| Forum Index > Heroes of the Storm |
Add yourself in the TL Player list if you want to play with TL people, and /join teamliquid channel ingame. Also check out the new Heroes Liquipedia. | ||
|
SpikeStarcraft
Germany2095 Posts
Really cuts into SC2 and Hearthstone viewership at the moment when all the popular streamers are playing heroes of the storm. Would be a smart strategy to give some invites to dota and lol personalities too because that are the main competitors and you dont want to hurt the popularity of your own games that much. | ||
|
Spaylz
Japan1743 Posts
On March 15 2014 07:06 SpikeStarcraft wrote: You can tell that only personalities from blizzard games got invited to the alpha. Really cuts into SC2 and Hearthstone viewership at the moment when all the popular streamers are playing heroes of the storm. Would be a smart strategy to give some invites to dota and lol personalities too because that are the main competitors and you dont want to hurt the popularity of your own games that much. Well, they send the invites through Battle.net. It's not even a key at this point, your account is flagged and granted access to the alpha. Even so, I don't really think Blizzard cares. In the end, it's still their games, the popularity is just spread across all of them as opposed to just one of them. Hearthstone has been more popular than SC2 on Twitch for a long while, now (the majority of the time, that is). I think Blizzard has always tapped into their own fan base, which is why they keep recycling the content from all of their franchises. The said fan base is huge, Blizzard has a very secure spot in the industry, they don't really need to go out of their way to advertise to people playing other games. Most gamers know about Blizzard and at least one or two of their games, and I'd say most gamers at least try some of these games too. | ||
|
MyrMindservant
695 Posts
Some people really don't understand that grinding to unlock some options (heroes, skills, runes, etc) in a multiplayer game is not any more fair than having to buy those options. Your time is very valuable, you can make money and spend them, or you can receive money as a gift, or you can live in a rich family, or something. But you can only have so much time, humans are not immortal. In general, without going into details and comparing specific values, time is more valuable than money. | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
| ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
On March 15 2014 07:38 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: stuff seems to move so slow and looks strange... also funny to see the old dota/wc3 icons used. wonder if they are placeholders wc3/sc2 icons. And they always used placeholders. Sc2 had nice wc3 icons all over the place before release. Artist team was doing work on RoS and Hearthstone it seems. Still have lots of time to artist up Heroes. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
On March 15 2014 07:18 MyrMindservant wrote: Some of the discussions in this thread are really silly and it made me want to remind people one thing. Some people really don't understand that grinding to unlock some options (heroes, skills, runes, etc) in a multiplayer game is not any more fair than having to buy those options. Your time is very valuable, you can make money and spend them, or you can receive money as a gift, or you can live in a rich family, or something. But you can only have so much time, humans are not immortal. In general, without going into details and comparing specific values, time is more valuable than money. While I'm certain that you could put a price on someone's entire life, you're right that time is a precious thing. However, for a game dev. who seems intent on a future driven by micro-transactions, Blizzard are clever in making it much more cost efficient to Pay 2 Win, than to Play 2 Win. A week of grinding in Hearthstone is less time-efficient than working ~4 hours and spending 40 bucks on 40 decks. Strange that they chose to make characters something that you have to unlock, but hey, strange decisions is what Blizzard seem to be best at. I have friends who will play this. I might try it, and probably become bored in under a week, like every other MOBA I've ever tried, but it won't be for the normal reasons, it'll be because I hate grinding what people will just buy. Seems as if you can bypass actually playing most games nowadays to reach your end-goal. We probably won't ever see a Warcraft 4 or a Starcraft 3 out of Blizzard. The generation gap between old-Blizz and new-Blizz is more and more apparent with each new title. World of Warcraft and the rise of the MOBA have poisoned Blizzard's products. They remind me of liberal politicians now - a bunch of sugar-coating panderers. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 15 2014 07:50 dUTtrOACh wrote: While I'm certain that you could put a price on someone's entire life, you're right that time is a precious thing. However, for a game dev. who seems intent on a future driven by micro-transactions, Blizzard are clever in making it much more cost efficient to Pay 2 Win, than to Play 2 Win. A week of grinding in Hearthstone is less time-efficient than working ~4 hours and spending 40 bucks on 40 decks. The entire point of micro-transaction games is that paying money will get you the stuff faster. Yeah, I guess it's so "clever" of Blizzard to do exactly what Valve started with TF2 and continued with DotA, or what Riot has been doing with LoL since the very start. And naturally someone on this board would blame Blizzard for all of it. | ||
|
Cheren
United States2911 Posts
On March 15 2014 07:18 MyrMindservant wrote: Some of the discussions in this thread are really silly and it made me want to remind people one thing. Some people really don't understand that grinding to unlock some options (heroes, skills, runes, etc) in a multiplayer game is not any more fair than having to buy those options. Your time is very valuable, you can make money and spend them, or you can receive money as a gift, or you can live in a rich family, or something. But you can only have so much time, humans are not immortal. In general, without going into details and comparing specific values, time is more valuable than money. You make a good point, however I don't believe HotS has any equivalent of runes. So as long as the heroes are balanced a new player should be able to instantly play at the highest level if they're good enough. | ||
|
Shaella
United States14828 Posts
On March 15 2014 07:58 WolfintheSheep wrote: The entire point of micro-transaction games is that paying money will get you the stuff faster. Yeah, I guess it's so "clever" of Blizzard to do exactly what Valve started with TF2 and continued with DotA, or what Riot has been doing with LoL since the very start. And naturally someone on this board would blame Blizzard for all of it. But dota is literally all cosmetics | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On March 15 2014 06:00 Plansix wrote: That would be pay to win. But league of legends isn't like that. There are no better champions, only different ones. Some are strong due to the meta at the time, but it is normally a spectrum of champions, not one champion. heroes is supposed to be the same way. No. Having more heroes, even if they are balanced is pay to win, because it increases your chances of winning, the same way that 10% damage buff does. Having more heroes allows you to counter-pick, and being able to counter-pick is a large advantage. LoL is pay to win. The good thing about HotS is that heroes are picked before queuing so direct counter-picking is not possible. However, it may still be possible to counter-pick based on knowledge of the metagame. For example, if a particular hero is overused in the meta so that there is a high chance it will be in your match (even though you can't be sure), and you can't pick it's counter, then you may be at a disadvantage. | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
and then Steam sales hit, praise Gaben. Neither Riot nor Blizzard has that option, plus having stuff like that behind a paywall/grindwall makes you more invested and addicted to the game which is also nice. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
Until Pay2Win seasonal events. At least Year Beast was boring in general, just wait until they have a fun event behind a pay wall. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On March 15 2014 08:30 Kipsate wrote: Neither Riot nor Blizzard has that option, plus having stuff like that behind a paywall/grindwall makes you more invested and addicted to the game which is also nice. No. I don't want to play pay to win games. Fuck Hearthstone. Fuck LoL. I'm still deciding if HotS is really pay to win or not, given that you can't directly counterpick since heroes are chosen before queuing and I don't believe talents are paywalled (like they are in LoL). | ||
|
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
other people will. also A lot of games in LoL I'd wager are Blind Pick so you can't counterpick there(I don't have exact stats for them but its the most played mode I think). | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On March 15 2014 08:35 WolfintheSheep wrote: Until Pay2Win seasonal events. At least Year Beast was boring in general, just wait until they have a fun event behind a pay wall. I wouldn't consider those events competitive. Even if they paywalled the whole event. The events have no ladder and aren't related to the main game. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 15 2014 08:39 paralleluniverse wrote: I wouldn't consider those events competitive. Even if they paywalled the whole event. The events have no ladder and aren't related to the main game. Lol, these goal posts. They're all over the place... | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On March 15 2014 08:38 Kipsate wrote: Then you don't play it other people will. also A lot of games in LoL I'd wager are Blind Pick so you can't counterpick there(I don't have exact stats for them but its the most played mode I think). Irrelevant. Talents are still paywalled. So it's pay to win even if everything is blind picks. So LoL would still be 100% pay to win. I also think it's not the main ranked ladder game type. | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On March 15 2014 08:37 paralleluniverse wrote: No. I don't want to play pay to win games. Fuck Hearthstone. Fuck LoL. I'm still deciding if HotS is really pay to win or not, given that you can't directly counterpick since heroes are chosen before queuing and I don't believe talents are paywalled (like they are in LoL). I'm sure any kind of ranked ladder will have to be draft-based. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 15 2014 08:41 paralleluniverse wrote: Irrelevant. Talents are still paywalled. So it's pay to win even if everything is blind picks. So LoL would still be 100% pay to win. I also think it's not the main ranked ladder game type. Why are you still here? You don't want to play the game, so why even discuss it? Or are you here just to argue with people who are interested? | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On March 15 2014 08:42 synapse wrote: I'm sure any kind of ranked ladder will have to be draft-based. Maybe. If it is draft based, then it's obviously very pay to win. If ranked ladder remains blind picks, it may still be pay to win if you account for metagame information, but I don't think it's so clear. | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
OSC
GSL
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
WardiTV Weekly
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
