[Suggestion] Gold for Creep Kills Reward System

Maybe the last member to die of each creep wave drops a pot/scroll?

Iuno

I understand many Dota player's concerns for creep kill gold etc, but from the perspective of gameplay, if you kill twice as many more creeps as the enemy Demigod, then you should be dominating the map. It isn't always about gold reward, pushing their base is a reward for mass creep killing.

I think killing creeps shoukld give u some gold too. Maybe not alot but sometimes when its like 2v2 u dodn't always fight an oppposing DG but instead kill alot of creeps this is espicially so when versing a general. Also some play styles and DG's are better at killing masses than 1 unit.

 

I agree to this, in theorie!

But you miss a valuable point: The reward for pushing better comes very late-> winning the game.

Beside winning the game there is no reward for pushing better.

If your creeps would get stronger if you push more, their towers get reasonably weaker etc. than you would get a reward.

 

Now this leads to a redicoulus situation:

Team Light pushes the first 4/5 of the game because they play better.

In the last 1/5 of the game team Darkness puts all their gold (and they earned nearly as much as team Light because of this system) in creeps and then they get a little luck and own the enemy demigods and win!

 

It's as if only the goals in the last 10 minutes in soccer count for the win!

I'm confused though - don't the towers NOT regenerate?  So an early game benefit for pushing is that you don't lose as many of your creeps nor as much of your health when you advance on the enemy?

 

So doesn't that mean that pushing is its own reward?

 

Admittedly, I like the idea of gold for creeps.  Or the last one dropping something.  Maybe not much, so that you have to kill a lot for it to be worth it.

I'm not even saying it has to be as drastic as it is in dota.  if you look at creeping in dota and how it works... you creep a lot you get stacked you kick ass.  I'm just saying you should get something.  Think about it, if you're defending and pushing and you kill creeps a lot I just feel you should get something for your heard work.  Also I wish there was an attack move or some sort of attack, stop, hold position, etc. set of commands.

You mean apart from the insane XP you get from clearing a wave of creeps on your own?

What I am not understanding is this emphasis on killing creeps. They are there and are a concern, most certainly, but I don't think that they should be the sole focus. As they are right now, they are basically an environmental favor, waves of damage output, damage mitigation, and farmable experience. They can be used as they are now to help you achieve victory (I personally enjoy leading them to attack towers and get the enemy D down early).

What you seem to suggest is that the only practical actions can be taken by high level characters and the game is about achieving a high level or high power. I disagree that that should be the only real path to victory.

 

Depending on the map the advantage of pushing is that it increases the area you can work with.  Once you hit a tower, your ability to push and finish off a demigod is limited.  Taking out these towers increase the map area where you can threaten a demigod.  The idea is that pushing gives you control of the flags which gives you an advantage (particularly gold mines and exp flags.)  Over time this means you have more gold than the other team and while they were greedy and invested in themselves early game, when they get the cash to invest in troops you should have the same ability to invest in yourself and when they match your creeps you match their gear.

Better gold mine placement could make early pushing huge.  Cash from creeps is uninteresting and silly.  Cash from map control is quite interesting.

I forgot about the gold mines.  I think I am happy with the gold mines, and don't really think we need more reward from creeps - XP, plus the sheer reward of pushing, is pretty good.

ok well lets say you are getting completely stomped and creeps are attacking your citidel.  but you have no money.  It'd make it interesting to kill creeps and get gold so a comeback would be a possibility. I'm not saying that killing creeps is the focus, if you think that you;re not reading me right.  I'm just saying it could add more if there were certain rewards (again it doesn't have to be gold) to killing creeps or a certain amount of creeps like every 250 or something.

In the event that your citadel is being attacked enough for it to be a problem, you've lost defenses on an entire side. Unless you're in the same situation at their base, in no game should you then deserve to go on and win. How is that fair? You said yourself you're getting stomped. Why should there be a game mechanic to bail you out if you're worse than your opponents?

So your saying in no event should you have the possibility to beat someone who is "better" than you? and if all your defences are gone, then yeah.  It's game over.  BUT have you not just had your citidel attacked just by pushing the middle or a side lane? It's possible.

What I said was that if them attacking your citadel is a problem (read: game ending), then you must have lost defenses completely on one side (read: be completely defenseless), and in that situation, unless you have done the same to your opponent, you do not deserve to win.

So your saying in no event should you have the possibility to beat someone who is "better" than you?

Yes. This is exactly what I'm saying. You think adding mechanics that reward a losing player makes the game more fun? What about all the time and effort his opponent put in to beat him to a pulp? Shouldn't that be rewarded? You can look at games like SupCom and say that the loser might potentially win by a TML strike or somesuch, but that at least requires forethought and no little skill (not to mention an opponent who keeps his commander still). Giving gold/items to a losing player in DG does not require any skill or planning on that players behalf.

I'm not saying that the first person to make a mistake should necessarily lose, just that if it's obvious that there is little hope of coming back he should lose.

You're making it sound like a handout.  Thats not the case because it has to be earned.  But the point of me posting this is so I can see what people think, not to argue with you.