|
|
On January 21 2015 07:34 deth2munkies wrote:
The problem with Hammer is that Stitches is a 100% pick right now.
It's not that bad. Stitches is almost always an early pick and Hammer should never be an early pick so it's unlikely Stitches will be a counter pick. Yea, you probably shouldn't pick Hammer into a Stitches but she works well with Stitches. Situational heroes are all late picks anyways because you don't want to give your opponent the opportunity to counter pick.
As for Lili, yea her Q has a MS and Cleanse effect but the reason why top players don't really care for that despite rating Cleanse as one of the best talents in the game is because you can't target it and that is the entire point of Cleanse. So it's basically Cleanse without the strongest aspect of the skill.
|
Ok, I am seriously thinking about getting Illidan. Is it really that hard to play with him?
|
On January 21 2015 10:39 FreeZEternal wrote:
Ok, I am seriously thinking about getting Illidan. Is it really that hard to play with him?
I'd say that no more than 5% of the Illidan players that I see are decent. The vast majority fall in the range of being bad to "team-raping terrible."
|
Is there any potential though? I mean, all the online pages related to him give a tone that he's useless in team fights.
|
Illidan is great in teamfights, he just has a very high skill cap with decision making. Learn to time your evasion and by god is he an unkillable killing machine.
|
On January 21 2015 10:45 FreeZEternal wrote:
Is there any potential though? I mean, all the online pages related to him give a tone that he's useless in team fights.
I'd say that there's potential in the same sense that peewee football players have the "potential" to eventually go pro and play in the NFL. There are some Illidans who play the hero competently, and when they do, he's a solid hero -- not a gamebreaking hero. The vast majority of people who play Illidan are fucking terrible at him, and all they do is drag their team down to defeat. If you want to get a sense of his potential, go find some videos of the pro teams that utilize him. I just think that there are better options if you're looking for a hero that can carry.
|
|
|
So I go on my Facebook and see a Founder's Pack being released tonight at $40 USD, which includes instant beta access and a bunch of other stuff I don't care. Logged in to my bnet account and thought I gotten beta access with the "Heroes of the Storm logo" under my games tab... nope just the same advertisement for this Founder's Pack
I honestly don't care anymore compared to last year hoping for an invite, but I really have to say they (Blizzard) are messing up how they have handled invites and selling this game. There seems to be a great deal of outrage with this Founder's Pack... I mean now suddenly they're trying to make more $ strictly off early access? Silly if you ask me....
|
I'm sorry, what's wrong with Founders packs offering early access? I've bought such products three times in the last two years. Hell, I pre-ordered SC2 to get into the beta, which is fundamentally the same thing. Do I wish on a personal level that they gave me a few invites to hand out to friends? Sure. But if I didn't have an invite, I'd buy the Founders pack and not look back. That the heroes included are skimpy is a little unfortunate, but I'd still get it.
|
^ So then why don't they do it from the start instead of going through all this dumb selected alpha access invites to streamers, big names, and random people? Now suddenly they feel like selling access because they can and know there are people who will pay $ to them... strictly based on reputation
I can't imagine if a similar game was handled this same way by another company not named Blizzard or some Indie company that they would get anyone biting... fans will bend head over heel no matter what Blizz does now
|
I thought founder packs were a relatively common thing? If I'd complain, it's that the bundle was in the store for purchase for a long time without it giving alpha / beta access. If anything, the people who purchased it prior to this change should be given an invite to give out.
|
On January 21 2015 12:05 sacrilegious wrote:
^ So then why don't they do it from the start instead of going through all this dumb selected alpha access invites to streamers, big names, and random people? Now suddenly they feel like selling access because they can and know there are people who will pay $ to them... strictly based on reputation
I can't imagine if a similar game was handled this same way by another company not named Blizzard or some Indie company that they would get anyone biting... fans will bend head over heel no matter what Blizz does now
Companies have been selling early access (for free to play) or bundling with pre-orders (for paid games) for maybe ten years now. Valve sold beta access in their store for DotA 2, although the keybeta access situation there was vastly different so I'm not sure that is the best example.
I can't think of another big studio that has released a free to play game; with or without early access sold. Blizzard being the only not indie company to do this is merely the fact that none of the big studios release free to play games I think (feel free to provide a counter example; I live under a rock). You're entitled to your opinion on the matter, but selling early access is so popular now that Blizzard would be stupid to not do it.
|
On January 21 2015 12:19 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2015 12:05 sacrilegious wrote:
^ So then why don't they do it from the start instead of going through all this dumb selected alpha access invites to streamers, big names, and random people? Now suddenly they feel like selling access because they can and know there are people who will pay $ to them... strictly based on reputation
I can't imagine if a similar game was handled this same way by another company not named Blizzard or some Indie company that they would get anyone biting... fans will bend head over heel no matter what Blizz does now Companies have been selling early access (for free to play) or bundling with pre-orders (for paid games) for maybe ten years now. Valve sold beta access in their store for DotA 2, although the key situation there was vastly different so I'm not sure that is the best example. .
Yeah, 30$ and you got 2 extra invites, all heroes and a few cosmetics.
And that stuff was trade-able
Edit: i forgot, when they started selling keys, they also stopped calling it a beta, it was in the same patch that cosmetics were put in.
|
On January 21 2015 12:19 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
Companies have been selling early access (for free to play) or bundling with pre-orders (for paid games) for maybe ten years now. Valve sold beta access in their store for DotA 2, although the key situation there was vastly different so I'm not sure that is the best example.
I can't think of another big studio that has released a free to play game; with or without early access sold. Blizzard being the only not indie company to do this is merely the fact that none of the big studios release free to play games I think (feel free to provide a counter example; I live under a rock). You're entitled to your opinion on the matter, but selling early access is so popular now that Blizzard would be stupid to not do it.
I don't know how Valve did it with DOTA 2 because I joined in 2012 when keys were starting to become common.
If other games, let's say the recently released H1Z1 underwent this exact same process that HotS has gone on with the last year, in that alpha invites were given under 2 different systems (selectively to streamers because they want to advertise their game, and randomly from god knows what criteria), then ok you made your point in that Blizzard finally figured it out and jumped on the ship that selling early access works. Still doesn't mean I like it... and I plus I really doubt most games handle early access the way HotS has been handled... never saw H1Z1 being streamed by one person for a whole year before it got released a few days ago
On January 21 2015 12:28 TMG26 wrote:
Yeah, 30$ and you got 2 extra invites, all heroes and a few cosmetics.
And that stuff was trade-able
...
The heroes were going to be free (i.e. all accessible like they should be in DOTA 1) no matter what, unlike how LoL, Smite, and this game handles heroes. The cosmetics/hats (if they even had them back then) are irrelevant the same way the other stuff in this Founder's Package is, because all people care about is the access and not to mention they would be worthless.
|
The constant bitching about this game's economic model is getting old. Anyone else in favor of a mod note prohibiting it?
|
Mexico2170 Posts
Dota 2 players are the ones who complain more about it. They got their arguments, and dota 2 one would say gives more for less, however blizzard won't change it. Maybe they will adjust the prices a little, but giving all for free? Its not going to happen. Dota 2 had to do it, and manages to do it because of very particular reasons that are imposible or prety difficult for Blizzard to recreate.
Would i prefer the dota 2 system, yeah, but sincerily, im not agaisn't this model either, it takes time but gives a sense of progression and there are tons of heroes iim not interested in playing really.
|
I played about 5 matches of this game and it seems fun...
However I just don't see the appeal to it, as it feels likes each game is the same. I get the idea of it, and I like the maps offer different mechanics/objectives, but I'm still not getting the "hooked" feeling.
Am I supposed to expect more to come?
|
On January 21 2015 15:42 trinxified wrote:
I played about 5 matches of this game and it seems fun...
However I just don't see the appeal to it, as it feels likes each game is the same. I get the idea of it, and I like the maps offer different mechanics/objectives, but I'm still not getting the "hooked" feeling.
Am I supposed to expect more to come?
The key is to find a hero or two that you really like.
|
On January 21 2015 12:51 xDaunt wrote:
The constant bitching about this game's economic model is getting old. Anyone else in favor of a mod note prohibiting it?
Obviously it needs discussion, why prohibit it?
|
because people keep talking out of their asses without understanding it at all. it's flame bait and dead horse beating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
