On July 28 2011 10:05 MidKnight wrote: Things like adding 30 levels, which any at least slightly competitive player will reach in few weeks, shows that they wanted to 'hook' casuals up by introducing the favorite part of casual gamers - grinding. This sort of gimmick shouldn't have a place in any competitive game. This is exactly why MMOs are so popular, people enjoy their 'skill' to be measured by artificial means like levels/items/new skills instead of actually becoming better at the game at hand.
(Replied part is in bolded part. I understand you say not in a competitive game so this isn't about LoL but just MMOs).
In defense of casuals everywhere - Time = Skill (for the most part). Skill is a bit subjective but generally if you put time into practicing you get better (therefore more skill).
If someone grinds competitively at SC2, they get better (of course quality grinding that is. HuK in oGs team house for example).
People grind at MMO with probably roughly the same hours (or maybe less for "real casual players") as say maybe the average competitive SC2 player (I'm not sure but I know lots of people who spend 5+ hours a day on MMO).
However what's the point of grinding in SC2 if it's not fun to you or to that person? If you're going pro, sure but otherwise some don't have fun playing SC2 or "competitive games" so there's no point for them to spend time on it.
MMOs are more about social and relaxing fun (yes doing the same thing over and over can be relaxing as long as you're chatting with friends or having a great time). If you have had a rough day, you want to relax with a casual not competitive game. Sure some people relax by playing competitively but others prefer less competitive games to relax.
So I don't think all the negativity towards casuals are necessary. While it's true that games nowadays are a lot more "easier", I don't think it matters too much unless the game is built on competitive play (WoW and most MMOs aren't).
As for seemingly competitive games that appear to be too casual (Is LoL advertised as competitive)? Well that's another story but still casuals should get some slack.
Why does everything in life has to be some contest or competition .
On July 27 2011 01:26 howerpower wrote: DOTA players are still gonna deny that LoL is legit and that it has more players than DOTA. Hater's gonna hate I suppose.
What's incredible is how much it has grown lately, it didn't seem this big just like 4 months ago.
I don't think anyone with any sense would try to argue with public information, even with the massive success DotA had in China.
Most people don't really argue with League of Legend's popularity...
Except... right now is the middle of the day in China, and a godforsaken time in western Russia, and.. 204063 on garena alone.
That said, LoLs growth in the West is great for Esports.
Also most strangely, AOE 1 appears to have an active community of over 10,000 people logged in right now?? I never knew people even still played that. Apparently 9,000 of the 10,000 are in Vietnam, or are at least playing on the Vietnam server. So strange.
On July 27 2011 01:26 howerpower wrote: DOTA players are still gonna deny that LoL is legit and that it has more players than DOTA. Hater's gonna hate I suppose.
What's incredible is how much it has grown lately, it didn't seem this big just like 4 months ago.
I don't think anyone with any sense would try to argue with public information, even with the massive success DotA had in China.
Most people don't really argue with League of Legend's popularity...
Except... right now is the middle of the day in china and.. 204063 on garena alone.
That said, LoLs growth in the West is great for Esports.
most chinese dont play on garena. they have their own client most of those numbers come from the philippines and malaysia/sg and other countries in south east asia. i dont remember if there are sanguo players on garena but a lot of people play that too but it isnt dota
On July 27 2011 01:26 howerpower wrote: DOTA players are still gonna deny that LoL is legit and that it has more players than DOTA. Hater's gonna hate I suppose.
What's incredible is how much it has grown lately, it didn't seem this big just like 4 months ago.
I don't think anyone with any sense would try to argue with public information, even with the massive success DotA had in China.
Most people don't really argue with League of Legend's popularity...
Except... right now is the middle of the day in china and.. 204063 on garena alone.
That said, LoLs growth in the West is great for Esports.
most chinese dont play on garena. they have their own client most of those numbers come from the philippines and malaysia/sg and other countries in south east asia. i dont remember if there are sanguo players on garena but a lot of people play that too but it isnt dota
Hm? That may be true now, checking out the rooms it appears to be the case, but when I was active in playing dota ~1 year ago a ton of Chinese people were on it, and any international online game involving Chinese was played on it, but if anything it supports my point that DOTA has tremendous popularity outside of the west.
I don't see any sanguo rooms, outside of some empty China ones, so if people are playing it, they are playing it in DOTA rooms.
On July 27 2011 01:26 howerpower wrote: DOTA players are still gonna deny that LoL is legit and that it has more players than DOTA. Hater's gonna hate I suppose.
What's incredible is how much it has grown lately, it didn't seem this big just like 4 months ago.
I don't think anyone with any sense would try to argue with public information, even with the massive success DotA had in China.
Most people don't really argue with League of Legend's popularity...
Except... right now is the middle of the day in china and.. 204063 on garena alone.
That said, LoLs growth in the West is great for Esports.
most chinese dont play on garena. they have their own client most of those numbers come from the philippines and malaysia/sg and other countries in south east asia. i dont remember if there are sanguo players on garena but a lot of people play that too but it isnt dota
Hm? That may be true now, checking out the rooms it appears to be the case, but when I was active in playing dota ~1 year ago a ton of Chinese people were on it, and any international online game involving Chinese was played on it, but if anything it supports my point that DOTA has tremendous popularity outside of the west.
I don't see any sanguo rooms, outside of some empty China ones, so if people are playing it, they are playing it in DOTA rooms.
I agree LoL has grown in numbers. It's really hard to measure numbers regarding DotA because there are LAN/Computer Shops around. People like when it is lag free and hassle free unlike playing online. You need to check the ping everytime. (I've also heard about a Php100,000 bet on a single DotA (show)match. Think about that )
It's still not impossible to believe Dota has more players overall, adding all diferent plataform, which is what the original quote refered to. People really underrate the amount of players on Asia.
That said, this really has nothing to do with LoL sucess as a game, it's just because Warcraft 3 easiness to pirate and how far it already was spread in LANs, etc, meant it Dota was an obvious choice for that region.
On July 28 2011 05:30 rabidch wrote: Better for you not to say anything about HoN/DotA, I read through it and you concentrate too much on hard carry aspects ("carry"is an inaccurate name anyway) which is a factor and not enough on map and lane control but you're looking at HoN/DotA from an outsiders perspective, because these games have a lot of subtlety too. As for who criticize LoL, at least know the game first... I've hardly read any good arguments for either game in this thread.
Yeah I don't know anything about playing carry in HoN.
On a more related note, how do you think HoN going F2P will effect either game ? Is S2 doing some kind of "desperate" move to get more players in ? What do you think about the pace of hero releasing in HoN too. What about the separation between 'F2P' and "Verified only / legacy" accounts ? And the purchasable "early access" to heroes in PUBLIC GAMES ? Looks like pay2win to me.
S2 is desperate, no doubt about that. It's silly that they've gone from $30 to $10 and now free. They're trying to make those who had paid at least feel like they haven't wasted money but it's gonna be harder for newer players and less enjoyable for older players.
On July 28 2011 05:30 rabidch wrote: Better for you not to say anything about HoN/DotA, I read through it and you concentrate too much on hard carry aspects ("carry"is an inaccurate name anyway) which is a factor and not enough on map and lane control but you're looking at HoN/DotA from an outsiders perspective, because these games have a lot of subtlety too. As for who criticize LoL, at least know the game first... I've hardly read any good arguments for either game in this thread.
Yeah I don't know anything about playing carry in HoN.
On a more related note, how do you think HoN going F2P will effect either game ? Is S2 doing some kind of "desperate" move to get more players in ? What do you think about the pace of hero releasing in HoN too. What about the separation between 'F2P' and "Verified only / legacy" accounts ? And the purchasable "early access" to heroes in PUBLIC GAMES ? Looks like pay2win to me.
How on earth is what you mentioned any more "Pay to win" than in League of Legends? If you don't have IP and I don't have IP, you can just pay to get access to a champion earlier than me, wouldn't "early access" to heroes be pretty much the same thing? IP Boosts are an easy way of circumventing the "paying for power" idea, "Oh, you're still playing, it's not just paying!", also if you actually think about it, if I have 15000IP and you have 15000IP, and you buy your champions with RP, who is going to have better Runes? The time-frame is roughly similar, I don't see how you can suggest that one would be "pay2win" unless you want to consider the other to be "pay2win", either they both would be/are or neither are.
Such a crock of rubbish... Honestly.
From all this nonsense about LoL having higher level of teamwork to better decision making, to more end-game shit going on, none of this makes any sense. It's absolutely equivalent in HoN, and now this about how if HoN did go F2P and use early access to heroes, it would be paying to win. If you consider something that simple to be paying to win, then LoL is pay2win as well.
No, the point was that only "verified only" (aka paid accounts) who paid an extra (per champion) could have access to that. Sure, you can pay for IP boosts, but in the end everybody is still technically able (and tons of people do so) and equally entitled to getting a new champion as soon as he is released. The only thing "exclusive" on LoL are some special skins. Anyway, I'm calling tons of "verified" accounts rolling on new "F2P" players games using Monkey King :p
On July 28 2011 05:30 rabidch wrote: Better for you not to say anything about HoN/DotA, I read through it and you concentrate too much on hard carry aspects ("carry"is an inaccurate name anyway) which is a factor and not enough on map and lane control but you're looking at HoN/DotA from an outsiders perspective, because these games have a lot of subtlety too. As for who criticize LoL, at least know the game first... I've hardly read any good arguments for either game in this thread.
Yeah I don't know anything about playing carry in HoN.
On a more related note, how do you think HoN going F2P will effect either game ? Is S2 doing some kind of "desperate" move to get more players in ? What do you think about the pace of hero releasing in HoN too. What about the separation between 'F2P' and "Verified only / legacy" accounts ? And the purchasable "early access" to heroes in PUBLIC GAMES ? Looks like pay2win to me.
How on earth is what you mentioned any more "Pay to win" than in League of Legends? If you don't have IP and I don't have IP, you can just pay to get access to a champion earlier than me, wouldn't "early access" to heroes be pretty much the same thing? IP Boosts are an easy way of circumventing the "paying for power" idea, "Oh, you're still playing, it's not just paying!", also if you actually think about it, if I have 15000IP and you have 15000IP, and you buy your champions with RP, who is going to have better Runes? The time-frame is roughly similar, I don't see how you can suggest that one would be "pay2win" unless you want to consider the other to be "pay2win", either they both would be/are or neither are.
Such a crock of rubbish... Honestly.
From all this nonsense about LoL having higher level of teamwork to better decision making, to more end-game shit going on, none of this makes any sense. It's absolutely equivalent in HoN, and now this about how if HoN did go F2P and use early access to heroes, it would be paying to win. If you consider something that simple to be paying to win, then LoL is pay2win as well.
Because if everything is accessible through playing the game, then at competitive levels, any differences in hero/rune accessibility vanishes because everyone is playing enough to earn everything as it's released. Most top-level streamers own everything they want and are still floating something like 20k-30k IP. This is obviously not true at middle levels, but players at those levels are also unlikely to be relevant to big competitive events.
On July 28 2011 05:30 rabidch wrote: Better for you not to say anything about HoN/DotA, I read through it and you concentrate too much on hard carry aspects ("carry"is an inaccurate name anyway) which is a factor and not enough on map and lane control but you're looking at HoN/DotA from an outsiders perspective, because these games have a lot of subtlety too. As for who criticize LoL, at least know the game first... I've hardly read any good arguments for either game in this thread.
Yeah I don't know anything about playing carry in HoN.
On a more related note, how do you think HoN going F2P will effect either game ? Is S2 doing some kind of "desperate" move to get more players in ? What do you think about the pace of hero releasing in HoN too. What about the separation between 'F2P' and "Verified only / legacy" accounts ? And the purchasable "early access" to heroes in PUBLIC GAMES ? Looks like pay2win to me.
How on earth is what you mentioned any more "Pay to win" than in League of Legends? If you don't have IP and I don't have IP, you can just pay to get access to a champion earlier than me, wouldn't "early access" to heroes be pretty much the same thing? IP Boosts are an easy way of circumventing the "paying for power" idea, "Oh, you're still playing, it's not just paying!", also if you actually think about it, if I have 15000IP and you have 15000IP, and you buy your champions with RP, who is going to have better Runes? The time-frame is roughly similar, I don't see how you can suggest that one would be "pay2win" unless you want to consider the other to be "pay2win", either they both would be/are or neither are.
Such a crock of rubbish... Honestly.
From all this nonsense about LoL having higher level of teamwork to better decision making, to more end-game shit going on, none of this makes any sense. It's absolutely equivalent in HoN, and now this about how if HoN did go F2P and use early access to heroes, it would be paying to win. If you consider something that simple to be paying to win, then LoL is pay2win as well.
Because if everything is accessible through playing the game, then at competitive levels, any differences in hero/rune accessibility vanishes because everyone is playing enough to earn everything as it's released. Most top-level streamers own everything they want and are still floating something like 20k-30k IP. This is obviously not true at middle levels, but players at those levels are also unlikely to be relevant to big competitive events.
Yeah, but how does that make the idea of early access heroes not available in tournaments, "Pay2Win"?
The post you quoted doesn't say anything about the impact of the system at competitive levels, I think you misread it. It merely states that the idea of giving players earlier access to heroes because they've been around for a while and actually purchased the game, is no more "Pay2Win" than the system that's currently existent in League of Legends since you can pay outright as opposed to saving up IP.
Neither system really makes a difference at the top level, particularly with the inclusion of client for tournament play.
I just don't like the idea of being unable to purchase a roster outright without having to get nickel and dimed every couple of weeks as a personal preference, this has nothing to do with competitive play and I've gone into detail on this particular point in earlier posts.
On July 30 2011 02:48 Microchaton wrote: No, the point was that only "verified only" (aka paid accounts) who paid an extra (per champion) could have access to that. Sure, you can pay for IP boosts, but in the end everybody is still technically able (and tons of people do so) and equally entitled to getting a new champion as soon as he is released. The only thing "exclusive" on LoL are some special skins. Anyway, I'm calling tons of "verified" accounts rolling on new "F2P" players games using Monkey King :p
Do some research before you make posts.
F2P accounts become verified at level 5. Pay2Win is a fucking joke. Anything competitive has new heroes banned for a month before they can actually be picked.
EPT
.![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hfpbf.png)
)![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/m8TmX.jpg)
