SVG on buybacks: “Without them, the game would punish mistakes too harshly.”

SVG: I understand the arguments against this format: there’s already enough hero diversity in Dota, even though people complain about it. And if you force teams to pick weaker heroes, the games won’t necessarily become more interesting.

You’re changing the format to make the matches or drafts at your tournament more entertaining to watch. But I don’t think that’s guaranteed to work in Dota. Games might become even more one-sided or boring. Some idiot will pick Bloodseeker because there’s no one else left, and he’ll get crushed in ten minutes. Is that fun to watch? I don’t know.

The drafts themselves will definitely be more interesting—simply because they’ll be more unpredictable. We’ll see how it works out. I’m all for organizers trying out different formats. I don’t think there are any serious downsides here. It’s unlikely you’ll lose viewers just because you tried something new. So why not?

Cap: I think a lot of people are looking forward to this. For BLAST, which is already experimenting and trying to stand out from PGL and ESL, trying this format is a perfectly reasonable decision.

But, as far as I know, BLAST hasn’t published the rules for its Lockout format yet. After all, Fearless Draft can work in different ways. For example, a selected hero could become unavailable to both teams for the rest of the series. Or they could implement a softer restriction: each team would be unable to re-select only those heroes they’ve already used themselves. How would you organize it?

SVG: I’d do it this way: once a hero appears on the draft screen, it’s off the table for the rest of the series. <…> You have to force teams to really dig into their rosters; otherwise, the format won’t deliver the results you’re looking for. If you only restrict picks and only for the team that used them—that’s how most series play out anyway. After the first map, opponents often just ban what you’ve already played. You’ll add two or three heroes to the mix, man. We need to shake these guys up. To make things interesting, we’ll have to ban half the pool.

Cap: How far are you willing to go? All the way to a best-of-5 series? Because then, by the fifth map, out of 127 heroes, there’ll only be two left that never even show up in the drafts.

SVG: Yeah, I think that’s hilarious. That’s exactly what I want. The fifth map is going to be absolutely insane. Imagine: you get to the decisive game, and you have absolutely no idea what’s going on. Crystal Maiden, Visage, Elder Titan…

And don’t forget: when half the pool is already off-limits, some good heroes who are usually held back by bad matchups suddenly become incredibly strong. In Dota, there are few heroes who are truly useless because of their stats. Many just don’t perform well against popular opponents.

Cap: Recently, a quote from Yatoro went viral on Reddit, saying that buybacks shouldn’t exist in Dota at all. When we were creating content for BLAST, I was actually discussing this mechanic with NatTea. She suggested that the buyback cooldown should only start after the next death. That way, you couldn’t buy your way out, survive long enough, and get another buyback right away. What do you think of Yatoro’s suggestion to remove this mechanic entirely?

SVG: That sounds pretty bad. I think Dota needs buybacks. Without them, the game would punish mistakes too harshly. There are too many variables here—you need to be able to make mistakes.

Cap: I’ve seen top players in League of Legends complain about the very idea of buybacks: they think this mechanic is too forgiving.

SVG: Well, yeah, because their game is ridiculously simple. That’s why any mistake in League is unforgivable: “How could you even do that?” But in Dota, so much is happening. Some Shadow Shaman might suddenly hex you from the woods—you’re dead, and that’s the end of the game. No, there should be more opportunities to respond, more actual gameplay.

In my opinion, buybacks are a very good mechanic. They make matches much more interesting for viewers, and team fights in the late game are much more dynamic. But I don’t like that they lead to drawn-out stalemates. This is something that really needs to be addressed: try NatTea’s suggestion, increase the cost, extend the cooldown, or make it progressive. I’m all for changing this part.

Right now, the same thing happens way too often in the late game: you start a fight, your opponents buy themselves out, and then there’s a six-minute lull. And you’re just sitting there thinking, “Man, this is such a drag.” We need to break this cycle somehow.

Cap: I like buybacks too, but they definitely could be improved. NatTea’s suggestion is the first idea I’ve heard that changes the mechanics in an interesting way, rather than just increasing the cooldown or cost. Because increasing the cooldown, in my opinion, will only make that lull even longer.

SVG: I also find the idea of a limited number of baybecks interesting: for example, you only have three or five attempts throughout the entire game. The problem is that many changes like this make the game less enjoyable for the average player. Even if, in theory, professional matches would become more balanced and interesting, I don’t know if Valve would go for it. After all, you’re once again making the game more unforgiving of mistakes. If you limit the number of buybacks, will the average pub game become more fun? No.