Talk:Heroes of Newerth

Clarification

I thought there would be much more attention to the wikipedia article about HoN. I may be contributing to this article in the near future but to clear up some things people are uncertain about.

Heroes of Newerth is still in beta as you know and I am participating so I would know up-to-date details as the general progression of the game as it is being developed. Firstly, the game is not intended to be a clone - rather the starting point was to clone it but a better description is 'spiritual successor'. They chose to copy most of Dota simply because Dota is already very balanced. From this 'cloned' start, the development has focussed on several areas such as improving the game where the Warcraft 3 engine held back Dota. As for heroes and content, they are being added throughout the course of the beta so far with many direct copies (ports) but also completely new and original hero ideas.

So to sum it up - details are available through the beta forums which are only accessible if you have a beta account. In addition, the NDA was recently lifted on the 9th of August (and subsequently, this article was created).

"NDA Lifted!
All testers are free to not only talk about HoN, but post all the screenshots, media, and movies they want. Have fun!"

Im new to Wikipedia editing so I have no idea what kind of sources are acceptable, since all information comes from the beta section, unavailable to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor.McNinja (talk • contribs) 12:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Source citation

The article contain several phrases that seem... out of place, if not supported by good sources. For example: "unique Client-Server netcode, allowing players to connect to a server and experience very little delay, and no noticeable lag, and play in conjunction with other players all across the world, making it one of the best netcodes used in modern day games.".... Really? According to WHO? According to what source? So please, give sources, and if the source is S2 Games, then please rephrase it to "S2 Games claim that their netcode..." - or something along those lines. 81.231.247.239 (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and tweaked the features section to be less biased, and to contain additional citations. Take a look if you have a chance..... -- Random user away on a laptop who forgot his password :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.208.24 (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Grammatical Error

"It is only after you destroy the two towers that defend the guardian structure, can you attack the guardian structure itself."

Shouldn't it be:

"Only after you destroyed the two towers that defend the guardian structure, you can attack the guardian structure itself." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.249.143 (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this sentence included in the article? I can't find it anywhere related in this talk. Vahn_dinio (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability (resolved)

There is not significant coverage, yet. The game already has a large community within beta, including their massive beta forum. Many people have youtube videos and various game-related media hosted around the web - it hasnt been very long since they removed the NDA. I would suggest not to remove this article on the grounds of few sources/lack of 'notability'. Its a shame that the beta section of the site is closed off. As the community grows and the game approaches release, expect many more people coming to contribute sourceable information.

EDIT: I've heard on the beta forums about a tournament being planned with monetary prizes - there could be more public coverage on HoN during or after this event. --Doctor.McNinja (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There's only one "source", which I don't believe meets guidelines for notability itself. Discussion?  Aar  ►  23:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The content provided is such a basic definition of the game that those sources may be okay. Almost no details regarding the game are discussed. I think because it is such a direct spin-off of DotA (which is just a mod of Warcraft 3 map) it will not get much coverage from viable sources until after the release. It will be a narrowly targeted game, pointed primarily at the current DotA community, and those it is targeted at know almost everything they need to know about it, hence little attempt by the maker to get anything published by a credible outside source. I think the info in the stub is broad enough until after the release when there are a few reviews, press releases, other news articles, and a guide/manual to draw other information from. Musing Sojourner (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit to my above statement: Forgot to add my last conclusion. If the sources do not meet the appropriate requirements you will probably have to wait until shortly before the release of the game before any other sources come out, as I can not seem to find much else besides discussion board postings in DotA forums regarding it. It is coming out, but there is very low publicity regarding it.

Is "heavily using the same elements as the Warcraft III scenario Defense of the Ancients" sufficiently strong language? I just finished browsing through the official website and all the items are identical except for the name. The same applies for the characters. At the moment, it appears to be functionally identical with cosmetic changes. --Unsigned statement signed by 76.252.220.64

At another point in the article it states that most items and heroes are imported directly from DotA. I think maybe someone could restructure it to say that the gameplay will be almost entirely the same with improvements made to graphics, connectivity and other non-gameplay related issues. Bu really until some more external sources confirm this it would be difficult to call it a direct port, remake or copy of DotA. Essentially the developers want to give DotA its own optimized multiplayer interface with a facelift. Watch for quotes from the developers in game publications that state this, but until then the article is probably clear enough in the intent of HoN without going so far as to be considered original research.Musing Sojourner (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be enough for its intended purpose - it is well known that the elements are the same, so the later statement where the importing is mentioned should be sufficient. Not sure if it is important to state that facebook users were involved. most corporations and game companies nowadays use things like facebook for social networking and information sharing, but in the end, putting it or removing it would have little value. - 7:30 PM

"To play the beta, you must first be signed on as a member of the Heroes of Newerth Community. Creating an account on the Heroes of Newerth official site and becoming a "Fan" of HoN on Facebook may allow one to obtain a beta key. The next best option is to pre-order Heroes of Newerth." Why is wikipedia advertising, I thought this type of articling was in poor taste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.188.229 (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is, thanks for improving the article by removing the advertising. Regards, decltype (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability has been established. Removed tag (November 2010) --Dotaveteran (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Heroes Section (removed)

The current heroes section states

"S2 games is currently adding old DoTA style heroes who are recognizable from DoTA and completely new heroes who have new capabilities due to not being held down by the old Warcraft 3 engine. All heroes in HoN are unique in their own way; no hero is "obviously" the best, some are better at things than others, but they all are made to stand on equal footing at the beginning of each match."

but wouldn't this be considered original research since there are no sources confirming that the new heroes have their cpabilities only due to the game running on a new engine? I think that in any case this part should not only be edited but also expanded a bit, maybe by explaining a bit mroe about the diferent types of heroes there are (strength, agility, itelligence, range, melee, etc). Veritiel (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The heroes section in general is poorly written as of this writing and needs some serious wordsmithing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.203.146 (talk) 07:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Significant Reorg and Rewrites

I've made a number of changes to the page, please review and suggest improvements. The page was flagged for improvement for quite a while, so I took the initiative. Max.inglis (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Wordy additions - I don't think that much detail of the gameplay is necessary - thoughts? specifically the stuff added Dec 18 by 79.78.236.223 Max.inglis (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: 15:43, 8 January 2010 Max.inglis (talk | contribs) (7,519 bytes) (→New features: cleaned up section, removed possibly POV language, removed sub-headers in already divided section) (undo)

Those changes are very significant, correlation for example, suggests that abilities are similar (which is noted afterward), but when unit statistics, statistic growth and mechanic numbers of ability damage and status effects are identical, "correlation" is not the correct term. It is one thing to remove an opinionated article, quite another to not understand the correct usage of words or the nature of what you are discussing. Please reword them in a manner that is both appropriate and truthful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.188.229 (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

DotA Style vs Based? (resolved)

I'm wondering which is more appropriate - saying dota style or based. While there are certainly lots of heroes which are direct correlations to dota heroes, where is the tipping point, at which the is less based and more in the same style? I wonder if "based" is preferred in order to indicate that its a more direct clone than other games which may be in competition with it (league of legends for example). Max.inglis (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the features section now clarifies this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.202.202.21 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

S2 Games refers to HoN as a Dota based game. --Atchucan (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd possibly use a word stronger than "based". Most, or at least a very good chunk, of the content is directly ported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.44.191 (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Refer to Dota genre. --Dotaveteran (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Genre Discussions

League of Legends has this discussion also. The genre of this game is not clear. S2 staff call it "RTS Arena", Gamespot calls it "Action-RPG", and Riot Games staff call it "MOBA" (Multiplayer online battle arena). It seems like the arena component is relevant. Atchcucan keeps going to both pages (league of legends and heroes of newerth) and renaming them "DBG" (Dota based game). This is a bad term because under that logic FPS games would be "Wolfenstein based games", RPGs would be "D&D based games", etc. Atchucan is the ONLY guy who uses this term, and pushes it repeatedly in his various twitter/wordpress/eblogger sites (many of which masquerade as official sites). If you look at the logs of both pages, he comes by every 2-3 days to set this over, and various people revert it. Anyway, no one uses the DBG term other than him. I think that we should a) block Atchucan from doing this more and B) standardize the genre term, probably somewhere around the term arena since both riot and s2 seem interested in using that term and it does seem like it describes the genre this is in. Action RPG doesnt sound great because that also describes diablo, and this game is clearly different from diablo in so many ways.

DotA-based game is tolerable, the name of the map is in itself a genre, with the underlying premise and purpose of the game to destroy the other team's ancient or main building and defend yours. Having it called an Arena that simply suggests clash after clash undermines the greater depth of strategy and other elements of the game, the drafting phase, laning phase, and of course the sieging phase. Of course not many players have this level of knowledge of DotA, so for users on a limited scope, calling it something demeaning like MOBA and RTS Arena is perfectly understandable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.188.229 (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I prefer the arena-based name, or something similar. I guess some people feel deference to DotA, but as you mentioned, we don't call Quake4 a Wolfenstein-based game. If there is more consensus about this position then the next time he changes it, mark it as vandalism a few times and then see how able he is to change it :) Max.inglis (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh definitely, I'm not inherently supporting one term over another, just that I think that we should wait until the community has a readily agreeable term that is not offensive. FPS or first person shooter is a clear indication of games that take on its role, but MOBA and Arena are less effective as game genres. Unless DotA, LoL and HoN are repetitive 5 on 5 battles with no importance on the other game elements I named earlier then we should probably wait until there is a better term available. Otherwise, general terms like Strategy, RPG are more effective until then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.188.229 (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, Atchucan or one of his friends did it again and vandalized. They replaced the link to the official page with one to atchucan's blog site, and then renamed everything to DBG. Can we have this guy quit using wikipedia and his bitch for pushing his a) genre title no one else uses and b) a tool to promote his websites. Its ridiculous to link that blog page that just copies the official page's layout and data when we could link the official page.

The only ones using the battle arena term are Riot Games affiliated individuals for their League of Legends game title. The terms S2 Games uses for Heroes of Newerth are the following "DotA based game" and "RTS Arena". Take that marketing nonsense away from wikipedia and use the appropriate term for HON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.178.24 (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Atchucan, show us a place where an OFFICIAL S2 person EVER refers to it as DBG, not one of your blogs that pretends to be an official site but is just a giant smoking copyright violation. NO ONE but you calls it dbg. The commonly used terms are: Action-RPG (some gaming sites), RTS Arena (S2's term and a few gaming sites) and MOBA (some gaming sites like mobagamers.com + Riot). DBG from a logical perspective is just plain bad -- do games like demigod and bloodline champions which are clearly the same genre, but not based on DOTA, become DBGs? Do all shooters get retermed Wolfenstein-Based GAmes? Does LoL remain a DBG when they release capture and hold gameplay that makes it look more like freedom force than DOTA? DBG is objectively a bad term, AND it's not commonly used by anyone except for you, and your goal (with all of the linking of your blog sites overwriting official sites in wiki pages, etc) is one of getting traffic on your sites, not making good wikipedia entries. In fact, I'd like to request that an editor ban Atchucan & associated accounts from editing league of legends and heroes of newerth pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.3.142 (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hunter_ we know it's you. You're only promoting Riot Games' term coz you own mobagamers.com. S2 Games has officially used the term, DotA based game. And F.Y.I, majority use the term DotA Based Game. Google is your friend. So stop this nonsense and stop vandalizing this page with your MOBA nonsense and stick using it with the League of Legends page. Atchucan

Hunter_ hates league of legends and doesn't talk about MOBA anymore. Why are you making personal attacks against other editors Atchucan and calling them vandals for editing? Perhaps it is because you have no coherent argument to keep DBG/dota based game term and that is your last recourse. How about instead of edit warring and calling people vandals, you give us some evidence that involves a MAJOR gaming site, an S2 employee, etc, and NOT one of your 2000 blogs. You've made a lot of weird edits to this page -- frequent DBG edits, replacing links to the official site with links to your blog, etc.

Can we please just get this locked to new/unregistereds for the time being and get it changed to the more consensus, more accurate and less controversial "RTS Arena"? I'd change it but not sure how to lock it, and it would probably get changed back. I think RTS arena is the most appropriate, since as per previous discussion, we've stopped calling FPS games doom clones :P Max.inglis (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay I may be a total idiot, but I don't understand why something a little more obvious like "Hero based game" or "Champion based game", HBG or CBG respectively have not been suggested. I know it's still a little vague as neither really describes the gameplay of these games, however it does at least describe the most easily identifiable aspect of the genre which is the fact that you are choosing a "Hero" or "Champion" with which to go to battle with. I'm sure that someone will also bring up the fact that many games that are not really of this genre could fall into that category of choosing a Hero but most of those games already fall into one of the more broad categories of RPG, MMO etc and therefore wouldn't really make the genre any less vague. HBG or CBG would only cover those games that don't fall into the category of RPG, MMO etc. Am I over simplifying things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pappy1383 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we are even using DBG, yes HoN was based of DoTA, but the DoTA was based on Aeon of Strife from Starcraft which is the earliest type of game in this genre that I know, so if we are using the "game is based off of" logic shouldn't we be calling these types of games AoS as I often heard them called on battle.net playing Warcraft III? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.44 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can understand use of DBG in the case of HoN, as you can quite literally use a lot of DotA names in place of HoN names-- there's almost one-to-one correlation. In the time that I played it, I barely bothered learning the HoN names because the correlation was so striking (like what is Riki's analogue even called?). However, as far as MOBA, I'd say that although there are are nonconstructive edits that have been made to promote the term, it is being used to describe the genre. I think it's worth noting that several established genre names were founded as marketing terms-- see Real-time Strategy (marketing term for Dune II) and MMORPG (marketing term for Ultima Online). Therefore that cannot be a criterion for dismissing "MOBA". ~rezecib ^(talk) 11:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Both of you, Atchucan and whatever name (hunter?) we should refer to the other person who keeps adding/removing MOBA in articles, you guys have exceeded the 3 reverts rule. Quit editing your own opinion in without referring to the consensus which has been discussed in the talk pages - just because it didn't come out your way, doesn't mean you can just go ahead and edit what you decided, thats not how this works. Max.inglis (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see in the history of the article, these vandals are trying to deface the Heroes of Newerth page with the MOBA propaganda. Case in point - the 05:40, 25 January 2010 134.84.124.96 edit. We should be vigilant to prevent these vandals from continuing to add non facts to the article in the future. --Atchucan (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont see much use of MOBA, I see a lot of reverting DBG. Where do you get the idea the yare trying to 'vandalize' with 'MOBA propoganda', because I don't see it in the revisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.99.126 (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to re-edit the main page with the RTS/RTT specification immediately, I'm giving the anon IP editor a chance to login and discuss here, although my last edit said come to discussion, and they just reverted. However given the problems in the past with this article, classification and people pushing personal agendas (their own blogs, etc...), unless they login and discuss here (and its not a brand-new account) I'm going to revert it and invoke the 3 "don't exceed 3 reverts" rule and have it classified as an edit war, resulting in a lock. Max.inglis (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

MOBA Term This term is not valid or acceptable because it seems to be pushed by a few people who have domains registered with it worked in, and are trying to gain acceptance for it so they can make money. Totally against WP policy, please quit it immediately. Max.inglis (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? (I'm asking out of sheer curiosity, I have no stake in this). Rami R 16:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

We discussed it at length, read the talk above for more info, but there were several users constantly reverting to it, who could be traced to portal sites with that name. The discussion about RTS/RTT still continues, and may be more valid, but the term MOBA and DBG (dota-based-game) are vague, not what the developer calls the game, and aren't any sort of industry standard yet, so we're sticking with RTS and RTT for the time being. Max.inglis (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Missed that discussion. Rami R 16:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Might it be time to reclassify this article to B quality?Jozrael (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit war needs to stop

Both of you, Atchucan and whatever name (hunter?) we should refer to the other person who keeps adding/removing MOBA in articles, you guys have exceeded the 3 reverts rule. Quit editing your own opinion in without referring to the consensus which has been discussed in the talk pages - just because it didn't come out your way, doesn't mean you can just go ahead and edit what you decided, thats not how this works. Max.inglis (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see in the history of the article, these vandals are trying to deface the Heroes of Newerth page with the MOBA propaganda. Case in point - the 05:40, 25 January 2010 134.84.124.96 edit. We should be vigilant to prevent these vandals from continuing to add non facts to the article in the future. --Atchucan (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont see much use of MOBA, I see a lot of reverting DBG. Where do you get the idea the yare trying to 'vandalize' with 'MOBA propoganda', because I don't see it in the revisions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.99.126 (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing Re-org header (resolved)

I think this article, while not perfect or by any means even high quality, has come along sufficiently to have the re-org tag removed from it. We've made good improvements in readability lately, so I'm going to remove it in a day or two unless anyone has any objections. Max.inglis (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Listing all heroes? (removed)

I'm not sure I like having a full list of heroes in there - while obviously accurate, is there a encyclopedic point to it? I'm going to mull it over, feel free to add thoughts. Max.inglis (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've re-read and I dislike the hero "classification" listing. It's subjective, not encyclopedic, and breaks up the flow of the article there. I'm going to cut it and replace with a much briefer and more curt listing of types (ie tanks, damagers, support) unless anyone can think of a reason. Max.inglis (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up and added lots of info

Okay, the original article was very poor quality. I cleaned it up a bit. Removed list of heroes (it was very unorganized) and replaced it with an explanation of what hero abilities are and how they determine the hero's role. Also added a list of heroes.

Cleaned up the game modes and changed it into a list instead of one giant paragraph.

Also added an items section, as well as a controversy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.33.186 (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Above comments are mine, by the way. I wasn't signed in. Enraged camel (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the listing of heroes, I don't think it was a good thing. I'm also leaning that way about the list of roles, since they aren't specifically defined in-game, and become opinion at that point (no matter how widely held the naming convention is). Like the other changes however. Max.inglis (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Do NOT remove sections without giving a good reason.

Self-explanatory. Stop sabotaging the article. Enraged camel (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the controversy section - feel free to add it using links to WP:RS stating the opinions listed, but as per WP:NOT#OR its not appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max.inglis (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed Game mode subsection. Let's make this article as concise as possible. All the Game modes can be further discussed at HoN related wiki pages.

Game mode

The game offers a variety of game modes, each with different set of rules that determine how players select their heroes. Normal Mode offers the entire selection of heroes, for example, while Random Draft forces players to alternate picks from a smaller pool of randomly selected heroes. In contrast, Single Draft mode assigns each player three heroes, from which the player must make their choice. Banning Draft provides a selection of 24 heroes but permits team captains to remove 4 of these before they can be picked, while Banning Pick does the same with the entire hero pool and captains can remove 6 heroes. Practice mode lets players to try out heroes while not having to worry about other players. The "No stats" option allows players to play normal games with no statistics being recorded and having no effect on player`s ranking in the ladder system.

If a player changes their mind after picking, they may pick a new hero in exchange for a penalty on their starting gold. Similarly, a player may select a random hero and receive a bonus to their starting gold. However in Banning Pick, Banning Draft, Random Draft, and Single Draft, randoming heroes gives the player no bonus gold. Typically, each hero may be selected by only one player - but modified modes exist that permit duplicate heroes. Other modified modes include the ability to limit available heroes by removing heroes of a particular type - melee or ranged, for example, or heroes with a specified core attribute such as strength.

Some game modes also impact the rate at which players receive gold during the game. During normal play, players receive 1 gold per second. Easy Mode doubles this amount, and also reduces the amount of damage dealt by towers. Hardcore Mode, on the other hand, disables this passive gold gain and removes the experience gained from denied units.--Dotaveteran (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Adding League of Legends See Also references

Someone keeps adding references to League of Legends. I think DotA is a fine see also, but I think adding LoL links is not relevant, but would be on the dota page. Max.inglis (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I mostly maintain the LoL page, and heartily agree. Neither LoL or HoN is relevant to the other's page, while DotA is relevant to both. You don't see e.g. StarCraft having see also links for its competitors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jozrael (talk • contribs) 07:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

MOBA

This term is not valid or acceptable because it seems to be pushed by a few people who have domains registered with it worked in, and are trying to gain acceptance for it so they can make money. Totally against WP policy, please quit it immediately. Max.inglis (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? (I'm asking out of sheer curiosity, I have no stake in this). Rami R 16:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

We discussed it at length, read the talk above for more info, but there were several users constantly reverting to it, who could be traced to portal sites with that name. The discussion about RTS/RTT still continues, and may be more valid, but the term MOBA and DBG (dota-based-game) are vague, not what the developer calls the game, and aren't any sort of industry standard yet, so we're sticking with RTS and RTT for the time being. Max.inglis (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Missed that discussion. Rami R 16:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Might it be time to reclassify this article to B quality?Jozrael (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

New Features

I am going to add some features that were added in recent-ish updates to the New Features section. Please add/remove as needed. --  Grimbear13 ►Talk  15:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The features section has been included in the Development section. Added announced upcoming features like team match-making and map editor. --Dotaveteran (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

HoN's availability especially about south-east asia countries(SEA)

Someone should probably mention the agreement S2 and Garena made which will allow SEA(only 4 countries) players to play Heroes of Newerth for free instead of paying 30 US Dollars.118.101.136.120 (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's see what we can do about this. Would need help in sourcing though. In the meantime, I have added Garena in the infobox as the SouthEast Asian publisher of Heroes of Newerth. --Dotaveteran (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Beta testing participation and numbers

Since I have already seen "On average, over 50,000 active users play the game at any given point in time." from this article quoted elsewhere on the internet I am interested where is the source of this number? There is no source mentioned here. Else I suggest this data to be removed since it is misleading and clearly conjured out of thin air. And also spreading false information over the internet. Neikius (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't have the exact link, but somewhere on the HoN forums it has been stated that during the beta they had an average of ~50,000 players on at any given time. So its not neccesarily false information, just information with out a reference. Following that it should be removed pending source location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.42 (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

New additions

I added some clarification on the roles, as it does play an important role (!) of the game, but it is hard not to sound subjective when writing about it. Edits are more than welcome, but I apologize if anybody has to clean up because it looks too messy ;) GonX (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a little wordy now in places. I don't think some of the new info (not sure if you added it) is appropriate or not, I don't think readers need to know the pick order in banning draft or the length of the delay between rounds of picking or banning. I'll review it and trim I think. Max.inglis (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - so I consolidated that section quite a bit. I also cited the playercount - but I'd love to have more sources. Still plenty to do. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't know if you can use this as a source, but here's a screenshot I took back in 16 May 2010, 4 days after the release showing a bit more than 31 000 concurrent users online at the retail launch with the retail launch news item. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hideinlight (talk • contribs) 13:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Playercount at Retail Hideinlight (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Improving Article

Firstly my English language isn`t that strong so i`m be grateful that someone is fixing my gramatical erros. That being said, gameplay or game play? Respawn or re-spawn? Wikipedia has articles about gameplay and spawning/respawning, so i`m a bit confused. What citations are required? Yes, one is missing, but other than that? Someone had put a citation required tag on 35k+ users online, but it was said in the source witch was referenced at the end of the paragraph so i removed that. What parts aren`t neutral? Does this read like an advertisiment? --BlisterD (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

"Gameplay" and "respawn" are single words, at least as they are used in the context of games. Many dictionaries may not list "respawn", but that's because it's jargon. ~rezecib ^(talk) 05:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion concerning genre

There is a discussion taking place on Talk:Dota (genre)#Merger proposal that I hope can provide more decisive resolutions to:

• Whether we should have an article for the genre, as it now has a significant number of games in it
• What the article about the genre should be named, and by extension, what name for the genre should be used on the relevant games' pages

Currently it's mostly been a 2-sided discussion, and I know it's been discussed here in the past, so any input from the contributors given the new climate would be welcome. ~rezecib ^(talk) 04:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Awards

Before adding any awards that HoN may have been nominated for, please establish notability of the awarding body. We can also consider limiting the entries to awards that Heroes of Newerth has actually won. In addition, we can merge the 2 sections (Reception and Awards) together. --Dotaveteran (talk) 11:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability of awarding bodies is subjective and also borderline irrelevant. There is no reason to remove any award with a credible citation from the list; the purpose of the page is to provide factual information about Heroes of Newerth that is as neutral as possible, not to make individual value judgments about awards that the game has been nominated for. - Misterpete1 (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This might help you out: WP:Reliable sources, WP:WikiProject Video games/Sources and WP:Notability Following your logic, any random website can nominate HoN for some random category and it immediately gets added in the article. We have guidelines to follow before adding any awards/review scores on the article. --Dotaveteran (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that the awarding body in question is an established gaming website that is viewed by a significant number of people (it has an Alexa Traffic Rank of 6,405 - significantly higher than numerous other gaming websites that are considered notable, such as gamerankings.com), and Heroes of Newerth's placing in its awards is factual information that can be reliably cited, I see no reason to remove the information from the page - Misterpete1 (talk) 23:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Both notability and reliability must be established first before we add that online voting award. You may go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to discuss reliability of MMOSite as an awarding body. Once consensus has been reached that it is... we may add that award. --Dotaveteran (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Image Request for the Infobox

Current image is just a cropped screenshot of the header logo found at the official website. --Dotaveteran (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Reception

Expansion of this section needed. We can have the following: inclusion at DreamHack, Digital Youth Award (Shanghai World Expo 2010), Singapore Cybersports and Online Game Association (SCOGA), Cyberathlete Professional League:

Please check these sources:

Digital Youth Awards

• http://www.gamingangels.com/2009/12/hereos-of-newerth-chosen-for-digital-youth-award-program/
• http://www.gameache.com/2010/11/digital-youth-awards-finals-preview/
• http://www.digitalyouthaward.net/news/digital-youth-award-dya-%E2%80%9Cheroes-of-newerth%E2%80%9D-china-qualifier-kick-offs-at-the-shanghai-world-expo-sweden-pavilion/
• http://www.swedenexpo.cn/en/news/detail/article/digital-youth-award-dya-heroes-of-newerth-kicks-off-at-the-swedish-pavilion/

Scoga

• http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/geekonomics/post.htm?id=63018980
• http://scoga.org/events/champions-of-newerth

DreamHack

• http://www.neutralcreeps.com/2010/11/heroes-of-newerth-dreamhack-winter-2010.html

Cyberathlete Professional League

• http://thecpl.com/news/2010/9/23/cpl-announces-registration-cap-hon-event/

--Dotaveteran (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

About changing the genre 23/11 -10 despite the genre discussion

I've recently changed the genre in the infobox because everybody hates the name "Action RTS" and because the page which user Darthbotto hyperlinked to(DotA 2 FAQ) as a reference does not even mention RTS once. I've read through the 8. Genre? and 16. MOBA discussions on this talk page and I decided to go for MOBA. Here is a comparison of all the other possible names:
"Action-RTS"/"RTS-Arena" The gameplay has very little in common with most RTS games today. Therefore I don't think it should have RTS as a part of its name. RTS Arena sounds like a SC2 gametype amd Action-RTS sounds like Arcade style RTS.
DotA-based To quote the anonymous person in Genre? "[...]This is a bad term because under that logic FPS games would be "Wolfenstein based games", RPGs would be "D&D based games", etc"
"Action-RPG" It has so little to do with RP and I'd say that about 8/10 players haven't even read the story line/the hero descriptions.

The only thing that are against MOBA is that some of you believe it is a trademark which isn't. Yes it was coined at Riot Games but that's just because the need of a new term first appeared with the development of LoL. MOBA was created and it turned to describe the genre excellently. --Immunmotbluescreen (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the genre, you can discuss here: Talk:Dota_(genre)

--Dotaveteran (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

First of all, try not to personally attack me, it comes off as being ad hominen. Secondly, if you look at the histories for the pages you've edited, you'll notice people immediately have reverted your edits because multiplayer online battle arena is not a first-party term. Your reasoning you did explain on the Dota (genre) talk page is simply calling Valve an "evil corporation". IceFrog and his first-party studio naming a genre frankly has more ground than you thinking they are an "evil corporation".

I recommend you learn more about Wikipedia protocol, vandalism, ethic, etc. before you go move forward based on your own personal whims about these kind of matters and post warnings to my user account, simply because you don't like my edits. DarthBotto _talk•cont 15:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)