On August 14 2014 04:41 decemberscalm wrote: Got to play a dozen matches of it, probably won't be playing it over league or dota but it was a fun intial romp.
Booty Bay was the most fun map and felt fluid and free to roam around in and just enjoy. Dragon Night and the Mines felt like a chore.
I think one of the biggest flaws is that this game doesn't utilize its heroes well enough. Most of the personality in this game you feel is always from the map rather than the heroes themselves. Dota 2 and League really get you into the heroes, they feel prominent and every match feels like its about them. Despite how already established and iconic they are, the heroes in storm feel like a sideshow and you constantly listen to Blackheart or some lady announcer talk. A minor quibble that probably wouldn't stop me from playing if the game was fun enough.
Second is probably the lack of building and associated strategy. Without items I can't gear myself a certain way, which talents don't really feel like they pick the slack up for. It removes a great deal of timings, counterplay etc.
Third and probably the thing that really keeps me from playing more is the absolute slow and dullness of fighting and moving around in this game. Its impossible to miss with any skill, everyone moves at a slowwalking pace and everything with impact is super short range. In a game that removes item strategy it needs to rely on its combat. The combat felt brain dead in a 1v1 sense, and only becomes fun with team coordination. But that puts it sub par compared to its competitors overall.
What it did really well is proving a new type of moba gameplay is feasible. In Dota 2 and League the initial way you win is via snowballing hard enough you can go highground and crush your opponent. In Heroes of the Storm its quite a bit different, the entire game is a base race. You don't even need to snowball to win, and its not ever required. In this context, the odd ketchup mechanic didn't even feel out of place. It felt more like a flowing who has momentum sportsy game rather than an rpg get buffer than your opponents game and counter their builds/strats. With that being its biggest strength, the lack of executional skill really dragged the whole thing down. A lot of times I felt like "Wow! This game framework could be so fun with league heroes!". Instead I was playing raynor and nova, two dps oriented ranged characters who didn't really feel all that different than the tanky heroes. Both moved slow as balls, both were impossible to miss with.
Heres to hoping they ramp up map size, unit speeds, lethality!
You haven't given a good explanation for what the problem with the heroes are.
What do you mean by?
Most of the personality in this game you feel is always from the map rather than the heroes themselves. Dota 2 and League really get you into the heroes, they feel prominent and every match feels like its about them. Despite how already established and iconic they are, the heroes in storm feel like a sideshow
What is the "personality" of the hero? What do you mean that heroes don't feel "prominent".
I think some of the heroes abilities lack synergy or don't have a very well-defined niche, for example Kerrigan is a bit bland, and there really aren't any heroes like Luna or Kunkka who's spells all share a common theme. But I have no idea what you mean in that statement.
Your comment about "executional skill" makes absolutely no sense. The execution required here is so much higher than Dota 2 because virtually everything is a skill-shot and non-ultimates have tiny range and tiny AoE, whereas Dota 2 is filled with single target abilities, and spells with huge range and huge AoE. Compare for example, Light Strike Array (Lina) vs Impaling Blades (Kerrigan) or Chronosphere (Faceless Void) vs Void Prison (Zeratul) or Magic Missile (Vengeful Spirit) vs Storm Bolt (Muradin).
Talents are more interesting than items. And the fact that you're not forced to play a 50 minute game that's already over after 20 minutes, because HotS fixes the snowball is a huge improvement that makes it so much better and more fun to play than other MOBAs.
I think he means the characters should say more / things they say should have more personality / we should feel more like we are playing the characters we know and love. i really like how some of them talk at the beginning but in general, most the game i feel like i could be playing a brand new character not the one with decades of history. pretty sure he called it a minor quibble and not "the problem with heroes"
@parralell Most of the personality I feel is from the map itself, not the heroes. The map be it blackbear or the announcer is constantly talking. The voices I'm hearing from my character feels so absolutely minor and never really brought forth the sort of personality league and dota does.
As far as executional skill goes, I was referencing the void left by the lack of strategy. League has a whole lot of skillshots and constant pokes so Aram actually feels fun to play for me. Dota 2 holds itself up firmly with its incredibly complex strategy, as well as last hits and denies for executional skill in the laning phase. Its quite a bit more varied in wether a hero requires a lot of exceptional skill to play, ranging from massive to really low, but its supported with a stable base.
I really wouldn't say that Heroes is even necessarily that much more executionally harder than Dota 2 either. The aoe's might be smaller, but everything is waaay slower. How can you actually miss with any of the skillshots in Heroes of the Storm you just mentioned?
Compare this to landing a good fissue in dota 2.
Talents let you slightly alter your play, and from the look of things the "correct" talent to take out of the 4 seems like it will be figured out pretty quickly. Items breathe in strategic life. They create timings, counter play; you know strategic decisions. Some people enjoy the complexity that really needs a full 50 minutes to play out in. Some enjoy quick and painless 20 minute games. Some enjoy both and vary depending on mood like me.
As far as snowballing goes, it doesn't technically "fix" anything. Its a different kind of game with a different kind of win condition. The objective is to actually snowball in starcraft and dota to finally crush your opponent. Beat down your opponent so hard or grow your own power so hard and have such an advantage that its unable to be defended against. In heroes of the storm its a constant base race, and gaining power isn't the goto order of the day, destroying buildings is, working your way to their core.
On August 15 2014 23:39 decemberscalm wrote: @parralell Most of the personality I feel is from the map itself, not the heroes. The map be it blackbear or the announcer is constantly talking. The voices I'm hearing from my character feels so absolutely minor and never really brought forth the sort of personality league and dota does.
As far as executional skill goes, I was referencing the void left by the lack of strategy. League has a whole lot of skillshots and constant pokes so Aram actually feels fun to play for me. Dota 2 holds itself up firmly with its incredibly complex strategy, as well as last hits and denies for executional skill in the laning phase. Its quite a bit more varied in wether a hero requires a lot of exceptional skill to play, ranging from massive to really low, but its supported with a stable base.
I really wouldn't say that Heroes is even necessarily that much more executionally harder than Dota 2 either. The aoe's might be smaller, but everything is waaay slower. How can you actually miss with any of the skillshots in Heroes of the Storm you just mentioned?
Compare this to landing a good fissue in dota 2.
Talents let you slightly alter your play, and from the look of things the "correct" talent to take out of the 4 seems like it will be figured out pretty quickly. Items breathe in strategic life. They create timings, counter play; you know strategic decisions. Some people enjoy the complexity that really needs a full 50 minutes to play out in. Some enjoy quick and painless 20 minute games. Some enjoy both and vary depending on mood like me.
As far as snowballing goes, it doesn't technically "fix" anything. Its a different kind of game with a different kind of win condition. The objective is to actually snowball in starcraft and dota to finally crush your opponent. Beat down your opponent so hard or grow your own power so hard and have such an advantage that its unable to be defended against. In heroes of the storm its a constant base race, and gaining power isn't the goto order of the day, destroying buildings is, working your way to their core.
Both systems have their pros and cons.
About the personality and sounds and shit...isn't the game still in alpha/closed beta? I reckon most of that stuff would probably be added later on. But what do I know...
About the personality and sounds and shit...isn't the game still in alpha/closed beta? I reckon most of that stuff would probably be added later on. But what do I know...
Yeah not sure if they'll ever change it, nor do I think they should. The map voices go hand in hand with how the maps function so they do feel quite recquired, but at the same time are a big source of overshadow on the heroes.
I guess the best they could do try their best at making hero voice lines shine through in gameplay. Currently most of it requires you to spam click your hero, classic blizz rts style. The style of voice work for the heroes seems grandfathered in from Blizz rts. Even the usual terrible jokes.
On August 15 2014 23:39 decemberscalm wrote: @parralell Most of the personality I feel is from the map itself, not the heroes. The map be it blackbear or the announcer is constantly talking. The voices I'm hearing from my character feels so absolutely minor and never really brought forth the sort of personality league and dota does.
Heroes already say stuff when you use them. Do you mean they should have more specific interaction dialogue (e.g. the stuff Lina or Crystal Maiden say to each other)? That would definitely be great. Or should the announcer talk less? That makes no sense.
As far as executional skill goes, I was referencing the void left by the lack of strategy. League has a whole lot of skillshots and constant pokes so Aram actually feels fun to play for me. Dota 2 holds itself up firmly with its incredibly complex strategy, as well as last hits and denies for executional skill in the laning phase. Its quite a bit more varied in wether a hero requires a lot of exceptional skill to play, ranging from massive to really low, but its supported with a stable base.
I really wouldn't say that Heroes is even necessarily that much more executionally harder than Dota 2 either. The aoe's might be smaller, but everything is waaay slower. How can you actually miss with any of the skillshots in Heroes of the Storm you just mentioned?
There is no lack of strategy, in fact objectives add even more strategy. If you claim that the game requires very little skill to play, is lacking in strategy, is lacking in item choice, then how exactly does a team win? What distinguishes the losing team from the winning team in a game? So the team with the better RNG wins because HotS is so easy that everyone can easily play at the skill cap with no strategy required? No, of course not, because there's no RNG, and none of those things are lacking in HotS. Like SC2, in HotS the team that plays better, takes the better engagements, wins the team fights, has the better strategies, wins.
And no, landing those spells isn't always easy, people miss all the time, people move around to make it even harder, and heroes don't move that much slower than in Dota 2 (mounted heroes move faster). Landing Impaling Blades with Kerrigan can be often very difficult even with Primal Grasp.
Compare this to landing a good fissue in dota 2.
It's really not very different from Shock and Awe (Falstad) or Sindragosa's Breath (Arthas) or Sentinel (Tyrande). In fact, Sentinel has an extremely high skill cap.
Talents let you slightly alter your play, and from the look of things the "correct" talent to take out of the 4 seems like it will be figured out pretty quickly. Items breathe in strategic life. They create timings, counter play; you know strategic decisions.
Not really. Like items, you should pick talents to counter what the opponent is doing. The "correct" talent is no different from the correct "item", with the exception that talents are often tailored to heroes, not generic for all heroes, so that they are more easily balanced to provide more real choice and less cookie-cutter item builds.
The power of talents is fine. if you think they don't matter, you can play without them and see how well it goes. Another problem with items is they are overpowered and add to the snowball: after 30 minutes into the game, carries are 1 shotting everyone because of items. There are no carries in HotS.
Some people enjoy the complexity that really needs a full 50 minutes to play out in. Some enjoy quick and painless 20 minute games. Some enjoy both and vary depending on mood like me.
As far as snowballing goes, it doesn't technically "fix" anything. Its a different kind of game with a different kind of win condition. The objective is to actually snowball in starcraft and dota to finally crush your opponent. Beat down your opponent so hard or grow your own power so hard and have such an advantage that its unable to be defended against. In heroes of the storm its a constant base race, and gaining power isn't the goto order of the day, destroying buildings is, working your way to their core.
Both systems have their pros and cons.
No, it's not a matter of pros and cons or personal opinions. HotS's anti-snowball gameplay is objectively better than Dota 2's or LoL's snowball gameplay. In Dota 2, games are already decided 20 minutes in because of snowballing, but pointlessly and needlessly drag out to 50 minutes. If the game is already over after 20 minutes, why does the game need to drag out to 50 minutes? It doesn't, there's no reason to waste everyone's time for another 30 minutes where carries go around practically 1 shotting everyone on the losing team. There is no point to that, if the game is effectively over, it should end, and the fact that it doesn't in Dota 2 and LoL is a fundamental flaw with it's game design that make it boring and un-fun to play. Dota 2 and LoL are bad games.
@paralleluniverse Annnnnd I'm done conversing with you. Enjoy your objectively better gameplay. I'll stick to the more complex world of opinions and tastes.
I think paralleluniverse is making some valid points, but there's obviously a pretty big bias going on. For one, numbers say LoL and Dota 2 can't be bad games. They can be games you dislike, but I personally don't think they're bad. Dota 2 does has strategic depth, more so than HotS, and LoL has a pretty high skill cap in terms of execution, with everything being a skill-shot.
However, I agree when parallel says HotS has good answers. It does get rid of the snowball effect, and it also focuses on raw action. The lack of items removes a bit of strategy for sure, but it also leaves more room for pure fighting and execution. Everything is made to push the players to join up and battle.
HotS is not without strategy though. It mostly comes from talents, heroes, and most of all from maps. So far, pretty much all of the maps offer different ways to help you push. I'm sure that some time down the line, they'll change that and add a map that focuses on something else.
There are pros and cons to all games, and it's definitely a matter of preference. It's a trade-off really: if you want deep strategy, then you might risk wasting a bit of time in the few lost games you can't get out of on Dota 2. If you want action and execution mixed with strategy (to a lesser degree), then LoL is probably better. If you want shorter games with permanent action and more team work, then HotS is for you.
Anyway... The game is in alpha/closed beta. Hopefully, Blizzard listens well to what the players have to say, and they implement cool stuff. I think HotS has great potential, and its success will depend on how Blizzard handle possible changes.
1. If HotS does not require skill and strategy, then what separates the winning team from the losing team?
2. What is the point of forcing a game that is decided 20 minutes in, to drag out to 50 minutes, with the last 30 minutes consisting of the winning team kerb-stomping and essentially 1-shotting everyone on the losing team?
On August 16 2014 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote: It's really really simple.
1. If HotS does not require skill and strategy, then what separates the winning team from the losing team?
2. What is the point of forcing a game that is decided 20 minutes in, to drag out to 50 minutes, with the last 30 minutes consisting of the winning team kerb-stomping and essentially 1-shotting everyone on the losing team?
1. It does require skill and strategy, but skill cap is lower and strategic options are more limited. 2. It's fun for winning team.
1. no one said this 2. you're exaggerating but to answer your snarky question anyway: if they cannot kill your base then the game is not over, for example in league of legends late in the game if you pick someone off and/or manage to get a great engage and teamfight and ace their whole team you can push really hard and probably get one of their inhibs even if the other team is winning by a lot. this evens up the game quite a bit, or you could just end it at 20 min by forfeiting. in either game if you are one shotting the enemy and it takes you 30 min to kill their base you are bad.
On August 16 2014 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote: It's really really simple.
1. If HotS does not require skill and strategy, then what separates the winning team from the losing team?
2. What is the point of forcing a game that is decided 20 minutes in, to drag out to 50 minutes, with the last 30 minutes consisting of the winning team kerb-stomping and essentially 1-shotting everyone on the losing team?
1. It does require skill and strategy, but skill cap is lower and strategic options are more limited. 2. It's fun for winning team.
Also, there is that chance of a comeback for the team that is behind, which we have all experienced in other moba. Hell, I have experienced it in Heroes too.
On August 16 2014 00:10 paralleluniverse wrote: Dota 2 and LoL are bad games.
yeah well, thats just, like, your opinion, man
Let us not forget his epic blog where he provide it by citing the most broker heroes in dota(that every experienced player can shit on because they know how to play the game and the weaknesses of those heroes).
On August 16 2014 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote: It's really really simple.
1. If HotS does not require skill and strategy, then what separates the winning team from the losing team?
2. What is the point of forcing a game that is decided 20 minutes in, to drag out to 50 minutes, with the last 30 minutes consisting of the winning team kerb-stomping and essentially 1-shotting everyone on the losing team?
1. It does require skill and strategy, but skill cap is lower and strategic options are more limited. 2. It's fun for winning team.
Also, there is that chance of a comeback for the team that is behind, which we have all experienced in other moba. Hell, I have experienced it in Heroes too.
On August 16 2014 00:10 paralleluniverse wrote: Dota 2 and LoL are bad games.
yeah well, thats just, like, your opinion, man
Let us not forget his epic blog where he provide it by citing the most broker heroes in dota(that every experienced player can shit on because they know how to play the game and the weaknesses of those heroes).
I assume that by won game he means amassing lead big enough to destroy enemy base, but team decide to just roam around map and kill opponenets, not that one team have great turtling lineup and other team not too much push.
On August 16 2014 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote: It's really really simple.
1. If HotS does not require skill and strategy, then what separates the winning team from the losing team?
2. What is the point of forcing a game that is decided 20 minutes in, to drag out to 50 minutes, with the last 30 minutes consisting of the winning team kerb-stomping and essentially 1-shotting everyone on the losing team?
1. It does require skill and strategy, but skill cap is lower and strategic options are more limited. 2. It's fun for winning team.
Also, there is that chance of a comeback for the team that is behind, which we have all experienced in other moba. Hell, I have experienced it in Heroes too.
On August 16 2014 00:14 ComaDose wrote:
On August 16 2014 00:10 paralleluniverse wrote: Dota 2 and LoL are bad games.
yeah well, thats just, like, your opinion, man
Let us not forget his epic blog where he provide it by citing the most broker heroes in dota(that every experienced player can shit on because they know how to play the game and the weaknesses of those heroes).
I assume that by won game he means amassing lead big enough to destroy enemy base, but team decide to just roam around map and kill opponenets, not that one team have great turtling lineup and other team not too much push.
Yeah, that can happen in Heroes as well, the game is not immune to people dicking around and farming kills. And in Dota, people fucking around is how come backs happen. There is a reason we call it "Game of Throws".
Every day, countless games of Dota 2 are lost because players don't capitalize on their lead. It's a hugely common mistake.
That being said, I think HotS has real potential. It's familiar yet refreshing, and it has this "jump right into the battle" feel that will attract a ton of players. Even people who (somehow) have no knowledge of MOBAs should learn the game incredibly quickly. Add to that the "Blizzard factor", and you might have a surprise success much like Hearthstone.
On August 16 2014 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote: It's really really simple.
1. If HotS does not require skill and strategy, then what separates the winning team from the losing team?
2. What is the point of forcing a game that is decided 20 minutes in, to drag out to 50 minutes, with the last 30 minutes consisting of the winning team kerb-stomping and essentially 1-shotting everyone on the losing team?
1. It does require skill and strategy, but skill cap is lower and strategic options are more limited. 2. It's fun for winning team.
1. Again, if the skill and strategy is so low, then why can't you always win as a result of it being so easy to play well due to low skill cap and low strategy? 2. It's a waste of the time for winning team. The game is effectively over after 20 minutes.
On August 16 2014 00:55 ComaDose wrote: 1. no one said this 2. you're exaggerating but to answer your snarky question anyway: if they cannot kill your base then the game is not over, for example in league of legends late in the game if you pick someone off and/or manage to get a great engage and teamfight and ace their whole team you can push really hard and probably get one of their inhibs even if the other team is winning by a lot. this evens up the game quite a bit, or you could just end it at 20 min by forfeiting. in either game if you are one shotting the enemy and it takes you 30 min to kill their base you are bad.
On August 16 2014 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote: It's really really simple.
1. If HotS does not require skill and strategy, then what separates the winning team from the losing team?
2. What is the point of forcing a game that is decided 20 minutes in, to drag out to 50 minutes, with the last 30 minutes consisting of the winning team kerb-stomping and essentially 1-shotting everyone on the losing team?
1. It does require skill and strategy, but skill cap is lower and strategic options are more limited. 2. It's fun for winning team.
Also, there is that chance of a comeback for the team that is behind, which we have all experienced in other moba. Hell, I have experienced it in Heroes too.
On August 16 2014 00:10 paralleluniverse wrote: Dota 2 and LoL are bad games.
yeah well, thats just, like, your opinion, man
Let us not forget his epic blog where he provide it by citing the most broker heroes in dota(that every experienced player can shit on because they know how to play the game and the weaknesses of those heroes).
No, the game is basically over. But it takes 50 minutes to officially end an average game in Dota 2 even when you have a very snowbally lead that has practically ended the game after 20 minutes.
Of course, it this is so great, they could increase the snowball by doubling the HP of the buildings: then you can enjoy games decided 20 minutes in, but won't end until like 1.5 hours, while pointlessly wasting an hour of everyone's time, while the losing team gets stomped over and over.
Of course comebacks are possible. Possible as in like 1 in every 100 games. In HotS, it's more like 1 in every 8.
On August 16 2014 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote: It's really really simple.
1. If HotS does not require skill and strategy, then what separates the winning team from the losing team?
2. What is the point of forcing a game that is decided 20 minutes in, to drag out to 50 minutes, with the last 30 minutes consisting of the winning team kerb-stomping and essentially 1-shotting everyone on the losing team?
1. It does require skill and strategy, but skill cap is lower and strategic options are more limited. 2. It's fun for winning team.
1. Again, if the skill and strategy is so low, then why can't you always win as a result it being so easy to play well due to low skill cap and low strategy? 2. It's a waste of the time for winning team. The game is effectively over after 20 minutes.
On August 16 2014 00:55 ComaDose wrote: 1. no one said this 2. you're exaggerating but to answer your snarky question anyway: if they cannot kill your base then the game is not over, for example in league of legends late in the game if you pick someone off and/or manage to get a great engage and teamfight and ace their whole team you can push really hard and probably get one of their inhibs even if the other team is winning by a lot. this evens up the game quite a bit, or you could just end it at 20 min by forfeiting. in either game if you are one shotting the enemy and it takes you 30 min to kill their base you are bad.
On August 16 2014 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote: It's really really simple.
1. If HotS does not require skill and strategy, then what separates the winning team from the losing team?
2. What is the point of forcing a game that is decided 20 minutes in, to drag out to 50 minutes, with the last 30 minutes consisting of the winning team kerb-stomping and essentially 1-shotting everyone on the losing team?
1. It does require skill and strategy, but skill cap is lower and strategic options are more limited. 2. It's fun for winning team.
Also, there is that chance of a comeback for the team that is behind, which we have all experienced in other moba. Hell, I have experienced it in Heroes too.
On August 16 2014 00:14 ComaDose wrote:
On August 16 2014 00:10 paralleluniverse wrote: Dota 2 and LoL are bad games.
yeah well, thats just, like, your opinion, man
Let us not forget his epic blog where he provide it by citing the most broker heroes in dota(that every experienced player can shit on because they know how to play the game and the weaknesses of those heroes).
No, the game is basically over. But it takes 50 minutes to officially end an average game in Dota 2 even when you have a very snowbally lead that has practically ended the game after 20 minutes.
Of course, it this is so great, they could increase the snowball by doubling the HP of the buildings: then you can enjoy games decided 20 minutes in, but won't end until like 1.5 hours, while pointlessly wasting an hour of everyone's time, while the losing team gets stomped over and over.
Of course comebacks are possible. Possible as in like 1 in every 100 games. In HotS, it's more like 1 in every 8.
But your wrong and your wrong. Sure some games are stomps, but comebacks are the name of dota. Throwing leads is how the game works. The multikill mechanic and the way experience is dealt out for kills means that the team that is behind has gains more from winning a team fight. Its is the game of come backs.
You do this a lot, where you act like some expert on Dota when you admit you do not play it a lot. People who are more experienced than you tell you that you are incorrect and you continue to make the same incorrect statements over and over. You cited Riki as being an overpowered hero, which is just simply incorrect on so many levels and the thing new, bad players say when they start playing.
Seriously, stop being the Fox News of this thread and just stating incorrect information over and over.
On August 16 2014 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote: It's really really simple.
1. If HotS does not require skill and strategy, then what separates the winning team from the losing team?
2. What is the point of forcing a game that is decided 20 minutes in, to drag out to 50 minutes, with the last 30 minutes consisting of the winning team kerb-stomping and essentially 1-shotting everyone on the losing team?
1. It does require skill and strategy, but skill cap is lower and strategic options are more limited. 2. It's fun for winning team.
1. Again, if the skill and strategy is so low, then why can't you always win as a result it being so easy to play well due to low skill cap and low strategy? 2. It's a waste of the time for winning team. The game is effectively over after 20 minutes.
On August 16 2014 00:55 ComaDose wrote: 1. no one said this 2. you're exaggerating but to answer your snarky question anyway: if they cannot kill your base then the game is not over, for example in league of legends late in the game if you pick someone off and/or manage to get a great engage and teamfight and ace their whole team you can push really hard and probably get one of their inhibs even if the other team is winning by a lot. this evens up the game quite a bit, or you could just end it at 20 min by forfeiting. in either game if you are one shotting the enemy and it takes you 30 min to kill their base you are bad.
On August 16 2014 00:56 Plansix wrote:
On August 16 2014 00:54 lprk wrote:
On August 16 2014 00:39 paralleluniverse wrote: It's really really simple.
1. If HotS does not require skill and strategy, then what separates the winning team from the losing team?
2. What is the point of forcing a game that is decided 20 minutes in, to drag out to 50 minutes, with the last 30 minutes consisting of the winning team kerb-stomping and essentially 1-shotting everyone on the losing team?
1. It does require skill and strategy, but skill cap is lower and strategic options are more limited. 2. It's fun for winning team.
Also, there is that chance of a comeback for the team that is behind, which we have all experienced in other moba. Hell, I have experienced it in Heroes too.
On August 16 2014 00:14 ComaDose wrote:
On August 16 2014 00:10 paralleluniverse wrote: Dota 2 and LoL are bad games.
yeah well, thats just, like, your opinion, man
Let us not forget his epic blog where he provide it by citing the most broker heroes in dota(that every experienced player can shit on because they know how to play the game and the weaknesses of those heroes).
No, the game is basically over. But it takes 50 minutes to officially end an average game in Dota 2 even when you have a very snowbally lead that has practically ended the game after 20 minutes.
Of course, it this is so great, they could increase the snowball by doubling the HP of the buildings: then you can enjoy games decided 20 minutes in, but won't end until like 1.5 hours, while pointlessly wasting an hour of everyone's time, while the losing team gets stomped over and over.
Of course comebacks are possible. Possible as in like 1 in every 100 games. In HotS, it's more like 1 in every 8.
But your wrong and your wrong. Sure some games are stomps, but comebacks are the name of dota. Throwing leads is how the game works. The multikill mechanic and the way experience is dealt out for kills means that the team that is behind has gains more from winning a team fight. Its is the game of come backs.
You do this a lot, where you act like some expert on Dota when you admit you do not play it a lot. People who are more experienced than you tell you that you are incorrect and you continue to make the same incorrect statements over and over. You cited Riki as being an overpowered hero, which is just simply incorrect on so many levels and the thing new, bad players say when they start playing.
Seriously, stop being the Fox News of this thread and just stating incorrect information over and over.
Comebacks almost never happen. I know because I've played hundreds of hours of Dota and have watched TI. The team that is behind is at a severe disadvantage in team fights and will almost surely get kurbstomped in any team fight, making them fall even more behind.
It's not impossible for comebacks to happen. But then again, it's not impossible that a supernova destroys the Earth tomorrow.
EPT![[image loading]](http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lopmxehw511qh2pxo.gif)
