but what's the incentive for people to start playing HotS if they're already really committed to playing LoL or DotA?
Ther are peoplee who just wants to play a MOBA with their friends and doesn't enjoy the mechanical aspect or outplay potential. For them, Heroes is a better game. But yeh, if their friends already play LOL, then there is a switching-barrier anyway.
I am actually curious if there are any statistics towards how large a percentage of LOL games are played as soloque vs duo-que/5-man team. From my experience, the majority of the players play soloq, and the social experience is awfull there, thus I believe that its not the team aspect that makes LOL succesful. Instead, I think it's popular because its the best easy-to-learn difficult to master RTS/MOBA game in the industry.
So I think Blizzard has missed the point a bit. The most important thing to get "right" is the soloq experience, and that will suffer when you are so much more dependant on your team in HOTS than in LOL.
Anyway, HOTS still caters to enough people and it's a good enough game that it's unlikely to be a a failure as well. So my bet is that it will be a decently succesful game, but it could have been so much better if Blizzard had a different hero-design philosophy.
On May 22 2015 21:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Since we're talking about popularity and potential popularity of HotS, I have a question:
What does HotS offer that LoL and DotA (and any other popular MOBA that's been out before HotS) don't? HotS is really my first MOBA game so I have nothing to compare it to (and I believe I'm in the minority with that), but what's the incentive for people to start playing HotS if they're already really committed to playing LoL or DotA? I have many friends tell me "HotS looks nice and all that, but there's no way I'm switching to a different MOBA now."
The only reason I decided to start playing HotS at all is because it has Blizzard heroes and I'm a big fan of Blizzard games (so I suppose brand loyalty is one reason), but why else would HotS potentially be able to hold its own in the MOBA-sphere?
These are the main advantages as I see them:
1. Shorter games 2. More action right away 3. Less memorization 4. Lower barrier to entry 5. Teamwork (if one finds teamwork rewarding, otherwise this may be a minus) 6. Less toxic community (perhaps this will change, and it's subjective anyway) 7. Blizzard characters (if you like Blizzard IP)
The first couple are what really sold it for me. I used to play the original DotA back on WCIII:RoC, even before DotA Allstars came out. Back then I had the time to really understand and memorize all the ins and outs of a game. Now I have a job, a wife, and a baby girl, and trying to get into DotA or LoL is just too much work. Heroes is a perfect fit for the way I am able to play now. Playing on voice comms with a good team who is working together is just soooo much fun too, I really find the teamwork focus very rewarding when you have a good team.
edit: to Hider above, I think you're wrong. LoL and DotA already dominate that marketspace. Blizzard made a smart move targeting a different audience. Look at games like Smite/HoN that try to compete more directly with the big boys. Going a completely different direction lets you take a completely different market. Also anecdotally everyone I've played with in game from LoL says they vastly prefer Heroes, though of course this is selection bias.
And yeah, I think that Blizzard is doing something right by appealing to a slightly different demographic (more team-oriented, simpler perhaps easier learning curve) than that of LoL and DotA. HotS has to distinguish itself in some ways and occupy its own niche.
On May 22 2015 21:06 Hider wrote: (4) There isn't any clear trend towards Blizzard wanting more "outplay-heroes" in the game. E.g. look at the newest assasin Thrall.
why are you arguing about a game you clearly don't follow any more? Thrall is neither the newest hero nor the newest assasin. Furthermore Thrall very much has the ability to kill several heroes in a row due to his passive.
Blizzard made a smart move targeting a different audience.
The problem with that logic is threefold:
(1) The "social people" might not be likely to switch anyway if their friends already play LOL/DOTA. It's probably easier to get soloq players to switch.
(2) A low skillcap imo isn't really as much as a differentiating factor as just an inferior product. I don't remember any other succesful real sport or other game where the individual skill has been this low (and there is a reason for it). Again, the the goal should be easy-to-learn, difficult to master (CS is another great example here). Differentiating factors = Faster, more action, teamfights, talents, Blizzard heroes and objectives. You could easily maintain a large distance from LOL while maintaining or even increasing the mechanical skillcap of LOL.
(3) LOL is still a very strong product for both target groups. They have both low skill cap champs and high skill cap champs. So the incentive for social minded people isn't that large in the first place. HOTS could easily have had both as well.
Then you could argue that Heroes of the Storm might be easier to get into for non-MOBA players, but I don't think the skillcap matters here. What matters is the entrance barriers and if the skillcap was a choice (through talent-picking) and matchmaking works well, the playing experience for new players would still be great.
So imo there are very few disadvantages with the high skillcap/outplay-system and lots of advantages.
why are you arguing about a game you clearly don't follow any more? Thrall is neither the newest hero nor the newest assasin.
Where did I write newest hero? I wrote newest assasins because the most popular LOL champs are assasins. Aren't Sylvaanas, LV and Kaelthas classified as specialists?
EDIT: Apparently mages are classified as assasins. I remembered someone at Blizzcon saying that Jaina would be a specialist and then I assumed that all mages would be specialists, but apparently mages are assasins (and yes I actually played Jaina, just never noticed since I don't do daily quests). My bad.
Anyway, the point is that Blizzard clearly aren't interesting in designing more of the heroes that have characteristica with the most popular LOL champs.
Furthermore Thrall very much has the ability to kill several heroes in a row due to his passive.
Look I watched a fair amount of Thrall (back when he was just released) getting a shitton of kills. But that's not outplay/playmaking. An outplay is not using an extremely easy passive and winning through "critical mass/numbers". Thrall is completely uncomparable to champions like Lee Sin, Yasuo, Vayne and Zed in that regard.
And at the end of the day, if the majority of the target group wants to play soloq, and the experience just isn't very good, Heroes of the Storm is not gonna be as succesful as Blizzard probably had hoped.
I wrote heroes b/c Sylv plays a lot like a typical HotS assassin. just her passive is what gives her the insane power against buildings. TLV are clearly "specialists".
I find it weird that we have this argument once again: there are clearly people who want to play this game, like me. I didn't like DotA b/c I didn't want to learn a bazillion items before I am able to play.
If there are enough people willing to p(l)ay (for) this game is mostly a matter of reality: we can argue about the flaws/merits of any game all we want. In the end the people decide.
It's also vain to argue about the success of the game with the current state of the game (or the release of past heroes). Maybe Blizzard realizes they are more successful with LoL-like heroes and close down the auction house release a bunch of them. Or they release more brain-dead heroes like Li Li.
I played LoL since 2010, and I switched to HotS mainly just for something new and fresh, and it certainly delivers on that. I'm not sure, but I think a lot of gamers get tired of their current games and desire to play something new and different (franchises like CoD thrive on this desire). Also, I have a pretty good group of friends that regularly play and playing in groups is where HotS really shines as it is so teamwork-based. I am not sure how HotS will do initially, but I could see it becoming steadily more popular as MOBA players from other games look for something new.
I find it weird that we have this argument once again: there are clearly people who want to play this game, like me. I didn't like DotA b/c I didn't want to learn a bazillion items before I am able to play.
The context was that HOTS numbers weren't very good, and I believe that while its a bit unfair to assess HOTS prerelease (because HOTS will definitely growt over the next year), the game is unlikely to be as succesful as DOTA/LOL due to it not giving what soloq players want.
Blizzard made a smart move targeting a different audience.
The problem with that logic is threefold:
(1) The "social people" might not be likely to switch anyway if their friends already play LOL/DOTA. It's probably easier to get soloq players to switch.
(2) A low skillcap imo isn't really as much as a differentiating factor as just an inferior product. I don't remember any other succesful real sport or other game where the individual skill has been this low (and there is a reason for it). Again, the the goal should be easy-to-learn, difficult to master (CS is another great example here). Differentiating factors = Faster, more action, teamfights, talents, Blizzard heroes and objectives. You could easily maintain a large distance from LOL while maintaining or even increasing the mechanical skillcap of LOL.
(3) LOL is still a very strong product for both target groups. They have both low skill cap champs and high skill cap champs. So the incentive for social minded people isn't that large in the first place. HOTS could easily have had both as well.
Then you could argue that Heroes of the Storm might be easier to get into for non-MOBA players, but I don't think the skillcap matters here. What matters is the entrance barriers and if the skillcap was a choice (through talent-picking) and matchmaking works well, the playing experience for new players would still be great.
So imo there are very few disadvantages with the high skillcap/outplay-system and lots of advantages.
The problem with your logic is I didn't say anything about skillcap :D. For me that's irrelevant, as I probably will not get to the top of the skillcap for either game (and probably neither will you, or you'd be doing it professionally.) For me, the issue with LoL and DotA now is memorization/time investment. I don't have time to memorize different item builds (and their recipes, and which shop has which items to make them, etc) for tons of heroes. I often don't have time when I can spend an hour playing a game without some interruption, much less time to spend playing lots of hour long games to get good at a game. This has nothing to do with skill cap (and for the record I've never had any problems last-hitting/denying/whatever. These things could be in HoTS and I wouldn't care a bit.)
The demand is not for a mechanically less demanding game, it's for a game where I don't have to learn and memorize a bunch of stupid crap that doesn't actually add to the enjoyment of playing. Does gold management and item timing add a bunch of tactical and strategic decisions? Of course it does! But it also adds a much higher barrier to entry without necessarily making the game much more fun.
I also don't care about "outplaying" people. It sounds like a loser mentality to me: "we lost, but man did I outplay their carry. I'm still awesome".+ Show Spoiler +
Not calling you a loser, just saying my perspective
To me, the point of the game is to win. There are no moral victories.
I have played dota for about 1000 hours. Dota2 is just way more boring than heroes and matches take too long....Also, I dont want to play same map for another 1000 hours
Blizzard made a smart move targeting a different audience.
(2) A low skillcap imo isn't really as much as a differentiating factor as just an inferior product. I don't remember any other succesful real sport or other game where the individual skill has been this low (and there is a reason for it). Again, the the goal should be easy-to-learn, difficult to master (CS is another great example here). Differentiating factors = Faster, more action, teamfights, talents, Blizzard heroes and objectives. You could easily maintain a large distance from LOL while maintaining or even increasing the mechanical skillcap of LOL.
Hearthstone is exactly this. By every metric, Hearthstone has been wildly popular, and it's not exactly a challenging game to play. It wouldn't shock me at all if Blizzard believes that the model they have with Hearthstone can translate to other genres as well. And they have pretty good reason to believe this.
Ok Hider, first of all you are saying that you only count assassins because that's the most popular role.in lol...guell this is a different game, and most specialist can also be considered assassins. You say thrall isn't hard to play but then ignore completely the lost vikings who are a pretty hard hero to play.
Also you assume the lvl of skill ceiling of the heroes will remain the same, but there is nothing stopping Blizzard for doing more difficult heroes, and as someone else said most people doeant even care about that.
Also one could argue that heroes like Zeratul and Illidan for example are able to outplay other heroes.
The game is different, it needs to be, its foolish to spect Blizz to copy the ways of the other two or to say that Blizz should have all the 160 champions lol has at release "because that's the number of champs lol has at the moment of heroes release". That is neither possible nor good, and so Blizzard made the game.different.
Now I don't know if heroes will be a successful game or not, I mean until now it seems fine to me there seems to be a lot of players and a lot of people buying stuff, but that's nothing more of annecdotal experience, the truth is I don't know, no on does.
What's the definition of successful anyway now? People called Diablo 3 a failure even with its 15+ million copies sold, I guess the number of people playing a game is not what something successful is.
Blizzard made a smart move targeting a different audience.
(2) A low skillcap imo isn't really as much as a differentiating factor as just an inferior product. I don't remember any other succesful real sport or other game where the individual skill has been this low (and there is a reason for it). Again, the the goal should be easy-to-learn, difficult to master (CS is another great example here). Differentiating factors = Faster, more action, teamfights, talents, Blizzard heroes and objectives. You could easily maintain a large distance from LOL while maintaining or even increasing the mechanical skillcap of LOL.
Hearthstone is exactly this. By every metric, Hearthstone has been wildly popular, and it's not exactly a challenging game to play. It wouldn't shock me at all if Blizzard believes that the model they have with Hearthstone can translate to other genres as well. And they have pretty good reason to believe this.
The difference with Hearthstone is that the only other popular card game is Magic Online and that is very expensive compared to Hearthstone.
Yes there are other card games but they are simply not popular enough to be compared to the MOBA scene with Dota and LoL.
On May 22 2015 21:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Since we're talking about popularity and potential popularity of HotS, I have a question:
What does HotS offer that LoL and DotA (and any other popular MOBA that's been out before HotS) don't? HotS is really my first MOBA game so I have nothing to compare it to (and I believe I'm in the minority with that), but what's the incentive for people to start playing HotS if they're already really committed to playing LoL or DotA? I have many friends tell me "HotS looks nice and all that, but there's no way I'm switching to a different MOBA now."
The only reason I decided to start playing HotS at all is because it has Blizzard heroes and I'm a big fan of Blizzard games (so I suppose brand loyalty is one reason), but why else would HotS potentially be able to hold its own in the MOBA-sphere?
HotS is much, much faster-paced than both DotA and LoL. DotA and LoL has a large chunk of time in the beginning where all you do is farm in lane, and the average HotS game is around half as long as the average DotA/LoL game. It's also more team focused with the map objectives and team leveling. Finally, there's a lot of variety due to the different maps, whereas there's only one map (that's seriously played/considered with balance) with LoL/DotA.
At the end of the day HotS is a different game from LoL/DotA. I see a lot of people in this thread that are pretty obviously anti-HotS and are just here to praise DotA/LoL to the end of days criticizing all the differences we see in HotS and trying to paint them as objectively worse. Unfortunately, your opinions are far from fact, as many of us find that the differences that HotS presents aren't limiting, but are actually fun. Map-based objectives make the solo queue experience far more enjoyable and less toxic, at least in my opinion. Talents add a level of hero customization that was, realistically, not often seen in the other MOBA's with items. I don't miss the mechanics that are in LoL/DotA at all, because all they did was add tedium and boredom to the game, along with doubling the average game length. Yes, there is still plenty of skill, and plenty of room for mechanical skill to differentiate players. arbitrary claim can't negate what you can see any time you watch a tournament, or any time pretty much anyone plays at a high level. Finally, HotS has one giant advantage for it that the other games don't; different maps, which add a huge amount of variety to the game compared to LoL/DotA.
Yes, HotS is a simpler game in some ways, but the bottom line is that this game clearly has a market for it and unless you're delusional, you should be able to see that this game will be successful. I also don't think saying, "Well it won't be as successful as LoL/DotA!" offers anything whatsoever to the discussion. No shit. Odds are it won't, but the only people who really care about that are insecure gamers that put too much value into the success of a particular game. Unless Blizzard's entire goal for this game is for it to become the most successful esport ever (it isn't), this shouldn't matter, especially when DotA's viewership is still a joke compared to LoL's.
As a final point, I find it pretty amusing that we are already condemning this game for a "lack of depth/complexity/etc.". Have we not learned from SC2/BW? Countless other games we've played? So many games out there took years and years for additional depth to be found. The idea that we've already hit the skill ceiling and found all the depth there is on a game that hasn't even been released yet is utterly laughable.
The numbers contest was already won by LoL a long time ago. Just enjoy HotS for what it is; a very different take on a MOBA. It's refreshing, and there's no reason for it to be exclusive with other games. In fact, I regularly jump between LoL and HotS, depending on what I feel like doing.
A highly mechanical hero is not neccasarily a champion with outplay potential. A proper playermaker is a champion that takes quite a lot of skill to play properly but also can completely change the outcome of an engagement if used properly.
LV for instance is not what i would characterize as an outplay champion. I put illidan a bit in a similar boat, he is hard in terms of decision making, but he is still number dependant. Either you have enough sustain to lifesteal and win a battle or you dont. Zeratul is a good example on the other hand of a playmaker. But he should imo be one of many, not The exception, and the bar should be set Even higher
@ differentiation: it does not make the game more different when it copies all the low skill heroes from lol instead of the champions people enjoy playing.
There is plenty of opportunity to show off individual skill and carry teams with good play in HotS. As just one example, I do it regularly with Zeratul. Where HotS differs is that there isn't hyper-carry potential (where the game basically devolves into 1v5) due to the absence of items.
Blizzard made a smart move targeting a different audience.
(2) A low skillcap imo isn't really as much as a differentiating factor as just an inferior product. I don't remember any other succesful real sport or other game where the individual skill has been this low (and there is a reason for it). Again, the the goal should be easy-to-learn, difficult to master (CS is another great example here). Differentiating factors = Faster, more action, teamfights, talents, Blizzard heroes and objectives. You could easily maintain a large distance from LOL while maintaining or even increasing the mechanical skillcap of LOL.
Hearthstone is exactly this. By every metric, Hearthstone has been wildly popular, and it's not exactly a challenging game to play. It wouldn't shock me at all if Blizzard believes that the model they have with Hearthstone can translate to other genres as well. And they have pretty good reason to believe this.
Actually since Sc2 all their games share a few design decisions. Especially that game duration doesn't vary to much and is rather short, which hurts Sc2 alot. But is awesome for D3 and Hearthstone. And is actually one of the biggest selling points (can you say that for an f2pay lol) for Heroes, compared to other Mobas.
I don't like it since I love long drawn out games where endurance and concentration excels. So it is annoying that Blizzard goes for it for all their games. But it is definitely effective. Jump in have 30 minutes of fun and done. It just works.
On April 07 2015 22:24 JimmyJRaynor wrote: I'm getting buried in Heroes of the Storm offers from Blizzard. First they throw up a pay-wall and then a few weeks later they let any one in?
Has Blizzard announced how many people bought this "Founder's Pack". I'm guessing the number was lower than expected and Blizzard ain't saying a thing.
With Blizzard pumping out more and more content each year in all of their various universes.. sooner or later they are going to have a commercial failure. and i think Heroes of the Storm is going to be just that.. Blizzard's first commercial failure.
Fortunately, they can move the people working on Heroes onto other projects.. like folding and counting all the money they are making with Hearthstone and WoW.
made this contentious post a while back.
well, it seems others are noticing the game's lack of popularity.
the retail starter pack will be $20 and be available June 2.
With the release of any AAA level title or expansion (SC2, D3, WoW) Blizzard issues a triumphant press release about all the bazillions of dollars they are making as the game sells millions of units in a week or less.
if we get a press release from Blizzard about sales totals within a couple of weeks after the retail release that's a good sign. no press release and no bragging at the next investor call is a bad sign.
i think HotS is a great game. However, i do not think it'll be popular. Maybe it'll take a couple of years to build a fan base.
I think that HotS is not a massive investment from blizzard. Alot of assets are reused from other games, and it is just using the modified SC2 engine.
It seems like its a medium size team of developers, which means that it really doesn't need massive massive sales to make a profit. I doubt its going anywhere.
depends what you mean by massive. rather than using vague wording that can mean anything lets get down to numbers.
in 2013 there were 80 to 90 guys working on the game. that grew to 140 in 2014. so the team is more than double the size of the RTS team.
the RTS team and HOTS team have been separate for a long while now. which is what allows them to both be in development simultaneously. do both teams walk past the same security guard in the morning? ya.
The # of employees working on a project goes up during beta... so if anything its now more than 140.
Furthermore, your claims would make Blizzard's responses in the link i provided in the area of misleading or deceptive. There is no motive for deception.
They're stlll Team 1 out of Blizzard's 5 development teams, they still answer to the same leads of both projects . they probably switch people in and out like I described, which allows the team to work on two titles simultaneously. Granted, you probably have people who will never touch HOTS on that team, and vice versa.
There is no motive for deception because there is no deception.
you can not have 2 pieces of software simulatneously in beta without separate teams. Beta is the most stressful stage of software development in terms of manpower requirements. Furthermore, Browder has already stated HotS and SC2 have their own teams. Do they all answer to Mike Morhaime.. sure they do. It does not make paying them any cheaper.
Blizzard hides teams for years. neither of us knows how many teams they have. We do know its at least 6 though. WoW, Diablo, SC2, Overwatch, Hearthstone, HotS.
On May 22 2015 15:59 Hider wrote: I still think its a bit unfair to declare Heroes as a failure before it launches.
i agree: never under-estimate Blizzard's ability to improve a game after its released. Blizzard makes the best expansion packs in the industry. Their "feed back loop" with players is crazy good.
HoTS and SC2 share a team, thats been known since the beginning. You have teams within teams working on content for the game, as well as expansion content, it's completely possible, especially because HOTS is running on the same shit as SC2. It's easy to see this because their SC2 team hasnt done anything since 2012. They can take people on and off projects. The backbone for SC2 is already there, there's nothing ridiculous or ambitious to program, it's all art/design at this point along with "features" that lotv has.
HOTS and SC2 people both answer to the Team 1 Leader, Dustin Browder, they share the exact same producers and directors.
They have 6 teams, but HOTS is not one of them. Mike Booth is working on a game at Blizzard.
Blizzard made a smart move targeting a different audience.
(2) A low skillcap imo isn't really as much as a differentiating factor as just an inferior product. I don't remember any other succesful real sport or other game where the individual skill has been this low (and there is a reason for it). Again, the the goal should be easy-to-learn, difficult to master (CS is another great example here). Differentiating factors = Faster, more action, teamfights, talents, Blizzard heroes and objectives. You could easily maintain a large distance from LOL while maintaining or even increasing the mechanical skillcap of LOL.
Hearthstone is exactly this. By every metric, Hearthstone has been wildly popular, and it's not exactly a challenging game to play. It wouldn't shock me at all if Blizzard believes that the model they have with Hearthstone can translate to other genres as well. And they have pretty good reason to believe this.
Heartstone is amazing in terms of how easy it is too learn, and thats a good thing. But I am also sure the game has a reasonable level of skillcap.
Blizzard made a smart move targeting a different audience.
(2) A low skillcap imo isn't really as much as a differentiating factor as just an inferior product. I don't remember any other succesful real sport or other game where the individual skill has been this low (and there is a reason for it). Again, the the goal should be easy-to-learn, difficult to master (CS is another great example here). Differentiating factors = Faster, more action, teamfights, talents, Blizzard heroes and objectives. You could easily maintain a large distance from LOL while maintaining or even increasing the mechanical skillcap of LOL.
Hearthstone is exactly this. By every metric, Hearthstone has been wildly popular, and it's not exactly a challenging game to play. It wouldn't shock me at all if Blizzard believes that the model they have with Hearthstone can translate to other genres as well. And they have pretty good reason to believe this.
Heartstone is amazing in terms of how easy it is too learn, and thats a good thing. But I am also sure the game has a reasonable level of skillcap.
EPT
