CodenameE's guide to Hard Carry definition

Some heroes are more adept in playing certain roles and hence label but those label are the obvious ways in using there skills.What if you could channel those skill in performing different role? Unconventional use that is not in plain sight and could be the turning point for a victory.No one in the game would think that skeleton king would push in solo lane.(He is not even conceive as a deadly pusher).Yet manage to push before enemy heroes re spawned and tie the game.No one would think that a sparring robot like Atom could outsmart ZEUS(but max did) or let say Vietnam surviving American military force.It is just so unpredictable and plenty of rooms for possibility.To label hero because it is obviously built for that kind of role is good but label him for that role because that is the only role possible is wrong.This sounds crazy I know but in competitive events using heroes that are usually carry would make it more prepared for rather than a hero that does not fall in that role and yet lead the game for a win against the odds.

“Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Now you got my theory right :P
Anyway, your theory while it is partially right (as all theories are to one point) it's again debated upon the terminology. Just as my theory or any theory that depicts a hard carry in a different manner than the classic image of the archetypal hard carry, will always be more accurate in a different term. For me personally, your theory talks about the main carry in a match rather than a broad category of hard carries. And I firmly agree that any hero in a particular strategy can be a main carry, it's just that hard carry is a term for many heroes that expresses their overall playstyle without necessarily examining every possible circumstance in a match. In a similar way, my theory is refering to another part of the carry category that marks them as "pure" rather than hard in that role yet I used the term hard to define them (as they still fit in that category due to various other characteristics).
It's like football (or soccer if you prefer :P). A player can be versatile and play both as the main striker but also a more withdrawn one or a winger on either flank. That marks him as many things in terms of role yet he is still more adept as a striker.
I am interested in your depiction though, since this could well be the future of Dota's meta: versatile heroes being picked more pften and game strategies becoming more and more unpredictable.

I believe she is a hard carry just a glass cannon like Sniper. Easily killed if she doesn't have proper positioning (or a Shadow blade :P).

I didn't say that skeleton king is a hard carry my point is to make a tanker into a pusher.Furthermore,I didn't say that to label someone is wrong instead it is wrong to label someone and tag him in that role completely and disregard other possibility.Anyway I had to admit I misunderstood your "hard theory" but here is I think what going so far (hopefully I'am right this time).

Your theory

1.Heroes that become stronger and stronger in the long run and weak in early and middle game but could attain other roles = carry

2.Heroes that become stronger and stronger in the long run and weak in early and middle game but couldn't attain other roles but to carry = hard carry

3.Heroes that become stronger in the long run(if could manage to kill a lot) and good in early and middle game and could attain versatile role = semi carry

Scaling theory(dynasty987,my theory before,others maybe)

1.Heroes whose skills scales a lot if given enough powerful items such that it will outmatch majority of the opponents heroes in the late game.(brewmaster,juggernaut are not included)

Your perspective on scaling theory.

1.All heroes whose skills can scale(juggernaut,brewmaster are included)

My theory

1.Depending upon the circumstances on what heroes and strategy put forward by the enemy and the heroes and strategy put forward by your team and other tactical plays will dictate what hero or heroes(if any)would be the hard carry if it could lead the team for a victory with high certainty if given a set of particular items(doesn't matter if the hero could scale his skills or not or his skill is quite unorthodox for that role).As long as it can carry the win with high certainty.

DOTA players would disagree with my theory since they will choose heroes that become stronger and stronger on the late game but it is not necessary.A support or maybe a pusher with particular skills and particular items with a deceptive game strategy and tactics combine them together could outmatch the opponent team even if there carry is so strong.Moreover,DOTA players think that hard carry is a hero whose role will apply in every case while I on the other hand think that it is relative on the circumstances. Hence to invest the farm to a hero that could inevitably win the game in a particular situation is a hard carry.

Drow is not a hard carry o_o. Her DPS is yeah, very high, she still can be raped with ease using the real hard carries, also her R's aura is removed whenever an enemy hero cross the limited area. She's just a mid game carry, and she can fight late game, but not as good as other hard carries.

Even if Viper, Ursa and SF are debatable and I discuss them in the comments to figure them out, Sniper and Drow are DEFINITELY hard carries.

I don't even think Skeleton King is considered a hard carry. I mean he has lifesteal and critical strike without any items plus a stun and the ability to come back to life. He isn't exactly weak without items. He is still not a pure pusher since many heroes can take some roles
during the course of the game based on their playstyle. It's unconventional role assignment so it's not enough to overthrow their boldest "natural" role.
Hard carries aren't pathetic without items but are practically weak in terms of gameplay. They were gifted with the ability to become stronger and stronger as the time goes by and become reliable carries through sheer item power. Not being pathetic and becoming strong later out of the blue. Out of that they can't do anything else effectively (from the get-go always). Anti-Mage can't be a roamer simply because he is fast. All the roamer are gifted with powerful abilities to compensate their role (disables, stuns, nukes etc.). No matter how much someone can think "out of the box" it's clear that heroes HAVE to possess some tags with roles to know where they are most effective. Hard carries are the ones with the least variety in their play and therefore almost always carry. And it's balance after all. Would you imagine if hard carries like Medusa or Spectre were effective in other roles as well? They would be unstoppable in a myriad of ways.
As I've said, there's a reason why Pugna or DP have abilities that are good for pushing without items. To do just that. Taking account your theory means that we shouldn't call them that, ignoring the fact that they are obviously assigned for that role. Also, according to your theory, we shouldn't call Enigma or Earthshaker initiators because they can fill many other roles in unconventional ways. Some heroes are just made for certain roles. Others fulfill 2-3, in other cases just 1 (just like hard carries).
It's not that your theory is flat out wrong or bad. It has interesting points and valid stuff in it. It's just that it's not enough to explain the terminology of this kind (which is the main theme after all) since you dismiss "traditional" role assignments and values.

I don't even play Dota anymore, but I know that Drow Ranger, Viper, Ursa, Sniper, and Shadow Fiend are NOT hard carries.

Well let me first point out that skeleton king with Vladimir offering and has a level 4 vampiric aura with critical strike and some vanguard or other items that makes him durable can do pushing.He could for example life steal from the opponents creep-wave to compensate the damage dealt by the tower(don't hit the tower hit the oppenents creep-wave let the tower hit you) while your lane creep is unharm by the tower and opponent creep-wave you could destroy two towers straight.It works I have been in that situation but it just so happen that there is no heroes to defend that lane since 3 were dead and the 2 are busy on the other lane.So what you mean when you say that a hero is a hard carry is the fact that it has no other role than to carry.As if your saying that the hero is pathetic and worth no role so therefore we should help him to farm so that it becomes an asset later on since if we don't it becomes reliability.well anti-mage could be use as a roamer he is fast after all and could escape ganks. PL could for example position himself on the beginning of the opponents creep-wave and use his illusion to pull the lane creeps to the neutral creeps which in turn help your allied heroes in pushing on that lane since your lane creeps are not distracted by the opponents lane creeps and instead focus there attention on attacking the tower.(My classmate tried this one and it works but only in the assumption that you control the lane).To put label on heroes on there most reasonable role doesn't mean it is fixed.It is how you use the hero regardless of the items you carry.Some skills at first glance doesn't fit for some roles but on tactical plays and some weird thinking you could be surprise how counter intuitive it is.

My theory is actually that a hard carry is any hero who are weak naturally and therefore need farm to become effective. Also, this weakness of theirs (along with many varying factors) marks them unable to fulfill any role rather than carrying the game. They don't have abilities that are made for let's say initiating or massive disables or pushing but those qualities can come up with items and progress (just as your example of tanking the enemy creep wave and tower). Naturally, no hard carry could do that but can "fill" that role only through progression that happens by farming crucial items (which will allow him to carry mainly). Your expression of my definition while partially valid seems to be missing what I'm pointing out to the others as well. No, role and weakness/vulnerability aren't key features per se but come from their tendency to need more farm for being effective. Therefore they are indeed weaker since they need that items so much and in the case of hard carries it's mostly items that greatly increase their carry potential (hence they end up in the main carry role always).
Your point about the situations at hand is valid and I pointed that in the guide ("...in that sense any hero can carry.."). The thing is, hard carries once farmed, don't have natural counters and no matter how well-let's say-Necro carries a game, in the late game he will become weaker and easier to stop (if the other team also has the right picks at hand). That isn't the case for hard carries unless an even carry shows up and then it all comes down to gold and exp advantage.
The thing about the scaling theory is that it is correct in what it's trying to say (scaling abilities make you more effective late game so hard carries must or at least tend to have them) but where it falls down is rather how many heroes scale well but not in the hard carry sense (for various reasons). For example, Brew and Jug as said in earlier comments, have scaling abilities but can't be considered hard carries because of how dependent they are on their ultis. My theory isn't perfect of course, but it takes account another parameter which is what else can a hero do outside of the carry role. Can a Phantom Lancer be a core pusher in a game? No, as his amazing pushing capabilities come with intense farming and focus on getting items to increase his potency. In that sense, it would be an awful choice to pick as core pusher but rather as a late game pusher that comes as secondary from carrying the game. Pugna on the other hand is indeed a good pusher from the get-go and that;s his main role in most games.
What many people here have correctly pointed out is my different view on the term "hard". For them hard is automatically better/scaling better/scarier carry. For me it's "hardcore" which as you noticed refers to how dedicated is the hero to his carry role and therefore what else he can do when not being the main carry in a match.
In an extreme example, Omniknight carries a game. Just because he got the kills, he was in the right situations and was advantageous as a carry from a tactical perspective that doesn't mean he is a hard carry. He isn't even a natural carry but is utilised as a support in 99.9% of the situations. Even without picking up a Heart of Tarrasque or BKB to carry he could still play a major role through his skills and his lack of farm need. Death Prophet is also a decent Bloodstone carry but with her ulti she can push extremely effectively-even without items. Can Anti-Mage use any of his skills to support or gank reliably? Can PL push towers effectively unless farmed well and with plenty of levels? The answer is no and that's why the only thing they can do reliably is farm big items and carry. For SF for example there's no scaling to make them fierce late game. For Pl there is and therefore outcarries him.
The easiest way for people to get my point of view fully is to ask themselves: "When I see a team picking Spectre, do I really doubt that she will carry a game? Whereas when I see Sven being picked, am I so sure that he will carry? Can't he possibly be the main initiator or secondary support?"

It's interesting to realize that DOTA players converges to "scaling theory" as a common criteria of a hard carry.Even I had to admit came out with the same theory but may be my reason is different from the others.anyway here it is.


1.some heroes stop improving there skills while others do(shadow fiend won't while Ursa ult scales as his health increase eg. heart of tarrasque gives more health therefore more health in percentage and consequently more damage)


2.hopefully in the long run those heroes who benefited from items that scales there skill outmatch those heroes who don't.


3.if so,the team has a good offense there by denying the opponent defense.(if the opponents try to defend there towers let the carry lead the offense vice versa)
4.hopefully it comes to the point were opponents can't defend there ancient because of the carry.(of course carry alone is not sufficient other players must support the carry)


I think your definition goes something like this(correct me if I'm wrong)

1.If a hero has no role in early and middle game and unless a good item would make him useful then it is a hard carry.

I think it boils down to the word "hard"

Hard carry which means hard to beat or very effective to carry the team for a win

or

Hard carry which means it is hard to be a carry and it has no role to fit into than carry.

suppose we take for granted that hard carry means very effective to carry the team for win.One could be tempted to say that those heroes that can scale abilities are very effective to carry the team for a win.Is it always the case? or it depends on the situation?
there are some heroes which doesn't scale abilities but depending on the line-up and strategy of the team it is very effective in carrying for the win.In that case the theory falls down.

I think it will be better to say that a "hard carry" heroes are those heroes depending upon the environment of the game (strategy,line-up,tactical plays etc...) even without scaling abilities would lead the team for a win with high certainty if given a set of particular items.Hence the reason for it to get the farm.To say that a hero is hard core to be a carry limits the creative ways it can be use.They are some heroes who plays different roles unexpectedly.A tanker for example can be a pusher depending upon the situation if he alone controls the lane while other players are all on the other lane and some how manage to farm Vladimir's offering and some stout shield he could then distract the tower attention and sacrifice his life simultaneously blocking and killing the opponents creep-wave on that lane while his lane creeps on that lane were pushing the tower.His lane creeps remains untouched by the tower and the creeps of the opponent while he sacrifice 50% of his life in blocking the opponents creep wave and the attention of the tower.In the long run creep lane would stack up and eventually destroy two towers straight without the help of others.

Lol it's ok man :)
It's nice to have many different opinions. I've said it to Sprout before that it wouldn't be interesting if everyone came in here and agreed with everything I wrote or any other person wrote. That's what the comments section is for :D