|
|
On June 09 2015 02:51 Valiver wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 02:43 Kupon3ss wrote:On June 09 2015 01:35 Valiver wrote:
Zero chance hots is going to be played on console, I hope you are joking. remember diablo? Diablo is much simpler than HotS, can easily be made into a single player game (everyone was crying for that anyway), and had an established name to back it up and get people to buy it. HotS is free to play, and so their model of income on console would have to be an upfront cost of the game to pay for them making it console supported, and then it would have to sell a lot keep players interested or the ladders would be desolate.
Just make cross platform play.
Wasn't their initial idea to make the game also available on tablet?
|
Caldeum1977 Posts
On June 09 2015 03:36 TMG26 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 02:51 Valiver wrote:On June 09 2015 02:43 Kupon3ss wrote:On June 09 2015 01:35 Valiver wrote:
Zero chance hots is going to be played on console, I hope you are joking. remember diablo? Diablo is much simpler than HotS, can easily be made into a single player game (everyone was crying for that anyway), and had an established name to back it up and get people to buy it. HotS is free to play, and so their model of income on console would have to be an upfront cost of the game to pay for them making it console supported, and then it would have to sell a lot keep players interested or the ladders would be desolate. Just make cross platform play. Wasn't their initial idea to make the game also available on tablet?
I thought that was Hearthstone, which they did.
|
On June 09 2015 02:51 Valiver wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 02:43 Kupon3ss wrote:On June 09 2015 01:35 Valiver wrote:
Zero chance hots is going to be played on console, I hope you are joking. remember diablo? Diablo is much simpler than HotS, can easily be made into a single player game (everyone was crying for that anyway), and had an established name to back it up and get people to buy it. HotS is free to play, and so their model of income on console would have to be an upfront cost of the game to pay for them making it console supported, and then it would have to sell a lot keep players interested or the ladders would be desolate.
I'm pretty sure there are free to play games on the xbox live arcade / whatever PSN calls it.
|
On June 08 2015 21:44 Seuss wrote:
HotS definitely has some interesting ideas insofar as the MOBA genre is concerned. That said, I personally find the game a little boring compared to its peers.
I think my favorite feature in HotS is the "Towns, not Towers" concept. It could easily have been mostly meaningless, but it isn't. It adds more progression to pushing, especially with ammo on the structures. You can't really afford to leave someone out in the cold in a horribly mismatched lane for too long or else you just cede the first Fort and an experience advantage to the enemy.
Shared experience is also an interesting concept. It creates some unique dynamics and helps prevent individual players/lanes from getting absolutely crushed when they make a few mistakes.
Where things break down are in Talents. It's not that Talents themselves are bad, though sometimes the choices feel a little uninspired, but that they are supposed to replace item builds. Talents simply don't match the depth of choice or the feeling of in-game progression/development that items provide. I can respect Blizzard's decision to eschew items entirely, they can be a very significant hurdle for players new to the genre, but Talents don't do enough to replace that depth.
I also think the objectives can be a bit overbearing at times. That may be an indication the game is simply not designed to my tastes, but I like the idea of winning fights and outplaying your opponents as worthy objectives in and of themselves. The map objectives pull the focus away from that significantly.
Overall I don't think HotS is a bad game, it's just not my preferred MOBA. I don't think 6.5 is a fair rating for the game unless you want to make a statement about its rather steep F2P climb.
I don't see that much more depth in items compared to talents. There's actually quite a bit of depth in talent choice, particularly at high levels of play. I just don't think that most players appreciate that yet since it's such a new game (combined with the fact that talents are frequently re-balanced).
I also don't think that the objectives being "overbearing" is a problem at all. The game is purposefully designed so you can't just run around ganking people or win team fights to win. It's objective-based play, which I think adds a lot of variety to the game because there are some maps where objectives are near-essential, but other maps where you can make strategic choices between split-pushing, completely ignoring objectives, or fighting for them. And, of course, during the time when objectives aren't up, team fights are as important as in any other game. In fact, they can be even more important if you can pick off a couple opposing players right before the objectives spawn.
And concerning the console idea, there's no way in hell that would work out successfully. Depending on talent choices and the hero you choose, you can get up to needing more buttons than are avaliable on a controller. Not only that, but several parts of the game make a cursor and the ability to scroll away from your hero almost necessary to successfully play. Everything about D3's system lends itself to being ported to consoles (and the console version of the game is just straight-up better). This is not the case for HotS. I would be really surprised if they did, and I don't see it going well if they do.
|
I feel like talents over items allows heroes to be balanced within a vacuum. They don't need to worry about "Well this hero will be completely broken with Refresher" or anything like that. The balance can be completely self-contained. And with many things in DOTA a low (or even mid) MMR player will pretty much just follow an ability and item build without fully understanding it but just knows people better than him said to do it so they'll do it. It is basically the same deal here. The only problem is there are some talents that overlap and are objectively worse or are so niche they'll hardly ever be seen.
|
One of the good things about the talent system, is that I don't have to play the starved support anymore, and I can get fun stuff. In Dota, I only really get really fun items like aghanims if we're snowballing or the game has just gone on super long.
It's gotten better in Dota, especially since Dota 2 to make it easier on supports, but part of the awesomeness of Dota is trying out item combinations, but the carry/mid gets so much more gold, it feels like they're having all that fun and choice and I have to be selfless. It's a nice change of pace.
|
On June 09 2015 04:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 21:44 Seuss wrote:
HotS definitely has some interesting ideas insofar as the MOBA genre is concerned. That said, I personally find the game a little boring compared to its peers.
I think my favorite feature in HotS is the "Towns, not Towers" concept. It could easily have been mostly meaningless, but it isn't. It adds more progression to pushing, especially with ammo on the structures. You can't really afford to leave someone out in the cold in a horribly mismatched lane for too long or else you just cede the first Fort and an experience advantage to the enemy.
Shared experience is also an interesting concept. It creates some unique dynamics and helps prevent individual players/lanes from getting absolutely crushed when they make a few mistakes.
Where things break down are in Talents. It's not that Talents themselves are bad, though sometimes the choices feel a little uninspired, but that they are supposed to replace item builds. Talents simply don't match the depth of choice or the feeling of in-game progression/development that items provide. I can respect Blizzard's decision to eschew items entirely, they can be a very significant hurdle for players new to the genre, but Talents don't do enough to replace that depth.
I also think the objectives can be a bit overbearing at times. That may be an indication the game is simply not designed to my tastes, but I like the idea of winning fights and outplaying your opponents as worthy objectives in and of themselves. The map objectives pull the focus away from that significantly.
Overall I don't think HotS is a bad game, it's just not my preferred MOBA. I don't think 6.5 is a fair rating for the game unless you want to make a statement about its rather steep F2P climb. I don't see that much more depth in items compared to talents. There's actually quite a bit of depth in talent choice, particularly at high levels of play. I just don't think that most players appreciate that yet since it's such a new game (combined with the fact that talents are frequently re-balanced). I also don't think that the objectives being "overbearing" is a problem at all. The game is purposefully designed so you can't just run around ganking people or winning team fights to win. It's objective-based play, which I think adds a lot of variety to the game because there are some maps where objectives are near-essential, but other maps where you can make strategic choices between split-pushing, completely ignoring objectives, or fighting for them. And, of course, during the time when objectives aren't up, team fights are as important as in any other game. In fact, they can be even more important if you can pick off a couple opposing players right before the objectives spawn. And concerning the console idea, there's no way in hell that would work out successfully. Depending on talent choices and the hero you choose, you can get up to needing more buttons than are avaliable on a controller. Not only that, but several parts of the game make a cursor and the ability to scroll away from your hero almost necessary to successfully play. Everything about D3's system lends itself to being ported to consoles (and the console version of the game is just straight-up better). This is not the case for HotS. I would be really surprised if they did, and I don't see it going well if they do.
You're saying a lot of words that don't make any sense. Is the game purposefully designed or is there a lot of variety? Are objectives overbearing or can you completely ignore them? Can you not teamfight to victory or are they as important as in any other game?
You should really clarify your thoughts before writing them down. I don't think anyone understands what you're actually trying to say.
|
On June 09 2015 04:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 21:44 Seuss wrote:
HotS definitely has some interesting ideas insofar as the MOBA genre is concerned. That said, I personally find the game a little boring compared to its peers.
I think my favorite feature in HotS is the "Towns, not Towers" concept. It could easily have been mostly meaningless, but it isn't. It adds more progression to pushing, especially with ammo on the structures. You can't really afford to leave someone out in the cold in a horribly mismatched lane for too long or else you just cede the first Fort and an experience advantage to the enemy.
Shared experience is also an interesting concept. It creates some unique dynamics and helps prevent individual players/lanes from getting absolutely crushed when they make a few mistakes.
Where things break down are in Talents. It's not that Talents themselves are bad, though sometimes the choices feel a little uninspired, but that they are supposed to replace item builds. Talents simply don't match the depth of choice or the feeling of in-game progression/development that items provide. I can respect Blizzard's decision to eschew items entirely, they can be a very significant hurdle for players new to the genre, but Talents don't do enough to replace that depth.
I also think the objectives can be a bit overbearing at times. That may be an indication the game is simply not designed to my tastes, but I like the idea of winning fights and outplaying your opponents as worthy objectives in and of themselves. The map objectives pull the focus away from that significantly.
Overall I don't think HotS is a bad game, it's just not my preferred MOBA. I don't think 6.5 is a fair rating for the game unless you want to make a statement about its rather steep F2P climb. I don't see that much more depth in items compared to talents. There's actually quite a bit of depth in talent choice, particularly at high levels of play. I just don't think that most players appreciate that yet since it's such a new game (combined with the fact that talents are frequently re-balanced). I also don't think that the objectives being "overbearing" is a problem at all. The game is purposefully designed so you can't just run around ganking people or winning team fights to win. It's objective-based play, which I think adds a lot of variety to the game because there are some maps where objectives are near-essential, but other maps where you can make strategic choices between split-pushing, completely ignoring objectives, or fighting for them. And, of course, during the time when objectives aren't up, team fights are as important as in any other game. In fact, they can be even more important if you can pick off a couple opposing players right before the objectives spawn.
I'm not saying talents have no depth, just that they're less deep than items. We obviously disagree on the degree to which that is true. If talents provided individual progression separate from the team I would be more inclined to see things your way.
The game is purposefully designed around objectives, moreso than other MOBAs, but I don't find that to be a point in the game's favor. It's a very intentional choice that was made with very clear reasoning, (e.g. shorter, more focused games) but while I respect the design decision I don't enjoy the end product as much as the competition. I prefer a MOBA where objectives do not dominate the game from start to finish like they do in HotS.
|
On June 09 2015 04:53 hariooo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 04:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 08 2015 21:44 Seuss wrote:
HotS definitely has some interesting ideas insofar as the MOBA genre is concerned. That said, I personally find the game a little boring compared to its peers.
I think my favorite feature in HotS is the "Towns, not Towers" concept. It could easily have been mostly meaningless, but it isn't. It adds more progression to pushing, especially with ammo on the structures. You can't really afford to leave someone out in the cold in a horribly mismatched lane for too long or else you just cede the first Fort and an experience advantage to the enemy.
Shared experience is also an interesting concept. It creates some unique dynamics and helps prevent individual players/lanes from getting absolutely crushed when they make a few mistakes.
Where things break down are in Talents. It's not that Talents themselves are bad, though sometimes the choices feel a little uninspired, but that they are supposed to replace item builds. Talents simply don't match the depth of choice or the feeling of in-game progression/development that items provide. I can respect Blizzard's decision to eschew items entirely, they can be a very significant hurdle for players new to the genre, but Talents don't do enough to replace that depth.
I also think the objectives can be a bit overbearing at times. That may be an indication the game is simply not designed to my tastes, but I like the idea of winning fights and outplaying your opponents as worthy objectives in and of themselves. The map objectives pull the focus away from that significantly.
Overall I don't think HotS is a bad game, it's just not my preferred MOBA. I don't think 6.5 is a fair rating for the game unless you want to make a statement about its rather steep F2P climb. I don't see that much more depth in items compared to talents. There's actually quite a bit of depth in talent choice, particularly at high levels of play. I just don't think that most players appreciate that yet since it's such a new game (combined with the fact that talents are frequently re-balanced). I also don't think that the objectives being "overbearing" is a problem at all. The game is purposefully designed so you can't just run around ganking people or winning team fights to win. It's objective-based play, which I think adds a lot of variety to the game because there are some maps where objectives are near-essential, but other maps where you can make strategic choices between split-pushing, completely ignoring objectives, or fighting for them. And, of course, during the time when objectives aren't up, team fights are as important as in any other game. In fact, they can be even more important if you can pick off a couple opposing players right before the objectives spawn. And concerning the console idea, there's no way in hell that would work out successfully. Depending on talent choices and the hero you choose, you can get up to needing more buttons than are avaliable on a controller. Not only that, but several parts of the game make a cursor and the ability to scroll away from your hero almost necessary to successfully play. Everything about D3's system lends itself to being ported to consoles (and the console version of the game is just straight-up better). This is not the case for HotS. I would be really surprised if they did, and I don't see it going well if they do. You're saying a lot of words that don't make any sense. Is the game purposefully designed or is there a lot of variety? Are objectives overbearing or can you completely ignore them? Can you not teamfight to victory or are they as important as in any other game? You should really clarify your thoughts before writing them down. I don't think anyone understands what you're actually trying to say.
Well, if you'd actually read the whole thing, it's fairly simple.
"Purposefully designed" and "variety" are not opposites that necessarily negate each other. I don't know how you possibly reached that conclusion.
I also put "overbearing" in quotes, which, in this context, implies that it's a term I'm not actually using myself, but a point I'm merely responding to.
And I explicitly said that during the downtime between objectives, team fights are as important as ever. Team fights aren't suddenly magically irrelevant just because objectives are in the game.
Everything I said makes sense. You're the one that needs to read a little more closely.
I'm not saying talents have no depth, just that they're less deep than items. We obviously disagree on the degree to which that is true. If talents provided individual progression separate from the team I would be more inclined to see things your way.
The game is purposefully designed around objectives, moreso than other MOBAs, but I don't find that to be a point in the game's favor. It's a very intentional choice that was made with very clear reasoning, (e.g. shorter, more focused games) but while I respect the design decision I don't enjoy the end product as much as the competition. I prefer a MOBA where objectives do not dominate the game from start to finish like they do in HotS.
I think that's a good attitude to have; it's not your cup of tea, but you don't try to devalue HotS just because you don't prefer it. That backhanded devaluing of a game under the guise of "it's not my personal preference" is really common. I personally find the objective-based gameplay more enjoyable and engaging than the LoL/DotA model, but to each his own.
|
And 3 month later, still upset about the matchmaking.
this last week, I started playing on US server from a fresh account. 20 games later, 50% winrate, that's... Expected. Then it begins. I started a loosing streak. I was like under 35% winrate, lost like 9 games in a row. I wanted to see how far i could get so i started a game with my worst character, choosing the worst skill, playin sloppy and feeding.
I won the game. I souldn't have. It means, once more, that no matter how good or bad you play, the game decides to give you wins and loss. Pretty underwhelming.
|
The game has definitely become much more fun after I decided to befriend and party-up with any good player(s) who I'm allies with in previous games. HL (and QM) games where you already know 2 or 3 or 4 of your allies are competent is sooo much better than joining alone.
|
If a game is purposefully designed to focus around objectives is that not the antithesis variety in playstyles?
You're ignoring the part where you said it's fine to completely ignore objectives sometimes too.
In terms of depth of talents it's pretty obvious we're seeing 2-3 at most in terms of viable high level talent builds for each hero. Many heroes don't even have more than one viable heroic. It's not even really an argument as to what mechanic has more depth. One is dependent on economy, game timing, team and enemy composition, playstyle and the other you make the same choice at roughly the same time each game.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
Heroes of the storm can't be on consoles, Diablo 3 can fur there are no skill shots there, also heroes of the storm has more buttomsn with the active talents.
BTW I would...save my arguments about the differences in gameplay of these games until..tomorrow...
|
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dUso3Zh.jpg)
I think I found my favorite hero(es) :D
|
On June 09 2015 05:45 hariooo wrote:
If a game is purposefully designed to focus around objectives is that not the antithesis variety in playstyles?
No, it's not at all. I still don't understand how you can possibly get to that conclusion.
You're ignoring the part where you said it's fine to completely ignore objectives sometimes too.
Only in very specific cases.
In terms of depth of talents it's pretty obvious we're seeing 2-3 at most in terms of viable high level talent builds for each hero. Many heroes don't even have more than one viable heroic. It's not even really an argument as to what mechanic has more depth. One is dependent on economy, game timing, team and enemy composition, playstyle and the other you make the same choice at roughly the same time each game.
LoL/DotA enthusiasts tend to overstate how much variety items give heroes. Yes, there is variety, but not THAT much.
|
On June 09 2015 06:22 Zeon0 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think I found my favorite hero(es) :D
Hah. I've been joking with people that my next hero league guide will be much shorter than Hero League 101. My new simple theory of success is in hero league is just pick Vikings every game. The split laning nonsense, at worst, completely nullifies all of your team's early game fuck ups. What's more insidious, however, is how deceptively good these little bastards are at teamfighting. I can't think of another hero that has an easier time getting into the enemy back line and disrupting the hell out of it --- and this is coming from someone who mains Zeratul. My favorite thing to do is to bait the enemy team to blow their cooldowns on me, at which point I just jump or bust out the SS Cancer Ship and laugh at their futile attempts to kill me as their squishies get murdered. It really isn't fair.
|
I haven't ever played LoL or DotA, but what makes items in those games promote more (or less) diversity than HotS's talent trees? Are the two systems really that different from one another, to insist that one game has more variety than another?
|
Mexico2170 Posts
In theory, maybe, since you can change items on the go they are more versatile, but in reality everyone goes to the internet copies an item "build" and call it a deal.
|
On June 09 2015 07:09 xDaunt wrote:Hah. I've been joking with people that my next hero league guide will be much shorter than Hero League 101. My new simple theory of success is in hero league is just pick Vikings every game. The split laning nonsense, at worst, completely nullifies all of your team's early game fuck ups. What's more insidious, however, is how deceptively good these little bastards are at teamfighting. I can't think of another hero that has an easier time getting into the enemy back line and disrupting the hell out of it --- and this is coming from someone who mains Zeratul. My favorite thing to do is to bait the enemy team to blow their cooldowns on me, at which point I just jump or bust out the SS Cancer Ship and laugh at their futile attempts to kill me as their squishies get murdered. It really isn't fair.
You are kinda right, Vikings op. But my stats are from QM
|
On June 09 2015 04:00 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 21:44 Seuss wrote:
HotS definitely has some interesting ideas insofar as the MOBA genre is concerned. That said, I personally find the game a little boring compared to its peers.
I think my favorite feature in HotS is the "Towns, not Towers" concept. It could easily have been mostly meaningless, but it isn't. It adds more progression to pushing, especially with ammo on the structures. You can't really afford to leave someone out in the cold in a horribly mismatched lane for too long or else you just cede the first Fort and an experience advantage to the enemy.
Shared experience is also an interesting concept. It creates some unique dynamics and helps prevent individual players/lanes from getting absolutely crushed when they make a few mistakes.
Where things break down are in Talents. It's not that Talents themselves are bad, though sometimes the choices feel a little uninspired, but that they are supposed to replace item builds. Talents simply don't match the depth of choice or the feeling of in-game progression/development that items provide. I can respect Blizzard's decision to eschew items entirely, they can be a very significant hurdle for players new to the genre, but Talents don't do enough to replace that depth.
I also think the objectives can be a bit overbearing at times. That may be an indication the game is simply not designed to my tastes, but I like the idea of winning fights and outplaying your opponents as worthy objectives in and of themselves. The map objectives pull the focus away from that significantly.
Overall I don't think HotS is a bad game, it's just not my preferred MOBA. I don't think 6.5 is a fair rating for the game unless you want to make a statement about its rather steep F2P climb. And concerning the console idea, there's no way in hell that would work out successfully. Depending on talent choices and the hero you choose, you can get up to needing more buttons than are avaliable on a controller. Not only that, but several parts of the game make a cursor and the ability to scroll away from your hero almost necessary to successfully play. Everything about D3's system lends itself to being ported to consoles (and the console version of the game is just straight-up better). This is not the case for HotS. I would be really surprised if they did, and I don't see it going well if they do.
I disagree with that a lot, D3 on the PC is significantly better, and the reason HotS would be bad on a console is because of the same things that make D3 worse on console.
In D3 you have no way of easily targeting a specific enemy (or in HotS' case an ally as well), you've just got to point the stick in the general direction and try and select the correct dude. You have no way of dropping Blizzard where you actually want it, you have no way of blinking to a specific spot etc.
The controller is OK for D3 because the AI is generally slow and pretty much just follows you, meaning even without being able to pick specific spots to drop stuff it's pretty easy to aim, but it's definitely far worse that with a mouse and keyboard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
