over having my hand held anyday, especially since having my hand held by a guy who really just wants my money.

So you can debate whether LoL or DotA 2 is better in the competitive scene. However, for those of us who just want to play with others who don't spend their gaming lives playing one game, LoL is much more friendly from start to end.

Well yeah, it's definitely more friendly than DotA 2, there's no argument there.  But so is My Little Pony

No, it doesn't actually. And Riot did add wide AoE disables. In fact, several. Amumu's ult, Galio's ult, Malphite's ult, Orianna's ult (though that's best tacked on to a good melee initiator champion thanks to the ball mechanics), Nautilus ult.

I'm not talking about "wide AoE disables", I'm talking about a 4 second stun.

You can cleanse out of everything you just listed (except for Malphite's ult which he charges to, giving you plenty of time to walk out of the way). 

Riot would never add a 4 second large AoE disable that couldn't be cleansed, QSSed, reduced by Mercury Treads, or whatever else.  There's much less satisfaction landing these ults because the enemy team can get out of them anyway. 

That last sentence, ironically, fits Dota well (and is basically what I said previously).

How is DotA like Checkers?  We've got 3 other people complaining about how imbalanced and frantic the game is, and you're now comparing it to Checkers?

No other highly successful entertainment system snubs the vast majority of it's audience, and it would be ridiculous to do so. You design so everyone has fun, and ask the pros to work with that.

Professional Sports - your argument is invalid.  They are highly successful forms of entertainment that don't change the rules to fit mediocre players.  As far as I know, the rules are the same for any level of player, and they are designed for the best players.

What's a form of entertainment that caters to the casuals?  Hello Kitty Online, Farmville, and World of Warcraft.

@Chemical_Art - I know it was just a joke, but it was still a really bad comparison.

These MOBA games have literally thousands of times the audience Arcen gets.  If AI War had 5 million players, they could afford to give it away for free and sell new ship models with microtransactions couldn't they?

[RCIX]

If we weren't going for your money, you wouldn't have gotten as much value for it!

Oh, wait... *causation loop detonates*

That is totally sig-worthy. *sigs*

[RCIX]

So despite LoL having a fraction of the game enabled, it has a much larger audience despite DotA being around earlier.

I wonder why?

It could because LoL is simply much more friendly to new players.

Well, because it caters to a casual audience.  Certainly you're not suggesting that McDonald's is a good restaraunt, Justin Bieber is a good artist, and Call Me Maybe is a good song just because they all have a lot of fans?

Besides, DotA 1 had more players than LoL for a long time, but the engine is really outdated, and is based on an entirely different game (Warcraft 3).  I mean the LoL engine is bad, but it's not that bad.

I think McDonalds is not bad for a meal now and then (...horrible if you like eat there 30 days straight, for 2+ meals a day and snacks), Justin Beiber has a few okay songs, and Call Me Maybe is pretty good actually. But then I like some of almost everything (country, rap, and metal are notably the genres I'm choosy about).

*cowers* don't taze me bro!

(I also have the theory that people are often too arbitrarily picky in what they like/don't like)

No, it doesn't actually. And Riot did add wide AoE disables. In fact, several. Amumu's ult, Galio's ult, Malphite's ult, Orianna's ult (though that's best tacked on to a good melee initiator champion thanks to the ball mechanics), Nautilus ult.

I'm not talking about "wide AoE disables", I'm talking about a 4 second stun.

You can cleanse out of everything you just listed (except for Malphite's ult which he charges to, giving you plenty of time to walk out of the way). 

Riot would never add a 4 second large AoE disable that couldn't be cleansed, QSSed, reduced by Mercury Treads, or whatever else.  There's much less satisfaction landing these ults because the enemy team can get out of them anyway. 

How is it fun to be CCed for a duration long enough to have a carry eat your entire team alive, with nothing you can do about it? Oh, thats right, you get to beat yourself over the head because it was ALL YOUR FAULT!!!

Also, Naut ult can't be cleansed off (and knockups dont get reduced etc), Orianna's ult is AoE pull and you thus can't cleanse/reduce it, Galio's taunt still does damage if you cleanse it...

That last sentence, ironically, fits Dota well (and is basically what I said previously).

How is DotA like Checkers?  We've got 3 other people complaining about how imbalanced and frantic the game is, and you're now comparing it to Checkers?

You've argued that Dota is just fine and well balanced (and I would tend to agree with you, as one whole big block, Dota is balanced). The design breaks so many rules and has so much fun-sucking mechanics in it that I would never want to play it seriously.

[Lancefighter]

I'm talking more 2010 aoe meta style - Pre orianna, naut.