|
|
On March 19 2014 22:30 SoleSteeler wrote:Also, this game will 100% be competitive. It's a Blizzard game for one (lots of players, lots of popularity). Especially if there is a ladder system later (which I think they said there will be). It's definitely not too "dumbed down" or "simple" to not be competitive. Not to single any of you out, but reading the past 20 pages of this thread I thought, "When will people learn?". People said War3 wouldn't be competitive because it's too easy, people said SC2 would have too low a skill ceiling to make a difference, but people were dead wrong about both games. Even SC2's skill ceiling seems to be getting higher and higher as the months go by. Certain Koreans are just pushing themselves further and further ahead... I know the skill required is very different compared to other RTS games, but my point is players = competitiveness!
This is... fairly wrong imo. Yes, there are those who made those claims you have stated about Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 2 but I didn't think anyone took them seriously. If the argument is that the games have a lower skill ceiling than Starcraft, that is 100% correct. I can't play Starcraft 2 for long periods of time because the game is far too strategically boring and shallow compared to the original... but that doesn't mean it lacked ways for players to be stand above others as some complexity still exists and there are a huge amount of variables still present.
A better comparison is checkers (or a more extreme but less accurate one: tic-tac-toe). Growing up, these games seem complex and we could differentiate substantially from our opponents to achieve victory. Over time, we begin to notice patterns of what is successful and the overall skill level of everyone rises... until the game is solved and progress stops. There aren't enough variables there to be beyond what the human mind can process. Heroes of the Swarm (and Hearthstone) are both simplified to this level as far as I have experienced.
To clarify: will people have fun experiencing the games and learning their intricacies? Absolutely. Most of us had fun playing checkers growing up despite the lack of variables involved. Do I currently enjoy the game? Yes. I may find it frustrating at times as a single player (PM me to group please!) but the polish on what it offers is amazing. Will there be organized teams? Indeed as that is the best way to play the game. But just like Hearthstone lacks a substantial established non-invite tournament scene due qualifiers being proving random, I feel Heroes of the Storm will have too many people playing optimally and those at the top won't be able to overcome RNG from the small ways they may be better than their opponents.
So... I think people will play it competitively like anything other game (checkers, Hearthstone, ... even Rock Paper Scissors has a competitive tournament). But it just isn't suitable as an elaborate esport and that is 100% OK as many fun games aren't designed to be that.
|
So the argument is that it is competitive for some people, but isn't suitable for an Esport because it lacks depth? And we figured all this out in a week of watching streams of an unfinished game that we don't have access too?
Seriously, the one thing we should learn about games like this is that assessing their depth and competitive nature is not something we can do in a week, without hands on access.
|
On March 20 2014 00:56 Plansix wrote:
So the argument is that it is competitive for some people, but isn't suitable for an Esport because it lacks depth? And we figured all this out in a week of watching streams of an unfinished game that we don't have access too?
Seriously, the one thing we should learn about games like this is that assessing their depth and competitive nature is it something we can do in a week, without hands on access.
Well ofcourse don't you know that everyone here has countless years of experience in the field and know exactly how competitive a game is and how much it isn't. We should all just become game designers since we know what will fail and what won that way we can make millions on games that are super competative since we can identify the flaws in each game so quickly.
+ Show Spoiler +hope everyone knows that this is pure sarcasm
|
This game will most likely be more popular than SC2 and has a chance of being competative
|
It doesn't take much to be more popular than SC2 though, realistically.
I mean, I'm preeeetty sure Hearthstone is bigger than SC2 in terms of people who play it with any regularity.
|
On March 20 2014 02:09 Sn0_Man wrote:
It doesn't take much to be more popular than SC2 though, realistically.
I mean, I'm preeeetty sure Hearthstone is bigger than SC2 in terms of people who play it with any regularity.
SC2 has always been the least popular of Blizzards IPs. It's just the nature of the beast.
|
8751 Posts
On March 20 2014 00:56 Plansix wrote:
So the argument is that it is competitive for some people, but isn't suitable for an Esport because it lacks depth? And we figured all this out in a week of watching streams of an unfinished game that we don't have access too?
You seem comfortable with venturing opinions like that already...
On March 14 2014 20:08 Plansix wrote:
Heroes isn't targeted at players who want a super competitive experience. There are games out there that handle that. Its focused on providing a 15 minute game that is more accessible. It may not have the mechanical depth of a Dota or LoL, but that doesn't make it a terrible game.
It seems like you're on the other side of the argument and trying to pull the floor out from any opposition by acting like it's too early to say anything at all. If you truly aren't comfortable with discussing the game's depth and competitive potential yet, then just ignore the people who are. They're allowed to do it and there's nothing wrong with Bluewolf's post.
Personally I think it's obvious that the game has enough elements for it to be competitive without something like last hitting. And as for it being an esport, something like last hitting is almost completely irrelevant. League of Legends broadcasts got a ton of criticism for focusing too much on last hitting (mainly Phreak I think got a ton of shit about it). Viewers want to hear about strategy and the big picture and are livid if you're ever watching one guy cs'ing when real action might be going on elsewhere. You almost never hear about it now except for as a metric to judge who is winning lane phase, but of course there are other metrics for that. The focus in LoL esports is always on objectives now, and Heroes seems like it'll be an even more objective-centric game.
edit:I don't see Heroes as a "less competitive" game. I see it as removing elements that are the most frustrating and least interesting and fast forwarding and multiplying the elements that are the most fun and interesting. I think what's left will be enough to make the game competitively rich but yes I acknowledge that it's too early to tell. Keep in mind that there are board games that require absolutely zero mechanical skill and also have relatively simple rulesets and yet they are extremely competitive and have depth that supercomputers can't master. There are no hard and fast rules about what components a game must have in order to be competitive.
|
On March 20 2014 02:47 NonY wrote:
Personally I think it's obvious that the game has enough elements for it to be competitive without something like last hitting. And as for it being an esport, something like last hitting is almost completely irrelevant. League of Legends broadcasts got a ton of criticism for focusing too much on last hitting (mainly Phreak I think got a ton of shit about it). Viewers want to hear about strategy and the big picture and are livid if you're ever watching one guy cs'ing when real action might be going on elsewhere. You almost never hear about it now except for as a metric to judge who is winning lane phase, but of course there are other metrics for that. The focus in LoL esports is always on objectives now, and Heroes seems like it'll be an even more objective-centric game.
That'd be like SC2 casters never mentioning probe count because its "boring" and viewers want to hear about "the big picture" well guess what the economy is the big picture. Removing the economy of the game is a decision that is clearly geared towards bridging the gap between good players and bad ones. After all, the advice to bronzies is always "Probes and pylons".
So while yes there will be competitions because any game that pits players against each other has competitions, the idea that it's a reasonable esport is pretty loose.
I mean, I don't watch league casts but if I did i'd want to know the creep scores as they are one of the most important metrics to measure who is winning, moreso than any other information that isn't instantly available to everybody who wants to know at any point during the cast
|
fast forwarding and multiplying the elements that are the most fun and interesting
you can really feel this with the fast laneing phase followed by forced 5 man fights consistently that these maps provoke. This game would be a lot different if the maps didn't force action often and its cool that they do.
|
On March 20 2014 02:47 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:56 Plansix wrote:
So the argument is that it is competitive for some people, but isn't suitable for an Esport because it lacks depth? And we figured all this out in a week of watching streams of an unfinished game that we don't have access too? You seem comfortable with venturing opinions like that already... Show nested quote +On March 14 2014 20:08 Plansix wrote:
Heroes isn't targeted at players who want a super competitive experience. There are games out there that handle that. Its focused on providing a 15 minute game that is more accessible. It may not have the mechanical depth of a Dota or LoL, but that doesn't make it a terrible game. It seems like you're on the other side of the argument and trying to pull the floor out from any opposition by acting like it's too early to say anything at all. If you truly aren't comfortable with discussing the game's depth and competitive potential yet, then just ignore the people who are. They're allowed to do it and there's nothing wrong with Bluewolf's post. Personally I think it's obvious that the game has enough elements for it to be competitive without something like last hitting. And as for it being an esport, something like last hitting is almost completely irrelevant. League of Legends broadcasts got a ton of criticism for focusing too much on last hitting (mainly Phreak I think got a ton of shit about it). Viewers want to hear about strategy and the big picture and are livid if you're ever watching one guy cs'ing when real action might be going on elsewhere. You almost never hear about it now except for as a metric to judge who is winning lane phase, but of course there are other metrics for that. The focus in LoL esports is always on objectives now, and Heroes seems like it'll be an even more objective-centric game. edit:I don't see Heroes as a "less competitive" game. I see it as removing elements that are the most frustrating and least interesting and fast forwarding and multiplying the elements that are the most fun and interesting. I think what's left will be enough to make the game competitively rich but yes I acknowledge that it's too early to tell. Keep in mind that there are board games that require absolutely zero mechanical skill and also have relatively simple rulesets and yet they are extremely competitive and have depth that supercomputers can't master. There are no hard and fast rules about what components a game must have in order to be competitive.
The problem is that last hitting in dota or LoL is also tied to a larger game sense of economy and map control. It would be like removing minerals from starcraft - a large component of the game of starcraft is finding ways to exploit map control and unit movments and tying that to maximizing your economy. In dota, having map control means you can farm more aggressively and gain a greater advantage. A huge amount of strategy and overarching gameplay (including minor tactics) is derived from that, and eliminating that from the game eliminates one of the core mechanics that makes the game actively interesting. Teamfights are interesting to a casual viewer, but are just one of the things that are interesting to a regular viewer, and limiting the amount of things that are interesting to the regular viewer will hurt its longtime legitimacy and hurt the depth of the game.
Also anyone that complains about last hitting being too hard is just a baby and could remedy that by practicing for 5-10 minutes a day - achievable by any casual player.
Edit: I'm not saying the game isn't competitive worthy, though it may be. I'm just saying eliminating a core mechanic of a genre isn't necessarily a good thing.
|
On March 20 2014 02:47 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:56 Plansix wrote:
So the argument is that it is competitive for some people, but isn't suitable for an Esport because it lacks depth? And we figured all this out in a week of watching streams of an unfinished game that we don't have access too? You seem comfortable with venturing opinions like that already... Show nested quote +On March 14 2014 20:08 Plansix wrote:
Heroes isn't targeted at players who want a super competitive experience. There are games out there that handle that. Its focused on providing a 15 minute game that is more accessible. It may not have the mechanical depth of a Dota or LoL, but that doesn't make it a terrible game. It seems like you're on the other side of the argument and trying to pull the floor out from any opposition by acting like it's too early to say anything at all. If you truly aren't comfortable with discussing the game's depth and competitive potential yet, then just ignore the people who are. They're allowed to do it and there's nothing wrong with Bluewolf's post. Personally I think it's obvious that the game has enough elements for it to be competitive without something like last hitting. And as for it being an esport, something like last hitting is almost completely irrelevant. League of Legends broadcasts got a ton of criticism for focusing too much on last hitting (mainly Phreak I think got a ton of shit about it). Viewers want to hear about strategy and the big picture and are livid if you're ever watching one guy cs'ing when real action might be going on elsewhere. You almost never hear about it now except for as a metric to judge who is winning lane phase, but of course there are other metrics for that. The focus in LoL esports is always on objectives now, and Heroes seems like it'll be an even more objective-centric game. edit:I don't see Heroes as a "less competitive" game. I see it as removing elements that are the most frustrating and least interesting and fast forwarding and multiplying the elements that are the most fun and interesting. I think what's left will be enough to make the game competitively rich but yes I acknowledge that it's too early to tell. Keep in mind that there are board games that require absolutely zero mechanical skill and also have relatively simple rulesets and yet they are extremely competitive and have depth that supercomputers can't master. There are no hard and fast rules about what components a game must have in order to be competitive.
I was just pointing out that it is weird to decide that a game can or cannot be an Esport after watching a bunch of streams of it online. That is compounded by the fact that it is in alpha. I think observations great, but trying to shove the game into a "competitive " or "not competitive" group seems premature.
As for my previous comment, I was taking that from interviews with blizzard and their goals for the game. How competitive it can get is up to the players, not the mechanics in the game. People get really into some very simple games, both online and in real life.
|
On March 20 2014 03:12 Comeh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 02:47 NonY wrote:On March 20 2014 00:56 Plansix wrote:
So the argument is that it is competitive for some people, but isn't suitable for an Esport because it lacks depth? And we figured all this out in a week of watching streams of an unfinished game that we don't have access too? You seem comfortable with venturing opinions like that already... On March 14 2014 20:08 Plansix wrote:
Heroes isn't targeted at players who want a super competitive experience. There are games out there that handle that. Its focused on providing a 15 minute game that is more accessible. It may not have the mechanical depth of a Dota or LoL, but that doesn't make it a terrible game. It seems like you're on the other side of the argument and trying to pull the floor out from any opposition by acting like it's too early to say anything at all. If you truly aren't comfortable with discussing the game's depth and competitive potential yet, then just ignore the people who are. They're allowed to do it and there's nothing wrong with Bluewolf's post. Personally I think it's obvious that the game has enough elements for it to be competitive without something like last hitting. And as for it being an esport, something like last hitting is almost completely irrelevant. League of Legends broadcasts got a ton of criticism for focusing too much on last hitting (mainly Phreak I think got a ton of shit about it). Viewers want to hear about strategy and the big picture and are livid if you're ever watching one guy cs'ing when real action might be going on elsewhere. You almost never hear about it now except for as a metric to judge who is winning lane phase, but of course there are other metrics for that. The focus in LoL esports is always on objectives now, and Heroes seems like it'll be an even more objective-centric game. edit:I don't see Heroes as a "less competitive" game. I see it as removing elements that are the most frustrating and least interesting and fast forwarding and multiplying the elements that are the most fun and interesting. I think what's left will be enough to make the game competitively rich but yes I acknowledge that it's too early to tell. Keep in mind that there are board games that require absolutely zero mechanical skill and also have relatively simple rulesets and yet they are extremely competitive and have depth that supercomputers can't master. There are no hard and fast rules about what components a game must have in order to be competitive. The problem is that last hitting in dota or LoL is also tied to a larger game sense of economy and map control. It would be like removing minerals from starcraft - a large component of the game of starcraft is finding ways to exploit map control and unit movments and tying that to maximizing your economy. In dota, having map control means you can farm more aggressively and gain a greater advantage. A huge amount of strategy and overarching gameplay (including minor tactics) is derived from that, and eliminating that from the game eliminates one of the core mechanics that makes the game actively interesting. Teamfights are interesting to a casual viewer, but are just one of the things that are interesting to a regular viewer, and limiting the amount of things that are interesting to the regular viewer will hurt its longtime legitimacy and hurt the depth of the game. Also anyone that complains about last hitting being too hard is just a baby and could remedy that by practicing for 5-10 minutes a day - achievable by any casual player. Edit: I'm not saying the game isn't competitive worthy, though it may be. I'm just saying eliminating a core mechanic of a genre isn't necessarily a good thing.
last hitting has absolutely no relevance to competitive play in league. anyone anywhere near a competitive level can last hit perfectly. some players will find more farm than others, but that comes down to decision making and game awareness, and the same abilities will allow good heroes players to find more solo exp without sacrificing team efforts. im not sure heroes will be a success competitively yet, but if it isn't it wont be because it doesnt have last hitting.
|
Also don't compare last-hitting in LoL and DOTA. It's much easier in LoL.
|
On March 20 2014 03:41 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 03:12 Comeh wrote:On March 20 2014 02:47 NonY wrote:On March 20 2014 00:56 Plansix wrote:
So the argument is that it is competitive for some people, but isn't suitable for an Esport because it lacks depth? And we figured all this out in a week of watching streams of an unfinished game that we don't have access too? You seem comfortable with venturing opinions like that already... On March 14 2014 20:08 Plansix wrote:
Heroes isn't targeted at players who want a super competitive experience. There are games out there that handle that. Its focused on providing a 15 minute game that is more accessible. It may not have the mechanical depth of a Dota or LoL, but that doesn't make it a terrible game. It seems like you're on the other side of the argument and trying to pull the floor out from any opposition by acting like it's too early to say anything at all. If you truly aren't comfortable with discussing the game's depth and competitive potential yet, then just ignore the people who are. They're allowed to do it and there's nothing wrong with Bluewolf's post. Personally I think it's obvious that the game has enough elements for it to be competitive without something like last hitting. And as for it being an esport, something like last hitting is almost completely irrelevant. League of Legends broadcasts got a ton of criticism for focusing too much on last hitting (mainly Phreak I think got a ton of shit about it). Viewers want to hear about strategy and the big picture and are livid if you're ever watching one guy cs'ing when real action might be going on elsewhere. You almost never hear about it now except for as a metric to judge who is winning lane phase, but of course there are other metrics for that. The focus in LoL esports is always on objectives now, and Heroes seems like it'll be an even more objective-centric game. edit:I don't see Heroes as a "less competitive" game. I see it as removing elements that are the most frustrating and least interesting and fast forwarding and multiplying the elements that are the most fun and interesting. I think what's left will be enough to make the game competitively rich but yes I acknowledge that it's too early to tell. Keep in mind that there are board games that require absolutely zero mechanical skill and also have relatively simple rulesets and yet they are extremely competitive and have depth that supercomputers can't master. There are no hard and fast rules about what components a game must have in order to be competitive. The problem is that last hitting in dota or LoL is also tied to a larger game sense of economy and map control. It would be like removing minerals from starcraft - a large component of the game of starcraft is finding ways to exploit map control and unit movments and tying that to maximizing your economy. In dota, having map control means you can farm more aggressively and gain a greater advantage. A huge amount of strategy and overarching gameplay (including minor tactics) is derived from that, and eliminating that from the game eliminates one of the core mechanics that makes the game actively interesting. Teamfights are interesting to a casual viewer, but are just one of the things that are interesting to a regular viewer, and limiting the amount of things that are interesting to the regular viewer will hurt its longtime legitimacy and hurt the depth of the game. Also anyone that complains about last hitting being too hard is just a baby and could remedy that by practicing for 5-10 minutes a day - achievable by any casual player. Edit: I'm not saying the game isn't competitive worthy, though it may be. I'm just saying eliminating a core mechanic of a genre isn't necessarily a good thing. last hitting has absolutely no relevance to competitive play in league. anyone anywhere near a competitive level can last hit perfectly. some players will find more farm than others, but that comes down to decision making and game awareness, and the same abilities will allow good heroes players to find more solo exp without sacrificing team efforts. im not sure heroes will be a success competitively yet, but if it isn't it wont be because it doesnt have last hitting.
I'm not talking about the actual mechanics of last hitting. That part is easy. I'm talking about the gameplay, decision making, and overarching strategy that happens behind last hitting / farming. But whatever.
|
8751 Posts
On March 20 2014 02:58 Sn0_Man wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 02:47 NonY wrote:
Personally I think it's obvious that the game has enough elements for it to be competitive without something like last hitting. And as for it being an esport, something like last hitting is almost completely irrelevant. League of Legends broadcasts got a ton of criticism for focusing too much on last hitting (mainly Phreak I think got a ton of shit about it). Viewers want to hear about strategy and the big picture and are livid if you're ever watching one guy cs'ing when real action might be going on elsewhere. You almost never hear about it now except for as a metric to judge who is winning lane phase, but of course there are other metrics for that. The focus in LoL esports is always on objectives now, and Heroes seems like it'll be an even more objective-centric game. That'd be like SC2 casters never mentioning probe count because its "boring" and viewers want to hear about "the big picture" well guess what the economy is the big picture. Removing the economy of the game is a decision that is clearly geared towards bridging the gap between good players and bad ones. After all, the advice to bronzies is always "Probes and pylons". So while yes there will be competitions because any game that pits players against each other has competitions, the idea that it's a reasonable esport is pretty loose. I mean, I don't watch league casts but if I did i'd want to know the creep scores as they are one of the most important metrics to measure who is winning, moreso than any other information that isn't instantly available to everybody who wants to know at any point during the cast
tbh i don't give a shit what it's like. why do you make a metaphor when the example i gave fits perfectly already and actually exists?
|
On March 20 2014 03:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 02:47 NonY wrote:On March 20 2014 00:56 Plansix wrote:
So the argument is that it is competitive for some people, but isn't suitable for an Esport because it lacks depth? And we figured all this out in a week of watching streams of an unfinished game that we don't have access too? You seem comfortable with venturing opinions like that already... On March 14 2014 20:08 Plansix wrote:
Heroes isn't targeted at players who want a super competitive experience. There are games out there that handle that. Its focused on providing a 15 minute game that is more accessible. It may not have the mechanical depth of a Dota or LoL, but that doesn't make it a terrible game. It seems like you're on the other side of the argument and trying to pull the floor out from any opposition by acting like it's too early to say anything at all. If you truly aren't comfortable with discussing the game's depth and competitive potential yet, then just ignore the people who are. They're allowed to do it and there's nothing wrong with Bluewolf's post. Personally I think it's obvious that the game has enough elements for it to be competitive without something like last hitting. And as for it being an esport, something like last hitting is almost completely irrelevant. League of Legends broadcasts got a ton of criticism for focusing too much on last hitting (mainly Phreak I think got a ton of shit about it). Viewers want to hear about strategy and the big picture and are livid if you're ever watching one guy cs'ing when real action might be going on elsewhere. You almost never hear about it now except for as a metric to judge who is winning lane phase, but of course there are other metrics for that. The focus in LoL esports is always on objectives now, and Heroes seems like it'll be an even more objective-centric game. edit:I don't see Heroes as a "less competitive" game. I see it as removing elements that are the most frustrating and least interesting and fast forwarding and multiplying the elements that are the most fun and interesting. I think what's left will be enough to make the game competitively rich but yes I acknowledge that it's too early to tell. Keep in mind that there are board games that require absolutely zero mechanical skill and also have relatively simple rulesets and yet they are extremely competitive and have depth that supercomputers can't master. There are no hard and fast rules about what components a game must have in order to be competitive. I was just pointing out that it is weird to decide that a game can or cannot be an Esport after watching a bunch of streams of it online. That is compounded by the fact that it is in alpha. I think observations great, but trying to shove the game into a "competitive " or "not competitive" group seems premature.
I agree that no one can say for certain and my personal impression could be wrong (I am in the alpha and have played a bunch of games btw). It is based on my own gut understanding of what I have personally experienced and there isn't any harm in a lively discussion on the topic. (As an additional aside: I don't think the removal of last hitting is all that important. But I am currently unsure about how it will play out that one can gain the experience for the team without any combat against the creeps at all as long as one is just standing in range which could lead to a number of possible outcomes).
|
On March 20 2014 03:52 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 02:58 Sn0_Man wrote:On March 20 2014 02:47 NonY wrote:
Personally I think it's obvious that the game has enough elements for it to be competitive without something like last hitting. And as for it being an esport, something like last hitting is almost completely irrelevant. League of Legends broadcasts got a ton of criticism for focusing too much on last hitting (mainly Phreak I think got a ton of shit about it). Viewers want to hear about strategy and the big picture and are livid if you're ever watching one guy cs'ing when real action might be going on elsewhere. You almost never hear about it now except for as a metric to judge who is winning lane phase, but of course there are other metrics for that. The focus in LoL esports is always on objectives now, and Heroes seems like it'll be an even more objective-centric game. That'd be like SC2 casters never mentioning probe count because its "boring" and viewers want to hear about "the big picture" well guess what the economy is the big picture. Removing the economy of the game is a decision that is clearly geared towards bridging the gap between good players and bad ones. After all, the advice to bronzies is always "Probes and pylons". So while yes there will be competitions because any game that pits players against each other has competitions, the idea that it's a reasonable esport is pretty loose. I mean, I don't watch league casts but if I did i'd want to know the creep scores as they are one of the most important metrics to measure who is winning, moreso than any other information that isn't instantly available to everybody who wants to know at any point during the cast tbh i don't give a shit what it's like. why do you make a metaphor when the example i gave fits perfectly already and actually exists?
My example also happens to actually exist unless you don't think sc2 is an esport? The economy of the game is important, that holds true in most genres. Just because viewers get bored by the nitty gritty details of the economy doesn't mean that it isn't game deciding in a lot of situations.
I mean, I don't think an RTS where there was no economy to speak of would be all that reasonable as an e-sport despite the fact that obviously more skilled players would defeat less skilled players. It's not about the game being fun, which I'm sure it will be.
|
On March 20 2014 03:52 [-Bluewolf-] wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 03:22 Plansix wrote:On March 20 2014 02:47 NonY wrote:On March 20 2014 00:56 Plansix wrote:
So the argument is that it is competitive for some people, but isn't suitable for an Esport because it lacks depth? And we figured all this out in a week of watching streams of an unfinished game that we don't have access too? You seem comfortable with venturing opinions like that already... On March 14 2014 20:08 Plansix wrote:
Heroes isn't targeted at players who want a super competitive experience. There are games out there that handle that. Its focused on providing a 15 minute game that is more accessible. It may not have the mechanical depth of a Dota or LoL, but that doesn't make it a terrible game. It seems like you're on the other side of the argument and trying to pull the floor out from any opposition by acting like it's too early to say anything at all. If you truly aren't comfortable with discussing the game's depth and competitive potential yet, then just ignore the people who are. They're allowed to do it and there's nothing wrong with Bluewolf's post. Personally I think it's obvious that the game has enough elements for it to be competitive without something like last hitting. And as for it being an esport, something like last hitting is almost completely irrelevant. League of Legends broadcasts got a ton of criticism for focusing too much on last hitting (mainly Phreak I think got a ton of shit about it). Viewers want to hear about strategy and the big picture and are livid if you're ever watching one guy cs'ing when real action might be going on elsewhere. You almost never hear about it now except for as a metric to judge who is winning lane phase, but of course there are other metrics for that. The focus in LoL esports is always on objectives now, and Heroes seems like it'll be an even more objective-centric game. edit:I don't see Heroes as a "less competitive" game. I see it as removing elements that are the most frustrating and least interesting and fast forwarding and multiplying the elements that are the most fun and interesting. I think what's left will be enough to make the game competitively rich but yes I acknowledge that it's too early to tell. Keep in mind that there are board games that require absolutely zero mechanical skill and also have relatively simple rulesets and yet they are extremely competitive and have depth that supercomputers can't master. There are no hard and fast rules about what components a game must have in order to be competitive. I was just pointing out that it is weird to decide that a game can or cannot be an Esport after watching a bunch of streams of it online. That is compounded by the fact that it is in alpha. I think observations great, but trying to shove the game into a "competitive " or "not competitive" group seems premature. I agree that no one can say for certain and my personal impression could be wrong (I am in the alpha and have played a bunch of games btw). It is based on my own gut understanding of what I have personally experienced and there isn't any harm in a lively discussion on the topic. (As an additional aside: I don't think the removal of last hitting is all that important. But I am currently unsure about how it will play out that one can gain the experience for the team without any combat against the creeps at all as long as one is just standing in range which could lead to a number of possible outcomes).
I see that now, after taking a third pass at your previous post. My first impression of the game is that it isn't finished and players have no idea what the "right" thing to do is on each map. How many heroes to you send for objectives, when do you go after mercs and what are good team comps are all mysteries. Games need time to breath and evolve before we can even say if they will be fun to watch. From what I have seen, a lot of the player are just getting a grasp on what the heroes can and can't do on a given map and are now pushing their limits. We are long long way from having an established meta or team comps.
|
I wonder how many of the people who shit on this game religiously even have alpha access. I think the game looks pretty boring and slow watching streams but the game is legit fun to play. When I got alpha access I was leaning towards the "not interested" side of the fence on the game but it's won me over. I may even drop money on heroes because I assume I'll play the beta/retail version of the game as well. I don't really care if it is the next great e-sport or not. I'll play it because it is fun.
|
Being able to "last hit perfectly" is a mechanical skill akin to being able to constantly able to queue up workers from all of your bases. While that inherently doesn't have much of a skillcap, the ability to do so under duress (as is in the case in DotA during laning with the existence of denying) in the early game. During the mid/late game it becomes the ability to find the places to farm safely and maintain map controll akin to being able to find safe bases to expand. It is a mechanical skill that has something tied to the basis of the game.
Personally I don't think there's really anything wrong with Blizzard's decision to remove last hitting, though I do believe that taking away the existence of a secondary monetary resource and have the game be based on one-dimensional character progression based on exp may hamstring the game in the long term akin to something like simplifying bw/sc2 into only using one resource.
There is no inherent "casualness" or "hardcoreness" aside from accepted norms within a community. Obviously as a community TL is going to consider BW/SC2 as games closer to the epitome of the "hardcore scale" in terms of game design with regards to the high mechanical and strategic requirements of the game as well as its unforgiving nature. Following that the general forumgoer on TL would probably consider DotA marginally more "hardcore" than LoL based on many design decisions made by Riot to make the game more accessible and less arcane. When compared with one another one could certainly make certain baseline comparisons on the fundamental designs of games from a mechanical perspective.
Yet compared to the general masses of gamers TL will snub most non-ESPORTSOMG games as inherently casual on the basis of a lack of a competitive scene in a game. That's just part of the nature of elitist assholes in any community who need to look at other games to confirm their own eltism. As a result the casual/hardcore meter in relation to individual players is relatively meaningless as an individual would consider anybody below their own self-perceived level as "casual" and yet anybody above their own self-perceived hardcore-quota as a tryhard.
In the end it really doesn't matter, on a personal level it just comes down at how much individuals are willing to devote to games and how they define themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
