|
On February 19 2014 01:47 hariooo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2014 22:34 Pr0wler wrote:On February 18 2014 21:13 hariooo wrote:On February 18 2014 19:24 Pr0wler wrote:On February 18 2014 15:43 Jaaaaasper wrote:
It looks like a further dumbed down league of legends. I was hoping for something a bit more innovative or at least non traditional from blizzards take on the genre, but I was hoping for old blizzard, and forgot that we only have modern blizzard. You mean creating a game that is nothing like LoL or Dota is not innovating the genre ? Using different maps and objectives in a genre where until now we had just one map(and one objective) is traditional ? Cmon man... Sometimes I don't get it. Why so much hate towards one company ? Having less features than similar games isn't "innovative" at all. Not to mention there are plenty of DOTA-clones out there with the same mechanics already (no items, branching in-game progression, etc.). It's like saying Hearthstone is "innovative". It's highly accessible (compared to other online card games) and fun, but in terms of gameplay there isn't really anything new. That's what I expect from HotS. If the person you're responding to expected something else, then they should look elsewhere. P.S. people criticize Blizzard because they basically took two franchises and made them kind of a joke. Yeah D3 and SC2 sold alright but when you consider the legacy of the prequels, it's very hard to frame the performance and subsequent public receptions of the sequels as a success. Where are those games ? If there are plenty of them I must know at least one... Unfortunately I don't. It's funny that you focus on the features that are missing, but not on the new ones. Whatever pleases you. Dawngate. It's not your job to know all the mobas out there but not knowing them isn't an argument. So "unfortunately" you're just ignorant. There are no new "features". It's going to be like Hearthstone; it will have the most basic features of the genre and be highly accessible and generally fun.
Lol. Insofar as anybody knows, Dawngate has been in development for LESS time than HotS... and hasn't even been released yet. You're just hating on Blizzard for the sake of hating on Blizzard.
|
How is admitting to playing Blizzard games in this thread because I find them fun "hating on Blizzard for the sake of hating on Blizzard"?
That Blizzard is releasing games centered around accessibility and not really pushing the envelope with "innovative" features shouldn't really be a controversial statement to make. Can you think of any features considered innovative to the genre that Hearthstone or SC2 made that weren't aimed at making the game easy to play?
|
On February 19 2014 03:20 hariooo wrote:
How is admitting to playing Blizzard games in this thread because I find them fun "hating on Blizzard for the sake of hating on Blizzard"?
That Blizzard is releasing games centered around accessibility and not really pushing the envelope with "innovative" features shouldn't really be a controversial statement to make. Can you think of any features considered innovative to the genre that Hearthstone or SC2 made that weren't aimed at making the game easy to play?
Okay... you and the original guy claiming "lots of mobas" in a rather negative post are not the same person... case closed.
|
topdeckmoba mobacraft2 mobacraftspace mobacraftspace2 mobaofduty1-12 mobafield1-4 batmanmoba mobastrike mobastrikego eamoba mobafortress mobafortress2 are just a small list of mobas with
(no items, branching in-game progression, etc.)
|
There are like a million mobas out there and they've been blended with virtually every genre. They're in space, they're side scrollers, they're third person shooters, they're mixed with superhero franchises, but in general they're ants compared to the big gorillas of LoL and DotA 2. If you bothered to get off your arse and do some google searching they are there and many of them jumped on the CS-less bandwagon soon after LoL became a success since it was the obvious next step after removing denies.
In terms of well known though the biggest other casual moba in development that I know of is Strife, made by S2 (the HoN guys). If you're only listening to the big dogs though I wouldn't be surprised if all you knew about were Blizz, Riot, and Valve (though at this point it's unclear how big Blizz will be when it comes to mobas).
|
On February 19 2014 01:47 hariooo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2014 22:34 Pr0wler wrote:On February 18 2014 21:13 hariooo wrote:On February 18 2014 19:24 Pr0wler wrote:On February 18 2014 15:43 Jaaaaasper wrote:
It looks like a further dumbed down league of legends. I was hoping for something a bit more innovative or at least non traditional from blizzards take on the genre, but I was hoping for old blizzard, and forgot that we only have modern blizzard. You mean creating a game that is nothing like LoL or Dota is not innovating the genre ? Using different maps and objectives in a genre where until now we had just one map(and one objective) is traditional ? Cmon man... Sometimes I don't get it. Why so much hate towards one company ? Having less features than similar games isn't "innovative" at all. Not to mention there are plenty of DOTA-clones out there with the same mechanics already (no items, branching in-game progression, etc.). It's like saying Hearthstone is "innovative". It's highly accessible (compared to other online card games) and fun, but in terms of gameplay there isn't really anything new. That's what I expect from HotS. If the person you're responding to expected something else, then they should look elsewhere. P.S. people criticize Blizzard because they basically took two franchises and made them kind of a joke. Yeah D3 and SC2 sold alright but when you consider the legacy of the prequels, it's very hard to frame the performance and subsequent public receptions of the sequels as a success. Where are those games ? If there are plenty of them I must know at least one... Unfortunately I don't. It's funny that you focus on the features that are missing, but not on the new ones. Whatever pleases you. Dawngate. It's not your job to know all the mobas out there but not knowing them isn't an argument. So "unfortunately" you're just ignorant. There are no new "features". It's going to be like Hearthstone; it will have the most basic features of the genre and be highly accessible and generally fun.
I have a closed beta key for Dawngate, since almost the start of the beta and I played it quite a lot, but I don't actually think that it fits the "no items, branching in-game progression, etc." criteria. Dawngate has items and pretty much plays like LoL... Yeah it's on a different map(2 lanes instead of 3, but still the game is played on one single map) and they introduce one cool idea - the spirit wells, but I don't find it that different. They even hired the same person that made the monetization model for LoL and their model will be pretty much the same.
I don't know why are you arguing that there is nothing new, when we can clearly see that Blizzard adds some things like Team level and using neutrals to fight on your side. Maybe you don't like it, but that is completely different matter. Also since when "highly accessible and generally fun" is a bad thing ? Last time I checked that equals successful game.
|
On February 19 2014 06:22 Pr0wler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2014 01:47 hariooo wrote:On February 18 2014 22:34 Pr0wler wrote:On February 18 2014 21:13 hariooo wrote:On February 18 2014 19:24 Pr0wler wrote:On February 18 2014 15:43 Jaaaaasper wrote:
It looks like a further dumbed down league of legends. I was hoping for something a bit more innovative or at least non traditional from blizzards take on the genre, but I was hoping for old blizzard, and forgot that we only have modern blizzard. You mean creating a game that is nothing like LoL or Dota is not innovating the genre ? Using different maps and objectives in a genre where until now we had just one map(and one objective) is traditional ? Cmon man... Sometimes I don't get it. Why so much hate towards one company ? Having less features than similar games isn't "innovative" at all. Not to mention there are plenty of DOTA-clones out there with the same mechanics already (no items, branching in-game progression, etc.). It's like saying Hearthstone is "innovative". It's highly accessible (compared to other online card games) and fun, but in terms of gameplay there isn't really anything new. That's what I expect from HotS. If the person you're responding to expected something else, then they should look elsewhere. P.S. people criticize Blizzard because they basically took two franchises and made them kind of a joke. Yeah D3 and SC2 sold alright but when you consider the legacy of the prequels, it's very hard to frame the performance and subsequent public receptions of the sequels as a success. Where are those games ? If there are plenty of them I must know at least one... Unfortunately I don't. It's funny that you focus on the features that are missing, but not on the new ones. Whatever pleases you. Dawngate. It's not your job to know all the mobas out there but not knowing them isn't an argument. So "unfortunately" you're just ignorant. There are no new "features". It's going to be like Hearthstone; it will have the most basic features of the genre and be highly accessible and generally fun. I have a closed beta key for Dawngate, since almost the start of the beta and I played it quite a lot, but I don't actually think that it fits the "no items, branching in-game progression, etc." criteria. Dawngate has items and pretty much plays like LoL... Yeah it's on a different map(2 lanes instead of 3, but still the game is played on one single map) and they introduce one cool idea - the spirit wells, but I don't find it that different. They even hired the same person that made the monetization model for LoL and their model will be pretty much the same. I don't know why are you arguing that there is nothing new, when we can clearly see that Blizzard adds some things like Team level and using neutrals to fight on your side. Maybe you don't like it, but that is completely different matter. Also since when "highly accessible and generally fun" is a bad thing ? Last time I checked that equals successful game.
Shared EXP is part of Strife, not that I think team-wide, map-wide shared exp is a feature that particularly redefines the genre. "Innovative" is, once again, not a term I'd use.
Converting neutrals to fight for you? That's the whole point of some DOTA heroes. So once again, I don't think so.
"Highly accessible and fun" is not a bad thing. Point to where I implied otherwise.
If you look at the last page, I was initially responding to someone who said that Blizzard is creating a game unlike LoL or DOTA that is "innovating the genre". His words. It's pretty clear to me that's not going to be the case. How many times do I have to clarify my point?
|
On February 19 2014 07:14 hariooo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2014 06:22 Pr0wler wrote:On February 19 2014 01:47 hariooo wrote:On February 18 2014 22:34 Pr0wler wrote:On February 18 2014 21:13 hariooo wrote:On February 18 2014 19:24 Pr0wler wrote:On February 18 2014 15:43 Jaaaaasper wrote:
It looks like a further dumbed down league of legends. I was hoping for something a bit more innovative or at least non traditional from blizzards take on the genre, but I was hoping for old blizzard, and forgot that we only have modern blizzard. You mean creating a game that is nothing like LoL or Dota is not innovating the genre ? Using different maps and objectives in a genre where until now we had just one map(and one objective) is traditional ? Cmon man... Sometimes I don't get it. Why so much hate towards one company ? Having less features than similar games isn't "innovative" at all. Not to mention there are plenty of DOTA-clones out there with the same mechanics already (no items, branching in-game progression, etc.). It's like saying Hearthstone is "innovative". It's highly accessible (compared to other online card games) and fun, but in terms of gameplay there isn't really anything new. That's what I expect from HotS. If the person you're responding to expected something else, then they should look elsewhere. P.S. people criticize Blizzard because they basically took two franchises and made them kind of a joke. Yeah D3 and SC2 sold alright but when you consider the legacy of the prequels, it's very hard to frame the performance and subsequent public receptions of the sequels as a success. Where are those games ? If there are plenty of them I must know at least one... Unfortunately I don't. It's funny that you focus on the features that are missing, but not on the new ones. Whatever pleases you. Dawngate. It's not your job to know all the mobas out there but not knowing them isn't an argument. So "unfortunately" you're just ignorant. There are no new "features". It's going to be like Hearthstone; it will have the most basic features of the genre and be highly accessible and generally fun. I have a closed beta key for Dawngate, since almost the start of the beta and I played it quite a lot, but I don't actually think that it fits the "no items, branching in-game progression, etc." criteria. Dawngate has items and pretty much plays like LoL... Yeah it's on a different map(2 lanes instead of 3, but still the game is played on one single map) and they introduce one cool idea - the spirit wells, but I don't find it that different. They even hired the same person that made the monetization model for LoL and their model will be pretty much the same. I don't know why are you arguing that there is nothing new, when we can clearly see that Blizzard adds some things like Team level and using neutrals to fight on your side. Maybe you don't like it, but that is completely different matter. Also since when "highly accessible and generally fun" is a bad thing ? Last time I checked that equals successful game. Shared EXP is part of Strife, not that I think team-wide, map-wide shared exp is a feature that particularly redefines the genre. "Innovative" is, once again, not a term I'd use. Converting neutrals to fight for you? That's the whole point of some DOTA heroes. So once again, I don't think so. "Highly accessible and fun" is not a bad thing. Point to where I implied otherwise. If you look at the last page, I was initially responding to someone who said that Blizzard is creating a game unlike LoL or DOTA that is "innovating the genre". His words. It's pretty clear to me that's not going to be the case. How many times do I have to clarify my point?
First of all I think that you should check the difference between "innovate" and "redefine". Also the difference between "innovation" and "invention".
Fun fact - Strife went into development just after "Blizzard DOTA" was announced and now they share some mechanics... Go figure. Especially knowhing S2's history of making dota style games.
I think that in this market there is a need for more player friendly game, that is not ment to be this "hardcore eSport, win or die" game with extremely toxic comunity. A game where you sit down with 4 friends for 20-30 mins(in lunch break or whatever) and play for fun. With its new mechanics HotS tries to answer that need.
|
On February 19 2014 10:19 Pr0wler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2014 07:14 hariooo wrote:On February 19 2014 06:22 Pr0wler wrote:On February 19 2014 01:47 hariooo wrote:On February 18 2014 22:34 Pr0wler wrote:On February 18 2014 21:13 hariooo wrote:On February 18 2014 19:24 Pr0wler wrote:On February 18 2014 15:43 Jaaaaasper wrote:
It looks like a further dumbed down league of legends. I was hoping for something a bit more innovative or at least non traditional from blizzards take on the genre, but I was hoping for old blizzard, and forgot that we only have modern blizzard. You mean creating a game that is nothing like LoL or Dota is not innovating the genre ? Using different maps and objectives in a genre where until now we had just one map(and one objective) is traditional ? Cmon man... Sometimes I don't get it. Why so much hate towards one company ? Having less features than similar games isn't "innovative" at all. Not to mention there are plenty of DOTA-clones out there with the same mechanics already (no items, branching in-game progression, etc.). It's like saying Hearthstone is "innovative". It's highly accessible (compared to other online card games) and fun, but in terms of gameplay there isn't really anything new. That's what I expect from HotS. If the person you're responding to expected something else, then they should look elsewhere. P.S. people criticize Blizzard because they basically took two franchises and made them kind of a joke. Yeah D3 and SC2 sold alright but when you consider the legacy of the prequels, it's very hard to frame the performance and subsequent public receptions of the sequels as a success. Where are those games ? If there are plenty of them I must know at least one... Unfortunately I don't. It's funny that you focus on the features that are missing, but not on the new ones. Whatever pleases you. Dawngate. It's not your job to know all the mobas out there but not knowing them isn't an argument. So "unfortunately" you're just ignorant. There are no new "features". It's going to be like Hearthstone; it will have the most basic features of the genre and be highly accessible and generally fun. I have a closed beta key for Dawngate, since almost the start of the beta and I played it quite a lot, but I don't actually think that it fits the "no items, branching in-game progression, etc." criteria. Dawngate has items and pretty much plays like LoL... Yeah it's on a different map(2 lanes instead of 3, but still the game is played on one single map) and they introduce one cool idea - the spirit wells, but I don't find it that different. They even hired the same person that made the monetization model for LoL and their model will be pretty much the same. I don't know why are you arguing that there is nothing new, when we can clearly see that Blizzard adds some things like Team level and using neutrals to fight on your side. Maybe you don't like it, but that is completely different matter. Also since when "highly accessible and generally fun" is a bad thing ? Last time I checked that equals successful game. Shared EXP is part of Strife, not that I think team-wide, map-wide shared exp is a feature that particularly redefines the genre. "Innovative" is, once again, not a term I'd use. Converting neutrals to fight for you? That's the whole point of some DOTA heroes. So once again, I don't think so. "Highly accessible and fun" is not a bad thing. Point to where I implied otherwise. If you look at the last page, I was initially responding to someone who said that Blizzard is creating a game unlike LoL or DOTA that is "innovating the genre". His words. It's pretty clear to me that's not going to be the case. How many times do I have to clarify my point? First of all I think that you should check the difference between "innovate" and "redefine". Also the difference between "innovation" and "invention". Fun fact - Strife went into development just after "Blizzard DOTA" was announced and now they share some mechanics... Go figure. Especially knowhing S2's history of making dota style games. I think that in this market there is a need for more player friendly game, that is not ment to be this "hardcore eSport, win or die" game with extremely toxic comunity. A game where you sit down with 4 friends for 20-30 mins(in lunch break or whatever) and play for fun. With its new mechanics HotS tries to answer that need.
There are no changes to established genre gameplay mechanics. Therefore there is no innovation. So that's your English lesson for the day.
|
On February 19 2014 10:19 Pr0wler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2014 07:14 hariooo wrote:On February 19 2014 06:22 Pr0wler wrote:On February 19 2014 01:47 hariooo wrote:On February 18 2014 22:34 Pr0wler wrote:On February 18 2014 21:13 hariooo wrote:On February 18 2014 19:24 Pr0wler wrote:On February 18 2014 15:43 Jaaaaasper wrote:
It looks like a further dumbed down league of legends. I was hoping for something a bit more innovative or at least non traditional from blizzards take on the genre, but I was hoping for old blizzard, and forgot that we only have modern blizzard. You mean creating a game that is nothing like LoL or Dota is not innovating the genre ? Using different maps and objectives in a genre where until now we had just one map(and one objective) is traditional ? Cmon man... Sometimes I don't get it. Why so much hate towards one company ? Having less features than similar games isn't "innovative" at all. Not to mention there are plenty of DOTA-clones out there with the same mechanics already (no items, branching in-game progression, etc.). It's like saying Hearthstone is "innovative". It's highly accessible (compared to other online card games) and fun, but in terms of gameplay there isn't really anything new. That's what I expect from HotS. If the person you're responding to expected something else, then they should look elsewhere. P.S. people criticize Blizzard because they basically took two franchises and made them kind of a joke. Yeah D3 and SC2 sold alright but when you consider the legacy of the prequels, it's very hard to frame the performance and subsequent public receptions of the sequels as a success. Where are those games ? If there are plenty of them I must know at least one... Unfortunately I don't. It's funny that you focus on the features that are missing, but not on the new ones. Whatever pleases you. Dawngate. It's not your job to know all the mobas out there but not knowing them isn't an argument. So "unfortunately" you're just ignorant. There are no new "features". It's going to be like Hearthstone; it will have the most basic features of the genre and be highly accessible and generally fun. I have a closed beta key for Dawngate, since almost the start of the beta and I played it quite a lot, but I don't actually think that it fits the "no items, branching in-game progression, etc." criteria. Dawngate has items and pretty much plays like LoL... Yeah it's on a different map(2 lanes instead of 3, but still the game is played on one single map) and they introduce one cool idea - the spirit wells, but I don't find it that different. They even hired the same person that made the monetization model for LoL and their model will be pretty much the same. I don't know why are you arguing that there is nothing new, when we can clearly see that Blizzard adds some things like Team level and using neutrals to fight on your side. Maybe you don't like it, but that is completely different matter. Also since when "highly accessible and generally fun" is a bad thing ? Last time I checked that equals successful game. Shared EXP is part of Strife, not that I think team-wide, map-wide shared exp is a feature that particularly redefines the genre. "Innovative" is, once again, not a term I'd use. Converting neutrals to fight for you? That's the whole point of some DOTA heroes. So once again, I don't think so. "Highly accessible and fun" is not a bad thing. Point to where I implied otherwise. If you look at the last page, I was initially responding to someone who said that Blizzard is creating a game unlike LoL or DOTA that is "innovating the genre". His words. It's pretty clear to me that's not going to be the case. How many times do I have to clarify my point? First of all I think that you should check the difference between "innovate" and "redefine". Also the difference between "innovation" and "invention". Fun fact - Strife went into development just after "Blizzard DOTA" was announced and now they share some mechanics... Go figure. Especially knowhing S2's history of making dota style games. I think that in this market there is a need for more player friendly game, that is not ment to be this "hardcore eSport, win or die" game with extremely toxic comunity. A game where you sit down with 4 friends for 20-30 mins(in lunch break or whatever) and play for fun. With its new mechanics HotS tries to answer that need.
Isn't that pretty much league of legends was to dota? How much more do you want to dilute the genre in the effort to make it more noob friendly? If people want to play it I understand why blizzard does it, but its not the blizzard I once knew and generally tolerated.
|
On February 18 2014 18:38 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On February 18 2014 15:40 ETisME wrote:
I have found a way to play the alpha and some "hack" that lets me choose which hero to use against easy ai.
It's way too early to say anything since easy ai is really damn easy.
Some points that you probably didn't know:
Tank in siege mode can move slowly and does not have mount, it will have a booster instead (unlike mounts which needs time to summon, this one doesn't)
Everyone has a passive.
The recall ability is called heartstone.
The tank in siege mode cannot move. At least not in the alpha right now
Oh then I guess it's a bug for me since I am not launching the game the proper way.
No wonder why it looked kinda weird
|
On February 19 2014 13:19 hariooo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2014 10:19 Pr0wler wrote:On February 19 2014 07:14 hariooo wrote:On February 19 2014 06:22 Pr0wler wrote:On February 19 2014 01:47 hariooo wrote:On February 18 2014 22:34 Pr0wler wrote:On February 18 2014 21:13 hariooo wrote:On February 18 2014 19:24 Pr0wler wrote:On February 18 2014 15:43 Jaaaaasper wrote:
It looks like a further dumbed down league of legends. I was hoping for something a bit more innovative or at least non traditional from blizzards take on the genre, but I was hoping for old blizzard, and forgot that we only have modern blizzard. You mean creating a game that is nothing like LoL or Dota is not innovating the genre ? Using different maps and objectives in a genre where until now we had just one map(and one objective) is traditional ? Cmon man... Sometimes I don't get it. Why so much hate towards one company ? Having less features than similar games isn't "innovative" at all. Not to mention there are plenty of DOTA-clones out there with the same mechanics already (no items, branching in-game progression, etc.). It's like saying Hearthstone is "innovative". It's highly accessible (compared to other online card games) and fun, but in terms of gameplay there isn't really anything new. That's what I expect from HotS. If the person you're responding to expected something else, then they should look elsewhere. P.S. people criticize Blizzard because they basically took two franchises and made them kind of a joke. Yeah D3 and SC2 sold alright but when you consider the legacy of the prequels, it's very hard to frame the performance and subsequent public receptions of the sequels as a success. Where are those games ? If there are plenty of them I must know at least one... Unfortunately I don't. It's funny that you focus on the features that are missing, but not on the new ones. Whatever pleases you. Dawngate. It's not your job to know all the mobas out there but not knowing them isn't an argument. So "unfortunately" you're just ignorant. There are no new "features". It's going to be like Hearthstone; it will have the most basic features of the genre and be highly accessible and generally fun. I have a closed beta key for Dawngate, since almost the start of the beta and I played it quite a lot, but I don't actually think that it fits the "no items, branching in-game progression, etc." criteria. Dawngate has items and pretty much plays like LoL... Yeah it's on a different map(2 lanes instead of 3, but still the game is played on one single map) and they introduce one cool idea - the spirit wells, but I don't find it that different. They even hired the same person that made the monetization model for LoL and their model will be pretty much the same. I don't know why are you arguing that there is nothing new, when we can clearly see that Blizzard adds some things like Team level and using neutrals to fight on your side. Maybe you don't like it, but that is completely different matter. Also since when "highly accessible and generally fun" is a bad thing ? Last time I checked that equals successful game. Shared EXP is part of Strife, not that I think team-wide, map-wide shared exp is a feature that particularly redefines the genre. "Innovative" is, once again, not a term I'd use. Converting neutrals to fight for you? That's the whole point of some DOTA heroes. So once again, I don't think so. "Highly accessible and fun" is not a bad thing. Point to where I implied otherwise. If you look at the last page, I was initially responding to someone who said that Blizzard is creating a game unlike LoL or DOTA that is "innovating the genre". His words. It's pretty clear to me that's not going to be the case. How many times do I have to clarify my point? First of all I think that you should check the difference between "innovate" and "redefine". Also the difference between "innovation" and "invention". Fun fact - Strife went into development just after "Blizzard DOTA" was announced and now they share some mechanics... Go figure. Especially knowhing S2's history of making dota style games. I think that in this market there is a need for more player friendly game, that is not ment to be this "hardcore eSport, win or die" game with extremely toxic comunity. A game where you sit down with 4 friends for 20-30 mins(in lunch break or whatever) and play for fun. With its new mechanics HotS tries to answer that need. There are no changes to established genre gameplay mechanics. Therefore there is no innovation. So that's your English lesson for the day.
Yes there is. Before every single hero leveled up individually, now the entire team levels up as one. There you go - change to established gameplay mechanic.
p.s I'm done actually... You "won" !
|
Let's call everything which involves heroes a moba and a lol clone. Space shooters where your ships have unique abilities and have to defeat the enemy have existed for over a decade, so have fps where you do the same.
|
If Blizzard REALLY wants to one up Riot, they should disable chat like in hearthstone. That would be a different kind of experience right there.
I can't help feeling like Blizzard's chance for a MOBA game disappeared long ago with WC3 Dota.
HotS' has joined the MOBA party too late I feel, where as Hearthstone has had the opportunity to become the first commercially successful online CCG. Something to keep in mind when comparing Hearthstone's success and HotS' potential success.
|
On February 20 2014 01:50 DonKey_ wrote:
If Blizzard REALLY wants to one up Riot, they should disable chat like in hearthstone. That would be a different kind of experience right there.
I can't help feeling like Blizzard's chance for a MOBA game disappeared long ago with WC3 Dota.
HotS' has joined the MOBA party too late I feel, where as Hearthstone has had the opportunity to become the first commercially successful online CCG. Something to keep in mind when comparing Hearthstone's success and HotS' potential success.
Part of Hearthstone's accessibility is its quick turnover. Rounds are played relatively quickly. Most MOBA-type games still require at least half an hour and usually you need to set aside an hour to be on the safe side. There's still quite a big niche to fit in terms of further streamlining the genre, in my opinion.
|
On February 19 2014 03:49 Kupon3ss wrote:
topdeckmoba mobacraft2 mobacraftspace mobacraftspace2 mobaofduty1-12 mobafield1-4 batmanmoba mobastrike mobastrikego eamoba mobafortress mobafortress2 are just a small list of mobas with
(no items, branching in-game progression, etc.)
I googled some of these and got no results. Are they just vapourWare/hobbyProjects?
|
|
|
If only they applied their WCS StarCraft competitions to their pro-LoL agenda.
|
On February 24 2014 19:37 Geisterkarle wrote:I just found this information: http://heroesofthestorm.blizzpro.com/2014/02/20/rumor-heroes-pay-model-league-legends/tl;dr HotStorm seems to be like LoL and have only a few, rotating heroes available for free, the rest you have to buy or grind! What are you thoughts about that? I dislike this idea/system! Makes it more difficult for people to get competitive if they have to pay for the important heroes!
I like that system because I love unlock things in game, it gives you a sense of progress. But it has some letdowns, for example in LOL:
- If the balance/meta changes, for a while you can be in disadvantage against other players if you dont have a champion unlocked, not a big issue for casual players like me, but it is annoying for ranked games.
- Some people don´t have time to grind or they dont like to do so.
- Less freedom to try new champions and tactics, if you have to "waste" time to get a champion just to try something funny, you simply won´t do it.
|
On February 24 2014 19:37 Geisterkarle wrote:I just found this information: http://heroesofthestorm.blizzpro.com/2014/02/20/rumor-heroes-pay-model-league-legends/tl;dr HotStorm seems to be like LoL and have only a few, rotating heroes available for free, the rest you have to buy or grind! What are you thoughts about that? I dislike this idea/system! Makes it more difficult for people to get competitive if they have to pay for the important heroes!
I think it is a good model, as long as you can get all the heroes by just playing, that's fine.
but I won't have enough time to grind games, so it is a bad model for me (or good if I start paying and playing)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
