Patch changes in games are part and parcel of keeping the gameplay relevant. Dota2 has been notorious for having a steep learning curve - being "unnecessarily complex" with in-game mechanics and interactions. As such, match analysis platforms (such as OpenDota, Dotabuff, Stratz, etc) have been providing empirical data and statistics for players of all skill levels to understand the patch changes better - keeping ahead of the "meta".

​

Traditionally, the Dota2 community has been much more invested in the items/hero updates where it tends to be characterized more prominently in official patch notes as well as 3rd party analysis platforms. Players, after reading a couple of numbers, are quick to understand how the gameplay at large has evolved. On the other hand, spatial updates tend to be more elusive - changes are merely described in the patch notes as "Terrain updated with various changes" and players spend the following weeks or so trying to get used to the revisions.

​

Granted, the layout changes are harder to capture - there isn't an easy/widely accepted way to conceptualize spatial changes and their implication to the overall gameplay. As such, it's usually thrown to very qualitative forms of analysis in the form of resulting experiences. Players have been using numerous coined terminologies such as "high ground advantage", "chokepoints", and "fog of war" to describe common strategies.

I personally feel that the community's comprehension of the unique game space is rather limited as compared to the advancements in hero/items/match analysis. This could be because of its reliance on spatial knowledge on an empirical or a posteriori basis (from observations or experiences to the deduction of probable causes).