A handful of TeamLiquid staff played some Heroes of the Storm this morning, notably during the opening ceremonies because the line was so short we could go right back in immediately after our games. We played five or six games and won them all, which I believe qualifies us as some of the most experienced as well as top tier HotS players as of today. The line is now something like two hours so hopefully our record stands.
Overall the game is fun, and it's largely what you expect for "Definitely Not Dota Or League (But Totally Dota And League If You're Into That). The graphics are crisp and the game handles well, the art style is different enough from other games in the genre to make it stand out. The controls are good, with character animations leaning more on the League of Legends side of things with very fast turning speeds.
They have a handful of cardboard info panels with very basic information on the game on the floor, and while most of it is things you know (you can kill minions! your teammates help you!) this part about the hero roles is relevant enough to transcribe, as it seems to be the roles they are aiming for.
Assasin Heroes do a lot of damage. Try to avoid enemy heroes and avoid enemy counter-attacks.
Warrior Heroes are tough. They often have ways to stun or block the enemy. Try to protect your allies.
Support Heroes often heal their allies. Stay close to your friends and help keep them alive.
Specialist Heroes do lots of weird things! Many are good at killing teams but other have powers that change the flow of the entire game. Explore specials to have a unique Hero Brawler Experience.
Current heroes in the game
Time to play Name That Dota Hero
There is no one standard map type as of yet, currently there are three and they have intentions of adding new ones and retiring the old as people stop playing them. The whole experience reminds me a lot of the Diretide/Greiveling modes in Dota, they aim for 20 minute games and each map revolves around an interesting enemy or mechanic. One of the employees mistakenly told me there were four modes and some of the Blizzard-provided screens has terrain I don't recognize so presumably a lot are under development.
Blackheart Bay: There are chests that drops doubloons, and you pick them up to give to a pirate. When he gets 10 he starts firing a (ghost?) ship at your opponent's stuff, I think it randomly targets their towers but it may be something else. We made a lot of Diretide jokes during this.
Haunted Mines: You fight on two levels, one above ground as a normal map, and one underground (which has no towers or base structures). Haunted, spooky, mines open up on a timer, and you go into them to kill skeleton minions. When they're all dead, each team summons a golem with their strength depending on how many skeletons your team killed. In our first game of this we killed 98 skeletons and our opponents got 2 which made things fairly one sided (he raxed them himself while we pushed the other lane).
Dragonshire: This one felt the most standard to me. There are two control points on the map, and if you control both you can summon The Dragon Knight and control him. He is basically Roshan/Baron and from what we played seemed super strong and fun as you get to run into towers with him. The map layout is a little reminiscent of Twisted Treeline to me but that might just be because any non-standard MOBA map makes me think of that.
The general game mechanics are vastly different than similar games in a few ways.
There are no items, there is no shop. You differentiate your hero by choosing feat-like abilities every so often (levels 1, 4, 7, with 10 being an activated ultimate and 20 being a different ultimate - I forget when in between those). It's things like +20 attack damage or 10% attack speed, with some of them also having cooldown reduction properties or adding to your q-w-e abilities. Each of these are dependent on your hero, there are some that many heroes have but also unique abilities (Diablo can choose to get a built-in Radiance at some level).
You get 3 of your skills (plus a passive) at level 1 with the scaling of them depending on what you choose from leveling, and gain your last at level 10.
Experience is shared throughout the team, no matter where you are on the map. You do not get extra experience, or any currency, from last hitting. You get experience while you are dead. Your team will always all be the same level.
Hitting B will bring you to the fountain as with League. You also have a mount that you can use when you are out of combat that gives +20% move speed to run around the map. There are no TP scrolls.
There are certain jungle creeps you can kill, and they will summon mercenaries that will march forward towards enemy towers. They are not controllable and seemed strong.
Towers have a limited number of bullets, something like 16-20 and they can run out of ammo. They restock over time but an extended siege can run them dry.
At the end there is a "Features" screen which lists "unlock heroes and skins" which leaves me to believe this will be similar to LoL in how to get new heroes, rather than having only cosmetics as unlockables like Dota.
The alpha build has 2-3 different skins for each hero as well as each mount (screenshots of some below).
I played 6 different heroes and they all had gap closers so I think this is a common trait. Also one of the supports has a teleport that can go to anywhere visible on the map.
Here is information from the press kit.
Heroes of the Storm Fact Sheet
What is Heroes of the Storm?
Heroes of the Storm is a free-to-play online team brawler starring your favorite Blizzard characters. In Heroes, the epic battles between the champions and villains of Warcraft, StarCraft, and Diablo aren’t settled with last hits and kill-stealing—players are distinguished through the accomplishments of their team.
Whether you’re a hardcore WoW raider, a demon-slaying Barbarian, or a Bronze league Terran, you’ll find a customizable hero from across the Blizzard multiverse to suit your play style. Grab your buddies and engage in fast-paced mayhem across varied battlegrounds that impact strategy and change the way you play every match. When the mightiest characters in gaming history clash, only you can decide who’ll come out on top!
Who Are The Heroes?
Characters like Thrall, Kerrigan, Diablo, Arthas, Zeratul, Tyrael—powerful warriors from Azeroth, Sanctuary, the Koprulu sector, and beyond—have been sucked into the Nexus, a transdimensional storm. Stranded in a strange limbo of clashing universes, these combatants are joined by the same fate—to engage in pulse-pounding combat, to team up in a deadly struggle for survival . . . and to answer the age-old question. . . .
Who Would Win?
Heroes represents more than 20 years of Blizzard gaming history, settings, and iconic characters, all mashed up into an epic, action-packed team-based strategy game. Fight out classic showdowns such as Tyrael vs. Diablo, or settle those late-night debates you've had about who's the stronger leader—Raynor or Thrall? Could Kerrigan and Zeratul take down the Barbarian and Demon Hunter from Diablo III? Could Uther in his prime give Arthas the punishment he deserves?
Each customizable hero offers a wealth of tactical options and unique strengths that reflect their abilities in their respective games. Bringing these considerable powers to bear in the same setting opens limitless possibilities for previously impossible matchups and mind-blowing team combinations.
What Is The Nexus?
This isn’t your run-of-the-mill transdimensional vortex! The Nexus plunges the greatest warriors and strategists of the Blizzard multiverse into one of several unique battlegrounds for a no-holds-barred melee. Conquer mercenary camps to recruit powerful allies to your side, such as siege giants. Unlock the mysteries of each battleground, including ghostly pirate ships, the fickle Raven Lord, and massive grave golems to achieve a glorious victory.
Smash Your Enemies In Style!
Distinguish yourself and your team in battle with dozens of unique heroes, skins, and mounts. Then choose from among multiple heroic abilities, enabling you to dish out ruin in the form of orbital bombardments, strafing frost wyrms, or all-consuming hellfire—to name just a few of the many ways you’ll be able to visit destruction upon your enemies. Good players win. The great ones make it look good, too.
Heroes of the Storm FAQ
Q: What is Heroes of the Storm?
A: Heroes of the Storm is a free-to-play online team brawler, starring your favorite Blizzard characters. Build and customize heroes from across every Blizzard universe to suit your play style. Team up with your friends and engage in fast-paced mayhem across varied battlegrounds that impact strategy and change the way you play the game.
In each match you can select from an array of Blizzard heroes and join a team to battle against enemy players, with the ultimate goal of destroying the enemy base. You'll have the opportunity to stage classic showdowns such as Raynor vs. Kerrigan, or mix and match heroes from different games to fight together and against each other.
Each hero starts the game with a set of powerful abilities and traits, and over the course of the battle you'll have the ability to customize your hero with unique talents and heroic abilities. While each hero has certain core strengths, the talents you select can greatly change the way your hero fights. Support heroes like Uther for example, can be played as almost a pure healer, or can take on more of a damage dealing role.
Q: What makes Heroes of the Storm different?
A: Heroes offers a uniquely Blizzard take on the genre. You'll choose from an array of different Blizzard heroes, each of whom is customizable through a versatile talent system. One of these talent options is a selection between different ultimate heroic abilities. Arthas, as an example, can choose the ability to call Sindragosa, a giant frost wyrm, to do a strafing run. Or he can raise an army of the undead to swarm the enemy. Which one is better? Well, that's like asking if dragons or zombies are more awesome—that's up to you. Cool choices like these exist in each hero's unique talent array.
The game also offers a selection of different battlegrounds to fight on. Each battleground has a special secret that can affect the overall strategy of the match. In Blackheart's Bay for example, a ghostly pirate ship has taken up residence in the center. Treasure chests of gold coins spawn periodically on either side of the battleground. You can collect these coins or steal them from enemy players to pay tribute to Blackheart. Pay enough bounty and he'll train the ship's cannons on enemy fortifications for terrible, terrible damage. The Cursed Hollow battleground offers a different challenge. Here, the fickle Raven Lord holds sway. During the fight, tribute totems will spawn periodically -- collect enough of them and the Raven Lord will curse the opposing team, disabling their towers and weakening their minions for a period of time.
Many of the battlegrounds share environmental features, like forts, which are sprinkled along the pathways between each team's base. Each fort includes structures such as gates to prevent enemy movement and healing fountains for health and mana regeneration, in addition to a protective guard tower. Capturable watchtowers also mark important positions on many battlegrounds, offering vision on key areas.
Another differentiator with the game is match length. With a target game time of 20 min, Heroes of the Storm concentrates the intense battles and back-and-forth gameplay of online brawlers into fun, quick, action-packed matches, the perfect length to knock out a few games on your lunch break.
Q: Which heroes are in the game, and what roles do they play?
A: 18 heroes are available for battle in the BlizzCon demo of Heroes of the Storm, but this is just the first group of characters that have been sucked into the Nexus. Many more heroes will join the battle over time from Azeroth, Sanctuary, and the Koprulu Sector. But who knows? The Nexus may draw from other dimensions in the future as well.
Each hero offers different strengths and weaknesses depending on their role. Warriors such as Diablo can dive right into a melee, soaking up damage and dealing it back. Assassins like Kerrigan deal tremendous damage and can pick off unsuspecting enemies, but must choose their battles carefully, as they can dish more than they can take. Support heroes like Uther can swing the tide of battle, assisting with healing, buffs, or other abilities to manipulate the battle in the favor of allies. Other types include the siege and commander heroes, which are more specialized roles that bring different strengths as you build a team.
Q: Heroes of the Storm is free-to-play—what is available for sale and what can be earned in game?
A: We'll discuss more details about how the business model works in the future. What we can say is that you will be able to unlock heroes and other content just by playing the game. Cosmetic upgrades like skins, equipment, and mounts will be available. New heroes will also be released over time, along with new battlegrounds, though battlegrounds will probably be freely available to all players. It's also possible that additional talent options for existing heroes could be available as unlockable content.
Q: What kind of post-launch support is planned?
A: We will announce specific plans for post-launch support at a later date. But we can say that the Nexus is quite a powerful dimensional storm—new heroes are arriving all the time. That being the case, you can expect to see regular drops of new content throughout testing, as well as after the launch of the game.
Q: Is it required to have StarCraft II to play?
A: No. Heroes of the Storm will be a standalone game, separate from StarCraft II.
Q: On which platforms will Heroes be playable?
A: Heroes is being developed for PC and Mac.
Q: Will there be a beta test? When will it start? How can I apply for the beta?
A: Yes we do intend to run a beta test for Heroes of the Storm in the first half of 2014. We'll announce more details at a later date. Now is a great time to visit the Heroes of the Storm website and sign up for the closed beta as we begin preparations.
Q: When will Heroes of the Storm be released?
A: We don't have a release date we can share at this time. We'll have a better idea for a release window after we start beta testing.
Q: Is there something else you can tell me about the game?
A: Not right now.
Q: Seriously?
A: Yes, really.
Q: But...
A: Keep eye on the official Heroes website at http:/www.heroesofthestorm.com for updates. You can also follow the game on Twitter @BlizzHeroes, and on the official Facebook page at http://www.facebook.com/BlizzHeroes.
While it certainly won't replace dota in my heart, I imagine Heros of the Swarm will be the kind of game I play when I have to get away from dota, or am intoxicated. I really hope they execute it well, the whole no gold thing sounds interesting.
Are the maps symmetrical in a way that gives each team the same approach to certain objectives?
To clarify what I mean: I wouldn't consider LoL's map Summoner's Rift quite symmetrical in that one side has dragon and one side has baron so the two teams have different approaches to those two objectives and I wouldn't consider Dota2's map symmetrical given how there are different approaches to Roshan and different jungles.
Does it seem like it will be good? Does it seem like they are gearing it for competitive play? Do it seem like it will make a good esport? Does it seem like they want it to be?
On November 09 2013 14:02 2xNoodle wrote: Are the maps symmetrical in a way that gives each team the same approach to certain objectives?
To clarify what I mean: I wouldn't consider LoL's map Summoner's Rift quite symmetrical in that one side has dragon and one side has baron so the two teams have different approaches to those two objectives and I wouldn't consider Dota2's map symmetrical given how there are different approaches to Roshan and different jungles.
They're all symmetrical both for the objectives (like the coins/control points) and the creep camps from what I saw. The merc camps might be better for one side on some map that I missed though.
On November 09 2013 14:01 Soluhwin wrote: While it certainly won't replace dota in my heart, I imagine Heros of the Swarm will be the kind of game I play when I have to get away from dota, or am intoxicated. I really hope they execute it well, the whole no gold thing sounds interesting.
This is mostly how I see it so far. It's definitely fun but I don't see it replacing Dota for me as far as "games I play every day" goes.
On November 09 2013 14:01 Soluhwin wrote: While it certainly won't replace dota in my heart, I imagine Heros of the Swarm will be the kind of game I play when I have to get away from dota, or am intoxicated. I really hope they execute it well, the whole no gold thing sounds interesting.
That's a copy/paste from posted placards, I don't really know either, but one of them is Tinker! I didn't play many of them I mostly just right click people.
On November 09 2013 14:09 blamous wrote: Does it seem like it will be good? Does it seem like they are gearing it for competitive play? Do it seem like it will make a good esport? Does it seem like they want it to be?
During a Q&A the one thing they said about competitive play is that they 'plan on letting the community do it'. I think they know their best bet is to make it fun first and then see what happens, competition wise, so we'll see how it plays out. I don't think it can be good competitively in the current iteration but as this is a F2P team game they could develop it into one over the course of a few years.
On November 09 2013 13:57 xxjcdentonxx wrote: Calling it HotS. What's the big idea.
If it was still called Blizzard All-Stars, the acronym for it would be BallS
All I really see this as is a coffee break Dota. Not deep but it'll be fun to play here and there when my friends aren't up for some Dota. Hopefully unlocking new heroes doesn't require a grind as huge as LoL's, because that would conflict with what I want out of this game.
On November 09 2013 13:57 xxjcdentonxx wrote: Calling it HotS. What's the big idea.
If it was still called Blizzard All-Stars, the acronym for it would be BallS
All I really see this as is a coffee break Dota. Not deep but it'll be fun to play here and there when my friends aren't up for some Dota. Hopefully unlocking new heroes doesn't require a grind as huge as LoL's, because that would conflict with what I want out of this game.
I hope all the heroes become free instead.
On November 09 2013 14:15 EnumaAvalon wrote: Stitches... Is the sprite the same as the abomination from WC3?
Yes, he's based off of Diablo's The Butcher and plays just like Pudge.
It's unlikely they can do a Dota 2 F2P model. It only works with Valve because they can afford to give away a fully featured game for free if it spreads the installation base of Steam. Odds on HotS will be similar to Hearthstone or LoL where you can either grind for a huge amount of time or pay to unlock everything.
Props for Blizzard for not just making another Dota as originally planned and taking their own direction. Finding another mod as simple and fun as a MOBA wouldn't be an easy task, but it's a really nice opportunity for them to set a foot in that scene.
On a very first impression, what I dislike are some of the mechanics, such as the globally shared XP and no last hitting. That could reduce significantly the deepness of the game. But of course, it's very easy to judge without having played.
How are skillful players able to clearly differentiate themselves? Without last hitting and stuff... Also, I gather matching with noobs will hurt your game even more in HotS huh?
Having to sink time into it to unlock heroes instantly turns me off to this game. Hopefully there will be a traditional sale option with none of the bullshit that comes with FTP.
I would have to see it being played (and play it myself of course) before I can truly judge it, but atm this doesn't sound interesting to me in the slightest.
Another great interactive experience from the mind of game design genius Dustin Browder. And, Browder has been promoted to a "Vice President" position.
I became sold on Browder by the end of 2010, although, i was always impressed by Red Alert 2.
The Browder-Haters must be smashing their keyboards and stomping on their mice.
The Browder-Haters are really good for a laugh though... they really keep TL.Net a humour filled place.
Was pretty hyped after all the trailers... until no last hit, global exp, no items, and 'we don't care about esports'. Will have to try it of course, but just seems like it's going to be extremely shallow.
I like everything I've heard and seen about Heroes except I'm a bit iffy on no items and the game length.
However, as to game length, if there is actually action from the get go instead of just the usual farm up in DotA, that sounds like an improvement. Some of my favorite memories of DotA resulted from trilane situations, which I see rarely in pubs, first blood ganks, and especially only mid games, plus one time my friends and I did a level 1 push strat (mass summons, auras, and building kill abilities, like techies). Of course, I only play pubs ever since the original group of friends all switched to WoW like 8 years ago.
As far as no items, I not really sure how they'll make that work, as a lot of people will probably complain. If they pull it off I'll be happier with no items than over-reliance on items like dagger and bkb, but I would miss having items at all, I think.
I also like this attitude of, "we're making a game that's fun to play, let the community decide if it should be an esport." This is a good approach rather than "we're out to beat LoL, DotA, and get even richer." Even if they naturally want to do that, I like the idea of a hands off approach compared to what I understand is a very controlled game in LoL, by Riot. Blizzard can be happy making bank off of micro-transactions, and the community can make esports happen, including the ability to make maps.
One area Blizzard has continued to stand out is making their games really well--in particular making them visually clean. The gameplay trailer for Heroes looked much cleaner than what I've seen of HoN, LoL, or DotA2. This isn't just Blizzard fanboying or being anti-other MOBAs. I also prefer the visuals of DotA on WC3. I suppose I might adjust if I actually spent significant time playing DotA2 or LoL, but Heroes of the Storm already looks easier on the eyes, and I haven't played that either.
Speaking of easy on the eyes, Nova looked so damn lovable in that cinematic trailer, which came as a complete surprise. She did not win me over as a friend or admirer at all in SC2, just a blonde version of the stock Kerrigan portrait that was fortunately abandoned for HotS.
Blizzard's been getting embarrassed by the competition for years now (while still making madly popular games anyway), I think Hearthstone shows that they still have some of that magic, and maybe Heroes can be another success bred from competition.
Im a little worried about the direction they are going in. When they showed blizzard dota in the starcraft engine, my main concern is the game engine. Personally i think in order for MOBAS to feel good is by following the warcraft 3 engine where things dont slip and slide like water. In the teamliquid post it says that HOTS is feeling more like league. Also i dont understand why people love the league micro transaction format. Please blizz have all the heroes available from the start. Like dota 2. I hate the fact that all heroes arent available from the start. I love the new ideas they are bringing forward. With a massive following and big IPS i doubt this game will fail But some of the things they're doing arent original enough. The press B to back i think is a bit of an overkill. They already have a mount system in the game already which is fine on its own IMO.
Another thing im sort of worried about is the skin system. Cause blizzard has iconic characters, re-skinning them to be something completely different i think kinda sucks The nova on roller skates is just silly. Some crossovers i dont mind, like uther in a medic outfit is 'OK' Part of why why dota 1 was so popular and lasted so long was because of its art style and memorable character models. (Well most of them)
On November 09 2013 15:31 oxxo wrote: Was pretty hyped after all the trailers... until no last hit, global exp, no items, and 'we don't care about esports'. Will have to try it of course, but just seems like it's going to be extremely shallow.
The esports thing I actually took as a good sign. If it takes off it takes off, but they aren't going to try and create an artificial scene that's sustained only by their money and not public interest. More like Dota, less like League.
Here are some gameplay video i found for any one curious. Also Blizzard is steering away from the MOBA label, they call it hero brawler. I'm feeling some smash bro vibes.
I'm not a fan of MOBAs at all, but what they've shown and said so far about HotS resonates pretty well with me. Shorter games, more action, less illogical mechanics, easier to learn. I will definitely follow the development of this game.
On November 09 2013 16:31 broodbucket wrote: Looks like a nice, more casual game, like something I'd play with friends instead of Dota when I don't have 5 and don't want to pub
There's something dull about the art style that's bugging me though, maybe I just need to play it to understand
Might be that the models are incredibly detailed, and that's distracting you. I mean, they modeled the individual veins on Illidan and Diablo's arms.
Still needs a lot more work graphic-wise and gameplay-wise, but it is looking interesting. The gameplay vids look very different from Dota and LoL in many, if not all, aspects.
On November 09 2013 14:37 Nopeudon wrote: How are skillful players able to clearly differentiate themselves? Without last hitting and stuff... Also, I gather matching with noobs will hurt your game even more in HotS huh?
This is what I'm concerned about... I played two games today at Blizzcon and wasn't really feeling it. Pure skill can carry games in LoL, but based off of some of the design elements in the game that I've seen, and from what Dustin Browder was saying (somebody actually asked him a question very similar as far as skill differentiation will go), they are actively trying to stay away from that sort of thing happening... which blows my mind. It almost seems like they're trying way too hard to make a statement. Browder always has his slants and odd perspectives with how his vision of games should go, and he made it sound like nine people are waiting for a dude to win the game since he got fed, which yeah is true in some cases but it isn't always as hopeless and bland as he made it out to be.
We'll see how it turns out. It's still way too early to be making any bold claims about the game
This will _never_ be competitive, why does Blizzard have to make every single game they come out with extremely casual? It's fucked up and extremely dissapointing.
On November 09 2013 17:12 Trizz wrote: This will _never_ be competitive, why does Blizzard have to make every single game they come out with extremely casual? It's fucked up and extremely dissapointing.
The thing I'm worried about the most in this game is how people can differentiate their selves via skill... no items, no last hits, exp while dead... does blizzard just want to make a casual game? What the hell happened?
10 additional heroes already panned out and more coming. don't know how many heroes available at release they have a list of hundreds of heroes they can pull from and they want a good balance of heroes from each universe but they are mostly focused on the quality of heroes rather than quantity.
aiming for double the amount of maps. 4 right now and ideally 8+ at open beta / launch they intend maps to be unlockable so its not overwhelming
abathar's ability is teleporting to heroes and playing off their abilities
eventually, game will be moddable with user created maps like in sc2. not at launch, but sounds like it is something they will definitely do because the genre was originally a mod created by a user and they want to keep that potential in this game
On November 09 2013 17:12 Trizz wrote: This will _never_ be competitive, why does Blizzard have to make every single game they come out with extremely casual? It's fucked up and extremely dissapointing.
They've got shareholders to please. There are more casuals than hardcore competitive gamers out there.
I have never tried bloodline champions. Might try blizzard's version of it, but I have to admit I am disappointed, I really wanted to see their version of dota instead.
I fear that with unit customination (sry dont know how to write it) it isnt any more Diablo vs Raynor. Just look their website where they are showing unit customization. That Diablo looks more fish than Diablo so it isnt any more diablo vs raynor ;(
On November 09 2013 17:26 Whiplash wrote: The thing I'm worried about the most in this game is how people can differentiate their selves via skill... no items, no last hits, exp while dead... does blizzard just want to make a casual game? What the hell happened?
This is my biggest concern. There are so few ways to differentiate yourself, both in mechanical skill and in in decision/item choices, its hard to see this having much of a serious fan base.
On November 09 2013 16:16 Fwizzz wrote: I've seen some gameplay. Maps are too small imo.
On November 09 2013 14:15 EnumaAvalon wrote: Stitches... Is the sprite the same as the abomination from WC3?
Stitches is a big ass abomination. He is a raid boss in Naxramas
Stitches is the roaming elite in Duskwood. Patchwerk is the boss in Naxx. Anywho, the game doesn't look particularly interesting aside from being able to play well-known Blizzard characters. I'll have to give a try myself though. Could be a fun break from Dota/SF4 every once in a while.
aiming for double the amount of maps. 4 right now and ideally 8+ at open beta / launch they intend maps to be unlockable so its not overwhelming
That is so ... nice of them.
Actually I think LoL might have been the only game ever (or at least for a long time) to have an esports scene (although funded by the company) while requiring you to pay to unlock non-cosmetic content. Apparently there is no possibility to release such a game with an actual price tag (Cosmetics are far too lucrative).
Don't see this having a serious fanbase. More catered to casuals just wanting have some non-serious fun time playing iconic characters I guess. Nostalgia for them i guess.
But other than that. Gameplay looks very shallow.
Capture control towers?Shared exp,no item,no last hit. Have to play to unlock heroes and other contents by playing the game.
i think this could be exactly the moba I would play. I really like Dota, but it's way too serious, especially the players, and you have to learn way too much stuff. this seems more light-hearted
Did not think any MOBA could beat Smite in casualness, but this sounds downright terrible. It sounds too casual to be a casual retreat from Dota, we already have Lol and Smite for that.
On November 09 2013 14:37 Nopeudon wrote: How are skillful players able to clearly differentiate themselves? Without last hitting and stuff... Also, I gather matching with noobs will hurt your game even more in HotS huh?
This is what I'm concerned about... I played two games today at Blizzcon and wasn't really feeling it. Pure skill can carry games in LoL, but based off of some of the design elements in the game that I've seen, and from what Dustin Browder was saying (somebody actually asked him a question very similar as far as skill differentiation will go), they are actively trying to stay away from that sort of thing happening... which blows my mind. It almost seems like they're trying way too hard to make a statement. Browder always has his slants and odd perspectives with how his vision of games should go, and he made it sound like nine people are waiting for a dude to win the game since he got fed, which yeah is true in some cases but it isn't always as hopeless and bland as he made it out to be.
We'll see how it turns out. It's still way too early to be making any bold claims about the game
The look on his face when he didn't like the answer given was priceless. That guy really needed some form of in game gratification beyond winning. I can't relate to that but if that's what this genre means to him then good luck to him.
So according to the FAQ there may be unlockable and buyable heroes. A very stupid decision. All heroes and spells should be instantly and freely available to keep the game balanced and to not retard the ability of player's to counter-pick. Dota 2 did it right. It's looking like Blizzard may sacrifice balance and fairness to make more money by selling or locking heroes and abilities. Sad.
Sounds like the game has a few twist to the usual dota style games, I am actually quite looking forward to it if the game is balanced. I like the fact that it place a bit more on objectives rather than push tower to win style.
That being said, with each map being different in terms of game modes, wouldn't it just split up the community? League for example has aram twisted treeline etc but the serious mode to go to and balanced around is the classic mode.
On November 09 2013 19:51 paralleluniverse wrote: So according to the FAQ there may be unlockable and buyable heroes. A very stupid decision. All heroes and spells should be instantly and freely available to keep the game balanced and to not retard the ability of player's to counter-pick. Dota 2 did it right. It's looking like Blizzard may sacrifice balance and fairness to make more money by selling or locking heroes and abilities. Sad.
I kinda liked the idea behind this - defeat mercenaries for them to fight for you, and the opponent has to defeat them again in order to make them "tame"..
Looks like a gang-fest of some kind, but not quite sure how it turns out.. Maybe at least some Healing/Teleport items should get added.. And IDK what those "tributes" do anyway..
Another question is = kinda read that Arthas can choose which spell he prefers - Skeletal armies or Frost-Wyrm Dragon.. Does that mean that Heroes have 2 ultimates ?
Is there any leveling system of some kind or sth..?
No items, no last hitting, on paper I'm not liking the way this sounds. The difference between bad and good players is going to be so much smaller than in DotA 2, I doubt the hero mechanics are going to be much deeper either.
I don't see this replacing DotA 2 for any enthustiastics but in my case I might have more friends playing this than DotA 2 so this might be a casual game to play on the side for me, at least I'l try it.
On November 09 2013 20:02 VArsovskiSC wrote: I kinda liked the idea behind this - defeat mercenaries for them to fight for you, and the opponent has to defeat them again in order to make them "tame"..
Looks like a gang-fest of some kind, but not quite sure how it turns out.. Maybe at least some Healing/Teleport items should get added.. And IDK what those "tributes" do anyway..
Another question is = kinda read that Arthas can choose which spell he prefers - Skeletal armies or Frost-Wyrm Dragon.. Does that mean that Heroes have 2 ultimates ?
Is there any leveling system of some kind or sth..?
DB is the lead designer for this game ?? --> We're gonna see some more rocks I guess..
I think the game will have some kind of talent tree, this is the way you customize your hero, intead of itens. I haven't played it so if someone have more concrete information regarding leveling up you can correct me.
This game is not trying to be like dota, beyond the presence of heroes and lanes. The game flow looks much more similar to a WoW battleground than a moba like lol/dota. If you don't like it because there is no gold/farming that's fine, but it doesn't make the game casual.
Skill differentiation is done by how you engage, fight, and contribute to your team. In quake you can recognize a better player even without items/gold that fundamentally increase the capabilities of the character you play depending on how well you did.
Can't really comment on monetization while it's all still up in he air. Personally I prefer dota 2's model, where you don't unlock heroes. At least they said they wish to have the game modes unlocked for everybody.
Hearing about the lack of items I was a little concerned about the strategic depth the game would have, but with different skill trees that probably won't be an issue. I don't know how much I like the idea of map wide shared exp with your team. As much fun as it would be to see a team play really well together and level up together etc, I also love seeing one player carry hard due to their own ability in earning exp.
And the no last hitting and no farming concerns me, because I feel like it may not be as rewarding for the more skilled player, which means it may not be great competitively. But I suppose it's still in Alpha so a lot of this is probably still up for change should they decide they want to market it more towards competitive gaming/eSports type players as well as the casual market.
Other than that I'm pretty excited for this. Seems a lot more action packed and focused on the fighting side of MOBA's, which should be fun. And the shorter game time means I can play more when I only have a little time to spare. It's certainly going to more casually played than Dota 2 for example, but that's okay. Something fun to play when I'm not in the mood for long games like Dota.
EDIT: Also, the different maps are something I'm not sure about. I mean they mentioned something about providing support for map makers or the like didn't they? So map makers could perhaps change the way MOBA's are played for a long time, but only if they make these maps well. I'm not sure how I feel about this as of yet since I'm pretty happy with the standard set up for MOBA maps and why fix what ain't broken? Guess they want to push boundaries, so we'll have to wait and see how it turns out.
On November 09 2013 19:51 paralleluniverse wrote: So according to the FAQ there may be unlockable and buyable heroes. A very stupid decision. All heroes and spells should be instantly and freely available to keep the game balanced and to not retard the ability of player's to counter-pick. Dota 2 did it right. It's looking like Blizzard may sacrifice balance and fairness to make more money by selling or locking heroes and abilities. Sad.
I doubt this game has/will have picking phase.
If DotaHotS plans to have some kind of competitive community, they will have to implement a pick/ban mode.
Unless, every hero is going to have the same core playstyles, moreso than LoL's stale champ design.
OMG It's NYX ASSASSIN! I mean Crypt Lord! I always liked that giant beetle model (and I like how they are similar in WC3 and in Dota 2 and now in HotS, it's also a similar design).
I can't wait for WarCraft IV for when they introduce the same beetle again!
On November 09 2013 20:39 Fwizzz wrote: Blizzard appealing to casuals. I don't see any depth. Would be good if they change some of the mechanics or add items.
Well, probably there will be some depth in the game, less than LoL and Dota2, but enough to keep people interested. Even Hearthstone with its simple mechanics have depth enough to keep people interested in it.
Kinda like Diablo/WoW with skill trees and you having all basic spells after lvl 10. The only thing getting a bit on my nerves is how every moba/arts/dota like copies 70% of what LoL does. Instant turning/spellcasting, unlocking heroes and skins and the like.
Maybe that will change between now and the final version. Maybe we will also get Warcraft 4 next year and all nations unite to start a mission to mars. I wouldn't bet on either of that.
On November 09 2013 20:51 Targe wrote: WHERE IS THRALL
It's been said that first batch of heroes has 18 of them, the picture in the OP has 16 instead.. might be one of the other 2, or might just be more heroes.. Abathur for example has had a dev. panel to show abilities, and he's also not there..
On November 09 2013 20:25 Trenox wrote: Blizzard seem to take a big step towards casual and a big step away from hardcore-competitive.
HeartStone was an indicator but these news of HotS seals the deal imo.
20 min games, shared XP, multiple maps (each with their own gimmick)
It seems they are trying to out-LOL league of legends from the casual side and not the competitive :/
I think this marks a new direction for Blizzard as a company in general.
Both Heartstone and Heroes are basically two pet projects that's grown to bigger proportions, I don't really think that counts as a defining moment of Blizzards direction. Also I think it makes zero sense to try to make Heroes anything other than casual as long as sc2 is still alive (with an expansion to go). In the moba genre they have both Dota2 and LoL to compete against esports-wise while in the rts genre there's... nothing. Going casual here just makes all kinds of sense, any other expectation is a bit silly.
but this game seems to be very casual with teamexp and no lasthitting. but tbh, i have never seen LoL/DotA as competive. we will have to wait how this will go.
i've been played dota since the beginning but not so much into dota 2 because of the characters design, UI, heroes lore. i really hope blizzard can make the gameplay as good as dota in their own way.
On November 09 2013 14:10 Heyoka wrote: I don't think it can be good competitively in the current iteration but as this is a F2P team game they could develop it into one over the course of a few years.
Can you elaborate why you think it won't be good competitively ?
On November 09 2013 22:04 zezamer wrote: Blizz sells this by using people's love for their old legendary characters. I don't believe it's going to be a good game
tell me a blizzard game that isnt good.. they are making a game that is fun and they enjoy.. maybe they should have done the same with starcraft 2 lol
This feels so much like hearthstone-- seems too simple at first, but once people get their hands on it the hype is through the roof. I think it's a little naive to not expect people to try to make it an esport, too. If it's a blizzard game that can be somewhat competitive in nature, people are going to turn it into an esport if they can.
On November 09 2013 21:40 75 wrote: (i have no experience in MOBA games)
but this game seems to be very casual with teamexp and no lasthitting. but tbh, i have never seen LoL/DotA as competive. we will have to wait how this will go.
you aint missing much. I dont find moba/arts very entertaining to watch
what you get from Dota2 and LoL: Mindless Minion Slaying to last hit (75% of the time), some teamplay, awful lots of stuff to buy with very few good builds.
what HoS will be: fun and teamplay. YEAH. Gonna go for that. Update your bent beta-profile!
I dont understand why this SHOULD be competitive? Don't you have any business head? Blizzard already have starcraft and doing new competitive game would just hurt them. That's why we don't see wc4 soon. + there is already lol and dota2 so heroes could not become equal big.
-this is for FUN. -You must remember that this was originally upcoming sc2 custom map.
I actually like the concept of a purely casual dota like game a lot. I used to play some dota in 2005 or so, then when I tried the dota 2 beta in 2012 all of a sudden everyone was serious and if you had a more easy going attitude about the game there was chaos and you would become a target for hate.
I think Mario Kart is a good example. In Mario Kart there is the skill part of driving and aiming, which might not have as much depth as other racing games but it's still very fun and something you can really try your best at. And if you try your best you will win more often than not, it's just that you're not really punished for failure. I think these type of games have their place and I really feel that the dota genre is more suitable for a casual game like this than a hardcore game like dota2.
I mean, I don't agree with Nintendo's stance on Super Smash and trying to sabotage the competitive aspect of it, but I can easily see why a game studio would not want their game to be a competitive game. I don't think it always contributes to the community. Arena PvP in World of Warcraft didn't seriously contribute to the community imo. Battlegrounds did back when you were playing versus people of your own server, but when they started to bundle servers together it became more boring and you'd stop caring about winning as much. (funny thing about WoW was that before they bundled servers it was very rare for Alliance to win on our server I recall losing 10 games in a row being typical)
Personally I think that competitive mobas are a bit boring (difficult to watch, lack of mechanical skill required, having to memorize a million different items which really makes it more like a trading card game as opposed to a game like chess, and having to deal with team mates which seems annoying to me), but as a casual game they're fun to play occasionally as long as the people you're playing with aren't too frustrating. I still play dota with my brother once every two months and my policy is that the first complaint someone has about me I leave the game, to much annoyance of my brother of course.
I am worried that Blizzard will dumb down the game too much so that it's no longer a fun experience though.There is still a line you can cross after which point you can't actually interact with the game anymore since there are no meaningful choices.
It looks like it will have far less depth than Dota, or even LoL. Not saying it won't be fun. This is probably a clever call from Blizzard. There's room for Hero Brawl (lol) games too grow, and trying to compete with Dota or LoL directly would be a suicidal marketing decision (unless they are willing to support the game at an even higher level than Valve or Riot do and pump millions and millions of dollars into marketing and tournaments). Going for the casuals seems like a clever move.
Experience is shared throughout the team, no matter where you are on the map. You do not get extra experience, or any currency, from last hitting. You get experience while you are dead. Your team will always all be the same level.
This point has me wondering how the game plays? All I can picture is melee heroes not having to put themselves at risk trying to last-hit? That, or the creep waves are basically pointless?
I think Blizzard realised they were too late to the punch a few times in terms of understanding the potential for a MOBA e-sports game. Heroes seems way more casual based. Also, that cinematic was the worst Blizzard cinematic I have ever seen.
I think Blizzard is doing everything the right way now. First they are making the game fun to play and then care about the other stuff (much like Hearthstone). I'm not worried that skilled players wont be able to "carry" their team. If someone is that good he can always outplay the opponent in team fights or outmaneuver them on the map. Farming creeps and buying items was never a skill in first place.
And THANK GOD they didn't make another 2-3-4 lane, farm the creeps, kill the towers game... It's getting kinda old.
Experience is shared throughout the team, no matter where you are on the map. You do not get extra experience, or any currency, from last hitting. You get experience while you are dead. Your team will always all be the same level.
This point has me wondering how the game plays? All I can picture is melee heroes not having to put themselves at risk trying to last-hit? That, or the creep waves are basically pointless?
I think Blizzard realised they were too late to the punch a few times in terms of understanding the potential for a MOBA e-sports game. Heroes seems way more casual based. Also, that cinematic was the worst Blizzard cinematic I have ever seen.
I think they are trying to make it more realistic in the sense that, if you were some sort of captain of a small platoon (creep wave) you wouldn't just sit directly next to them, wait until they are in their dying breaths, and then finish his enemy off, who is mortally injured (cs) and finish off maybe even your own soldiers (deny).
The turrets also have some sort of limit on shots they can fire (until they restock) so I think the idea in lane is jsut that you want to push the wave as hard as possible to take down their tower and push the wave to their base.
I feel like this is reinforced with the mercenaries coming to help your creeps if you kill jungle creeps, and killing the skeletons underground on that other map to get a super strong creep to push mid lane for you.
I think the most important unanswered question is whether blizzard will add characters from their other franchises. ie. the lost vikings. cause that was the first video game I ever played. they had the lost vikings as three mini bosses in a instance in wow(I forget which one. it was in a pre 60 one.) cause having erik baleog and olaf would be sick. I would play the shit out of them.
My problem with this is that it seems like everyone needs to be on the same page more than other MOBAs for objective control, and if DotA and League are any indication, pub teams are not going to be coordinated enough to make it fun. One jackoff farming bot while you're trying to do skeletons or one guy getting bored with defending the bottom capture point and killing minions seems much more fatal than it would in the others.
Experience is shared throughout the team, no matter where you are on the map. You do not get extra experience, or any currency, from last hitting. You get experience while you are dead. Your team will always all be the same level.
This point has me wondering how the game plays? All I can picture is melee heroes not having to put themselves at risk trying to last-hit? That, or the creep waves are basically pointless?
I think Blizzard realised they were too late to the punch a few times in terms of understanding the potential for a MOBA e-sports game. Heroes seems way more casual based. Also, that cinematic was the worst Blizzard cinematic I have ever seen.
I'm starting to imagine DotaHotS is going to become a massive Deathball-Pushing game. How does the jungle camps work? You kill them and then they start pushing with your lane creeps, right? And their "Roshan" becomes your massive boss creep ally to push with you. Towers have ammo so after a few hits, the tower just goes afk and becomes useless. What I really like about the tower ammo is that it keeps the "You protect tower" aspect of Dota, whereas LoL has the very passive "Tower protects you".
I believe the thing DotaHotS has going for is that it certainly encourages being out of your lane, dominate the jungle, constant engagements, and constant pushing. Also, I remember Browder saying back when the game was still called Blizzard Dota, games can vary from less than 10 minutes to an hour.
What I really don't like about it is the lack of items. That cuts the amount of depth from character dynamics and progression. Are there any pictures of that skill tree? I can't find any anywhere so I can't really judge anything more.
So far, when it comes to its core mechanics, I believe DotaHotS is going the right way and taking the more fun aspects and philosophy of the MOBA genre and makes me wonder if the people at Blizzard plays more Dota than LoL.
Also, I keep saying DotaHotS cuz I'll start thinking about SC2 otherwise.
Oh, and about a potential competitive scene, I just accept that any game, whether it is designed with competition in mind or made specifically for casuals, can have a dedicated eSports scene if the fans and resources are there.
On November 09 2013 22:31 Acrofales wrote: It looks like it will have far less depth than Dota, or even LoL. Not saying it won't be fun. This is probably a clever call from Blizzard. There's room for Hero Brawl (lol) games too grow, and trying to compete with Dota or LoL directly would be a suicidal marketing decision (unless they are willing to support the game at an even higher level than Valve or Riot do and pump millions and millions of dollars into marketing and tournaments). Going for the casuals seems like a clever move.
On November 09 2013 22:52 Pr0wler wrote: I think Blizzard is doing everything the right way now. First they are making the game fun to play and then care about the other stuff (much like Hearthstone). I'm not worried that skilled players wont be able to "carry" their team. If someone is that good he can always outplay the opponent in team fights or outmaneuver them on the map. Farming creeps and buying items was never a skill in first place.
And THANK GOD they didn't make another 2-3-4 lane, farm the creeps, kill the towers game... It's getting kinda old.
I agree. My take on it is that Blizzard needs to find their own niche, their own edge, not just try to become the next LoL or DotA2. That's a pointless uphill battle when those games are already serving just fine.
Experience is shared throughout the team, no matter where you are on the map. You do not get extra experience, or any currency, from last hitting. You get experience while you are dead. Your team will always all be the same level.
This point has me wondering how the game plays? All I can picture is melee heroes not having to put themselves at risk trying to last-hit? That, or the creep waves are basically pointless?
I think Blizzard realised they were too late to the punch a few times in terms of understanding the potential for a MOBA e-sports game. Heroes seems way more casual based. Also, that cinematic was the worst Blizzard cinematic I have ever seen.
I'm starting to imagine DotaHotS is going to become a massive Deathball-Pushing game. How does the jungle camps work? You kill them and then they start pushing with your lane creeps, right? And their "Roshan" becomes your massive boss creep ally to push with you. Towers have ammo so after a few hits, the tower just goes afk and becomes useless. What I really like about the tower ammo is that it keeps the "You protect tower" aspect of Dota, whereas LoL has the very passive "Tower protects you".
I believe the thing DotaHotS has going for is that it certainly encourages being out of your lane, dominate the jungle, constant engagements, and constant pushing. Also, I remember Browder saying back when the game was still called Blizzard Dota, games can vary from less than 10 minutes to an hour.
What I really don't like about it is the lack of items. That cuts the amount of depth from character dynamics and progression. Are there any pictures of that skill tree? I can't find any anywhere so I can't really judge anything more.
So far, when it comes to its core mechanics, I believe DotaHotS is going the right way and taking the more fun aspects and philosophy of the MOBA genre and makes me wonder if the people at Blizzard plays more Dota than LoL.
Also, I keep saying DotaHotS cuz I'll start thinking about SC2 otherwise.
Oh, and about a potential competitive scene, I just accept that any game, whether it is designed with competition in mind or made specifically for casuals, can have a dedicated eSports scene if the fans and resources are there.
On November 09 2013 23:08 deth2munkies wrote: My problem with this is that it seems like everyone needs to be on the same page more than other MOBAs for objective control, and if DotA and League are any indication, pub teams are not going to be coordinated enough to make it fun. One jackoff farming bot while you're trying to do skeletons or one guy getting bored with defending the bottom capture point and killing minions seems much more fatal than it would in the others.
Except nobody wants to be alone farming bot in this game because it doesn't help them in any way.
I feel like this game will be really fun because of this no gold/shared EXP thing. Whereas other Hero Brawlers kinda force you to get strong by yourself through farming in this game you are actually encouraged to get objectives with your team, since it's the only way to become stronger yourself.
Aside from other gameplay aspects I feel like this alone will create an environment where teamplay is much easier to achieve. Not to mention that since the focus of the game is not competitive whatsoever there should be much less ragers (I hope).
On November 09 2013 21:40 75 wrote: (i have no experience in MOBA games)
but this game seems to be very casual with teamexp and no lasthitting. but tbh, i have never seen LoL/DotA as competive. we will have to wait how this will go.
you aint missing much. I dont find moba/arts very entertaining to watch
That would be your opinion, don't go around telling others as if it's a fact. I find watching Dota 2 more entertaining than sc2.
On November 09 2013 23:00 CrankOut wrote: Why is this on community news? This has nothing to do with SC2...
Oh yay, another person that's gonna complain about a line of text offending their eyes.
I initially felt like vomitting when I read that Blizzard wasn't going to cater to hardcore E-sports. But after some thought, it might just work. I have many friends who are in my clique, yet some of us don't play dota, and some of us do. We'd love to play together when in cybercafes- after all, a dota inhouse with 10 skilled friends can be one of the most fun experiences in gaming. However, the skill floor for these games are too high sometimes.
With a super casual game like this it may be easier to play together in a cybercafe, with me using Zeratul/Tassadar to kill their WoW characters. Sounds awesome and promising, I hope it will all work out.
On November 09 2013 16:31 broodbucket wrote: Looks like a nice, more casual game, like something I'd play with friends instead of Dota when I don't have 5 and don't want to pub
There's something dull about the art style that's bugging me though, maybe I just need to play it to understand
Might be that the models are incredibly detailed, and that's distracting you. I mean, they modeled the individual veins on Illidan and Diablo's arms.
I really like Blizzard is not trying to just make another dota clone with almost same map, but having their own stuff. LoL have another objective based map, how popular it is? Also they were not using only dota or moba to describe this genre, but hero brawl. I like it.
On November 10 2013 00:42 NapkinBox wrote: Is Illidan Anti Mage in WC3 Dota?
No, hes terrorblade the soul keeper.
On November 10 2013 00:45 cjin wrote: I really like Blizzard is not trying to just make another dota clone with almost same map, but having their own stuff. LoL have another objective based map, how popular it is? Also they were not using only dota or moba to describe this genre, but hero brawl. I like it.
They know the dota ship has sailed and they woulnt be able to compete with LoL and Dota so theyre aiming for that niche. I guess it will be more like bloodline champions than dota.
Experience is shared throughout the team, no matter where you are on the map. You do not get extra experience, or any currency, from last hitting. You get experience while you are dead. Your team will always all be the same level.
This point has me wondering how the game plays? All I can picture is melee heroes not having to put themselves at risk trying to last-hit? That, or the creep waves are basically pointless?
I think Blizzard realised they were too late to the punch a few times in terms of understanding the potential for a MOBA e-sports game. Heroes seems way more casual based. Also, that cinematic was the worst Blizzard cinematic I have ever seen.
I'm starting to imagine DotaHotS is going to become a massive Deathball-Pushing game. How does the jungle camps work? You kill them and then they start pushing with your lane creeps, right? And their "Roshan" becomes your massive boss creep ally to push with you. Towers have ammo so after a few hits, the tower just goes afk and becomes useless. What I really like about the tower ammo is that it keeps the "You protect tower" aspect of Dota, whereas LoL has the very passive "Tower protects you".
I believe the thing DotaHotS has going for is that it certainly encourages being out of your lane, dominate the jungle, constant engagements, and constant pushing. Also, I remember Browder saying back when the game was still called Blizzard Dota, games can vary from less than 10 minutes to an hour.
What I really don't like about it is the lack of items. That cuts the amount of depth from character dynamics and progression. Are there any pictures of that skill tree? I can't find any anywhere so I can't really judge anything more.
So far, when it comes to its core mechanics, I believe DotaHotS is going the right way and taking the more fun aspects and philosophy of the MOBA genre and makes me wonder if the people at Blizzard plays more Dota than LoL.
Also, I keep saying DotaHotS cuz I'll start thinking about SC2 otherwise.
Oh, and about a potential competitive scene, I just accept that any game, whether it is designed with competition in mind or made specifically for casuals, can have a dedicated eSports scene if the fans and resources are there.
Now that you mention it, it seems like it will be more of a deathball syndrome type game. I'm not sure how I feel about this, as that more or less means there will be more team fights, which are fun, but less ganking, which is also fun. There'll still be chances to gank should people get caught alone, but I feel like it's going to be much less prominent.
And as far as the skill tree goes, if the skill tree isn't diverse enough and doesn't provide many options when compared to an item-game, I'll be a bit upset about it. Unless it's done well, it'll remove much of the strategy from the game, whereas if it is done well, it'll give it great depth. All depends on how it's executed. Can't wait til the end of the weekend to hear from people who have played it how the skill tree pans out strategy-wise.
On November 09 2013 22:24 TheBloodyDwarf wrote: I dont understand why this SHOULD be competitive? Don't you have any business head? Blizzard already have starcraft and doing new competitive game would just hurt them. That's why we don't see wc4 soon. + there is already lol and dota2 so heroes could not become equal big.
-this is for FUN. -You must remember that this was originally upcoming sc2 custom map.
I think Blizzard are smart not to be touting this as competitive game since that would immediately draw comparison to esports giants LoL and DOTA2. However if it did turn out to be competitive how would that hurt Blizzard? In you example you mentioned WC4. Releasing WC4 (if that’s even ever going to happen) would hurt them because Blizzard would be cannibalising themselves with two major RTS games fighting against each other, but the MOBA (hero brawler, whatever) genre is a market they’ve yet to enter.
On November 09 2013 22:27 Grumbels wrote: my policy is that the first complaint someone has about me I leave the game
with this attidude you destroy so much more in moba games as the little flame, you should be permabannes from all moba games for the rest of youre life, just dont play them,pls!
leavers are the worst thing in mp games that ever happens (i even hate them more then toxic flamers or cheaters...)
you sir, have no balls to even play a lost or uncomfortable game to the bitte end! shame on you and youre multiplayer attidude, go away and play single player stuff! dont fuck up other people mp experience when u cant stand critic or even al little flame. you dont deserve to play in a team, cause you are not a teamplayer. youre a pussy
I agree with those of you talking about the graphics, it proves Blizzard could have made a nice WC4 with modern graphics. Graphics aside, the blending of three franchises is weird to me and kills the lore and must make the map look very weird and full of everything. I don't like the direction I imagine Blizzard will take the cash shop/unlocking in either. Overall my impression was that this was a good looking Arathi Basin simulator sort of being a moba but being easier and open enough to try and suck in all Diablo/Warcraft/Starcraft fans into some microtransactions.
On November 09 2013 20:26 LimitSEA wrote: Hearing about the lack of items I was a little concerned about the strategic depth the game would have, but with different skill trees that probably won't be an issue. I don't know how much I like the idea of map wide shared exp with your team. As much fun as it would be to see a team play really well together and level up together etc, I also love seeing one player carry hard due to their own ability in earning exp.
And the no last hitting and no farming concerns me, because I feel like it may not be as rewarding for the more skilled player, which means it may not be great competitively. But I suppose it's still in Alpha so a lot of this is probably still up for change should they decide they want to market it more towards competitive gaming/eSports type players as well as the casual market.
Other than that I'm pretty excited for this. Seems a lot more action packed and focused on the fighting side of MOBA's, which should be fun. And the shorter game time means I can play more when I only have a little time to spare. It's certainly going to more casually played than Dota 2 for example, but that's okay. Something fun to play when I'm not in the mood for long games like Dota.
EDIT: Also, the different maps are something I'm not sure about. I mean they mentioned something about providing support for map makers or the like didn't they? So map makers could perhaps change the way MOBA's are played for a long time, but only if they make these maps well. I'm not sure how I feel about this as of yet since I'm pretty happy with the standard set up for MOBA maps and why fix what ain't broken? Guess they want to push boundaries, so we'll have to wait and see how it turns out.
Actually, I've thought about it a bit and some of the ideas make sense in a weird sort of way. I'll explain.
First they state they want to focus on 15-20 min games.Well the fastest way to accelerate a game is by removing the laning phase. The laning phase is particularly long because for the first 10-15 mins heroes are focusing on just getting that last hit for fear of getting the creep denied or being harassed. Now if you remove the laning phase you can get to the mid game a bit quicker, and you have that possibility because they give you 1 level of each ability apart from the ultimate.
Also, its clear they are dedicated to making tons of different maps with different objectives. These map differences actually helps the lack of a laning phase, because you can get right into the nitty gritty of it and it forces team fights sooner. Since team fights and the mid game comes sooner then individual mechanical skill like last hitting, denying lose some of their emphasis and team focused mechanics start becoming more important.
So far Blizzard's philosophy seems to produce a couple of advantages over that of LoL or DoTA.
Shorter games is a good feature, it can mean you can play pick up games and not worry to much about being late for something Different talent trees could be on par with itemization in terms of depth and decision making about specing for the situation, could also unlock different synergies and provide a ton of possible match ups with few heroes. Map diversity will provide tons and tons of replay value, and much needed diversity to allow the game to stay fresh and exciting for a long time. Map diversity means that balancing doesn't need to be as iffy as it is with LoL and DoTA, because the different heroes will have different levels of viability depending on maps, due to their varying strengths and weaknesses and specing possibilities.
Yes it bothers me they really are going away fully from items, last hitting etc, but from a design perspective, it kind if makes sense, and it might work if executed well.
To the people complaining about this being a dumbed-down DotA/LoL
You're missing a very key point here.
You're thinking in terms of lane phases, pushing, getting gold advantage and tower advantage, vision control, all these things for stable, lucrative lanes. You're applying a metagame built upon obtaining gold or denying them gold in a fixed tri-lane simple map... when this game does not have that map.
It's like trying to apply the metagame for Starcraft to something like Dawn of War II. They're both under the "RTS banner" but saying Dawn of War II is awful because you don't have to manage worker saturation is non-sensical.
This game is probably going to play a lot more aggressively with a focus on efficient teamfighting. Being able to routinely pick off enemy heroes and gain XP for everyone while not getting killed in return will pay off big time; while also securing the objectives around the map at the same time. In short, it's going to be a really different game and we can't really condemn the decision to lose last hitting and the like without playing it.
i for one am excited as fuck for this game. Blizzard seems to have created something new and very original here! Im used to farming in LoL but honestly i don't mind the idea of a game which has a more team fighting oriented style, as well as keeping the objective aspect of league which is also very fun. As long as the skill thing replaces items in an efficient manner so that the game still has depth to it and different games allow for different paths and things like that so it doesn't become stale. Even in league item building can become stale, adcs building IE shiv LW and so on; tanks building defensive. Sure you can go off meta but its not always beneficial. If Heroes manages to give us sufficient customization, then the item system is not needed.
I wonder how the ranked system will be? I hope its a lot like sc2's, i love starcraft's ranking system whereas i really am not fond of LoL's. I hope blizz can make it work somehow, the ranked system in my opinion can make or break this game.
On November 09 2013 22:17 plgElwood wrote: What You want from MoBa: Teamgame and fun.
what you get from Dota2 and LoL: Mindless Minion Slaying to last hit (75% of the time), some teamplay, awful lots of stuff to buy with very few good builds.
what HoS will be: fun and teamplay. YEAH. Gonna go for that. Update your bent beta-profile!
What you get from HotS: 5 manning jungle for creeps and rush for super units.
This game sounds like it has similar issues to Diablo 3. In that Blizzard didn't quite understand what made Diablo 2 good and here they don't understand what makes Dota good.
I'm obviously saying this without playing it so could be completely wrong. But it sounds like they for one are taking away the singular map concept, which immediately makes it 'not a dota like game'. You cannot balance heroes around different map modes and have it be interesting at a high level, it is literally impossible unless the heroes are all incredibly generic. And if you have modes where only certain heroes are good, well that's not very fun.
The second part, and I think more important thing, is that much like in WoW and Diablo they have gone away from being able to have a sense of ownership over a character. In WoW respeccing used to be quite expensive and loot was hard to get, Diablo 2 respeccing wasn't allowed and loot had to be traded or found yourself. These mechanics were removed in future version of WoW and Diablo 3 which made it so there's very few options, it makes it really boring in the long run and doesn't allow for unique builds (in both skills and items). This is a core aspect of the replayability of a game like Dota.
To me I think this game seems more like a collection of WC3 custom maps. Which could be fun, but it isn't a dota/lol replacement.
On November 10 2013 02:46 teapoted wrote: To me I think this game seems more like a collection of WC3 custom maps. Which could be fun, but it isn't a dota/lol replacement.
as far as i can tell, it's not meant to be a dota/lol replacement. they're very specific about calling it a 'hero brawler'. like someone earlier in the thread said, it's more in line with blc.
On November 10 2013 02:46 teapoted wrote: To me I think this game seems more like a collection of WC3 custom maps. Which could be fun, but it isn't a dota/lol replacement.
as far as i can tell, it's not meant to be a dota/lol replacement. they're very specific about calling it a 'hero brawler'. like someone earlier in the thread said, it's more in line with blc.
Yeah they've definitely changed their marketing line but it seems the story is still that this is a Dota-like game on most sites. Which doesn't seem very accurate to the mechanics or to what Blizzard is saying themselves.
Although Blizzard are still saying "we did xyz compared to other games in the genre." I'm sure they're happy with getting some of the Moba marketing.
On November 10 2013 02:46 teapoted wrote: This game sounds like it has similar issues to Diablo 3. In that Blizzard didn't quite understand what made Diablo 2 good and here they don't understand what makes Dota good.
I'm obviously saying this without playing it so could be completely wrong. But it sounds like they for one are taking away the singular map concept, which immediately makes it 'not a dota like game'. You cannot balance heroes around different map modes and have it be interesting at a high level, it is literally impossible unless the heroes are all incredibly generic. And if you have modes where only certain heroes are good, well that's not very fun.
The second part, and I think more important thing, is that much like in WoW and Diablo they have gone away from being able to have a sense of ownership over a character. In WoW respeccing used to be quite expensive and loot was hard to get, Diablo 2 respeccing wasn't allowed and loot had to be traded or found yourself. These mechanics were removed in future version of WoW and Diablo 3 which made it so there's very few options, it makes it really boring in the long run and doesn't allow for unique builds. This is a core aspect of the replayability of a game like Dota.
To me I think this game seems more like a collection of WC3 custom maps. Which could be fun, but it isn't a dota/lol replacement.
you know RTS games have done it the other way round all the time. Same units on different maps. Mobas switched it up by changing Heroes not maps. Yes in Dota people master the map not the Heroes because they change them up. But both systems work and it is just preference. I am more of the old guard and prefer mastering the units and play on different maps. And it seems I will never understand the joy people have by having their heroes mixed up. But I come from a time without skill resets in games. Changing things up meant making another character from the scratch.
I can understand why people are scared though that this will take over the moba market, it would be against what they prefer. But don't worry it will not take over the moba cake, but it seems very likely to take a huge slice.
On November 10 2013 02:46 teapoted wrote: This game sounds like it has similar issues to Diablo 3. In that Blizzard didn't quite understand what made Diablo 2 good and here they don't understand what makes Dota good.
I'm obviously saying this without playing it so could be completely wrong. But it sounds like they for one are taking away the singular map concept, which immediately makes it 'not a dota like game'. You cannot balance heroes around different map modes and have it be interesting at a high level, it is literally impossible unless the heroes are all incredibly generic. And if you have modes where only certain heroes are good, well that's not very fun.
The second part, and I think more important thing, is that much like in WoW and Diablo they have gone away from being able to have a sense of ownership over a character. In WoW respeccing used to be quite expensive and loot was hard to get, Diablo 2 respeccing wasn't allowed and loot had to be traded or found yourself. These mechanics were removed in future version of WoW and Diablo 3 which made it so there's very few options, it makes it really boring in the long run and doesn't allow for unique builds. This is a core aspect of the replayability of a game like Dota.
To me I think this game seems more like a collection of WC3 custom maps. Which could be fun, but it isn't a dota/lol replacement.
you know RTS games have done it the other way round all the time. Same units on different maps. Mobas switched it up by changing Heroes not maps. Yes in Dota people master the map not the Heroes because they change them up. But both systems work and it is just preference. I am more of the old guard and prefer mastering the units and play on different maps. And it seems I will never understand the joy people have by having their heroes mixed up. But I come from a time without skill resets in games. Changing things up meant making another character from the scratch.
I can understand why people are scared though that this will take over the moba market, it would be against what they prefer. But don't worry it will not take over the moba cake, but it seems very likely to take a huge slice.
There's a difference between different maps and different modes.
You can change the Dota map with similar principles and have it be a similar game with balance intact. The same as an RTS. It would be less refined, but functional. You can't change objectives and expect the same.
On November 10 2013 02:46 teapoted wrote: To me I think this game seems more like a collection of WC3 custom maps. Which could be fun, but it isn't a dota/lol replacement.
as far as i can tell, it's not meant to be a dota/lol replacement. they're very specific about calling it a 'hero brawler'. like someone earlier in the thread said, it's more in line with blc.
Yeah they've definitely changed their marketing line but it seems the story is still that this is a Dota-like game on most sites. Which doesn't seem very accurate to the mechanics or to what Blizzard is saying themselves.
Although Blizzard are still saying "we did xyz compared to other games in the genre." I'm sure they're happy with getting some of the Moba marketing.
Well, Heroes of the Storm has the characteristics of a Moba. A team based pvp with minions and towers with the goal to destroy the other team's ancients. I don't see any resemblance to BC. I dunno, but it seems to me that Blizzard is just trying to pull off a Riot and create a new genre name to hype themselves and try to avoid any comparison between Heroes and competitors.
On November 10 2013 02:46 teapoted wrote: To me I think this game seems more like a collection of WC3 custom maps. Which could be fun, but it isn't a dota/lol replacement.
as far as i can tell, it's not meant to be a dota/lol replacement. they're very specific about calling it a 'hero brawler'. like someone earlier in the thread said, it's more in line with blc.
Yeah they've definitely changed their marketing line but it seems the story is still that this is a Dota-like game on most sites. Which doesn't seem very accurate to the mechanics or to what Blizzard is saying themselves.
Although Blizzard are still saying "we did xyz compared to other games in the genre." I'm sure they're happy with getting some of the Moba marketing.
Well, Heroes of the Storm has the characteristics of a Moba. A team based pvp with minions and towers with the goal to destroy the other team's ancients. I don't see any resemblance to BC. I dunno, but it seems to me that Blizzard is just trying to pull off a Riot and create a new genre name to hype themselves and try to avoid any comparison between Heroes and competitors.
Well... If you ask me Hero brawler is much more accurate than MOBA (which means nothing) and Dota, which is the name of the first game in the genre... Like calling FPS games "Wolfenstein 3D" - pretty dumb.
On November 09 2013 17:26 Whiplash wrote: The thing I'm worried about the most in this game is how people can differentiate their selves via skill... no items, no last hits, exp while dead... does blizzard just want to make a casual game? What the hell happened?
On November 10 2013 02:46 teapoted wrote: To me I think this game seems more like a collection of WC3 custom maps. Which could be fun, but it isn't a dota/lol replacement.
as far as i can tell, it's not meant to be a dota/lol replacement. they're very specific about calling it a 'hero brawler'. like someone earlier in the thread said, it's more in line with blc.
Yeah they've definitely changed their marketing line but it seems the story is still that this is a Dota-like game on most sites. Which doesn't seem very accurate to the mechanics or to what Blizzard is saying themselves.
Although Blizzard are still saying "we did xyz compared to other games in the genre." I'm sure they're happy with getting some of the Moba marketing.
Well, Heroes of the Storm has the characteristics of a Moba. A team based pvp with minions and towers with the goal to destroy the other team's ancients. I don't see any resemblance to BC. I dunno, but it seems to me that Blizzard is just trying to pull off a Riot and create a new genre name to hype themselves and try to avoid any comparison between Heroes and competitors.
Well... If you ask me Hero brawler is much more accurate than MOBA (which means nothing) and Dota, which is the name of the first game in the genre... Like calling FPS games "Wolfenstein 3D" - pretty dumb.
Well, it does sound dumb calling a genre "Wolfenstein 3D", especially when majority of the genre has nothing to do with anything about "Wolfenstein". Defense of the Ancients (DotA), however, makes much more sense in this case.
Call it as you will, I rather call the genre "DotA", but "MOBA" has pretty much solidified itself as the official name because of Riot and LoL. "Hero Brawler" is just Blizzard pulling off a Riot to advertise and hype their game. It does sounds like a fitting genre specifically for Bloodline Champions... but that's not what Heroes is.
USER EXPIERINCE: what happened to easy to learn hard to master ? this looks like a easy to everything. Doesn't look like one should have a great skill but right clicking.
USER SKILL: Same happened with Heartstone. You get a complex game like Magic The Gathering, which is really competitive and casual fun to play and they made it so there's almost no strategy on Heartstone aside from the cards you get, you just easily auto pilot the game. not fun, no skill required.
MECHANICS: I cannot say from the gameplay and mechanics but looks like the same. Everyone saying the same: no last hit (which isn't a good thing). XP shared, so you don't get clear if you play good or bad (which also isn't a good thing). The customization on abilities with no items looks OK but that also means no wards, no 'skill' items. I like the idea of not having damage items, the abilities customization could be great but having no wards, no tp, no healing potions means there is also no rewards on going for 'safe items' or 'risk items'.
STRATEGY: It's really fun going for a rush on a particular item (or ability) that will improve your hero at the expense of being more vulnerable. If you do it right, the reward is great, if it doesn't work right, you fall behind (that's a good thing) and I don't see how this is accomplished without items. Unless, you get 'items as abilities', which would be a GREAT thing. (like an ability to place 'observer wards like or healings' on the map on certain heroes)
GAME AWARENESS: Watchtowers for visibility is good but not as placing 'observers' anywhere on the map, where you can surprise your opponent. I imagine sc2 how much the observers (scout) plays a big role while watchtowers are also in place. Again, watchtowers is good, but not enough.
GAME COMMUNICATION: Also a simple detail as : red hero died instead of 'red hero DIABLO dies' it's a clue to this is casual, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of which hero is doing how in sense of team play. Looks like here, doesn't care.
GAME MOTIVATION: Even if casual gamers do pay the bills and I would say I'm one of those. I would not play if it isn't a competitive game. Even I don't get to pros, seeing pros, seeing the competitive scene, that's what drives ME (and probably a lot more ppl) into the game. There's no bad on not being a pro, but not been 'able to be a pro' is not a game I would be playing more than a few hours. there's no point in 'strategic decision based games' if that decision making isn't rewarding.
GAME AND PLAYERS COMPARATION: I love dota and I love ending a game with 5 more levels than the rest, I love when others do that and see how they made it. Imaging playing dota and all ended up as 'the same' (because kills is not a measure when you have different roles) is no fun. I'm predicting lot of hero-killers on pubs which ends up as bad winning rates and more fun but using supports boring. You see the score screen, all level 20, you opponent level 19, one of your teammates with 20 kills, and the supports with 8 - 5 maybe with some assists... what a boring score screen for a support guy. also misleading into understand if you did good or not.
LEARNABILITY: How the hell one would measure game skill ? Maybe there's other way. I don't see it clearly.
GAME PLAYER IDENTITY: The customization is good if it got sense, rollerblades ? ponies ? not really good for 'this kind of heroes'. It does work for NPC, but really, who wants to play a Ghost with a merry Christmas weapon ??? The 'hilarious' should be already in the heroe, like alchemist or tinker on dota, they looks great, they are hilarious, but they are not intenteded to look like a serious heroe from the beginning. Having huskar or bloodseeker on a roller would be plain stupid, same as having enchantress with a bazooka. (I'm forward to see witch doctor with fun totems, because I except him to have totems, but definitely not a spice girl companion.)
I'm really interested on other thought about this, actually hope someone can give me light into seeing it differently. I really want this game to be THE game.
On November 10 2013 03:07 Kipsate wrote: Doesn't seem to have a lot of in common do with Dota or LoL and maybe that is a good thing.
Pretty much what I was thinking.
I can see myself playing this for fun a bit from time to time, like I do with LoL. I really can't see myself really getting into it though on a DOTA2 type level. Not with heroes having to be purchased.
After reading all again, I think I'm a competitive type guy and there are different kind of people. does who likes competitiveness and does who doesn't.
This game is *initially* set for those who doesn't. (not necessarily a bad thing), so for competitive players it's hard to see the reasons behind the game, but actually doing this way, they can 'adjust' for competitive later on (if it's not too late) but almost impossible to make the other way around. (too early to say).
From the 'unlock heroes' perspective. I think it's a good thing, if it's doing like (easy to use unlocked and hard to use heroes locked.) In Dota, when you want to get out of the 'standard initial heroes' you have to pick one non-standard. You'll be ok if you get alchemist but you will be frustrated if you get invoker, batrider or meepo. So if they have the unlock as a 'learning curve' and not as a 'impossible to get' I think I may work great.
Still, there are other ways to make this better and let you choose ANY heroe.
I like how has been done in SC2, 50 games you play in slower speed, with blocks the expansion, etc. Leveling the playfield is something blizzard does it REALLY GOOD and that's a invisible but really important bonus to this kind of game.
I'm assuming now that there couldn't possibly be Zeratul or any other cloaking abilities in this game because, without earning gold or buying items, how would you detect them? Assuming that towers would be detectors any cloaked heroes could just camp the opponents jungle or wherever vision doesn't exist to get free kills.
Cause I mean, Zeratul being visible 100% of the time is kind of the opposite of what Zeratul is.
On November 10 2013 04:48 Witten wrote: I'm assuming now that there couldn't possibly be Zeratul or any other cloaking abilities in this game because, without earning gold or buying items, how would you detect them? Assuming that towers would be detectors any cloaked heroes could just camp the opponents jungle or wherever vision doesn't exist to get free kills.
Cause I mean, Zeratul being visible 100% of the time is kind of the opposite of what Zeratul is.
There's ways around this, namely short term buffs and invisibility that's broken by attacking. I do agree with the general consensus though that taking items out of the game might simplify that game too much. This could be made up in a mechanics fashion, like how Super Smash Brothers has no items (well...) but complex mechanics, but that's been really simplified as well.
What you're left with might be almost a turn based game in pacing and where you know the outcome of pretty much every fight because optimal play is so straightforward.
I really like the idea of wc3 custom maps with the same heroes. They could put in enfos, footy wars, Uther Party all using the same heroes. Then again all those games require items, if not last hitting.
Well, it always kind of seemed weird that Blizzard would go after LoL and Dota 2 so late. That they will not, after all, makes perfect sense. They know what happens when copies go after the thriving original, they own WoW :p
Pass on this. If they integrate this one's launcher with one of their actual games I could see many people giving it a try (and more).
On November 10 2013 09:59 Taguchi wrote: Well, it always kind of seemed weird that Blizzard would go after LoL and Dota 2 so late. That they will not, after all, makes perfect sense. They know what happens when copies go after the thriving original, they own WoW :p
Pass on this. If they integrate this one's launcher with one of their actual games I could see many people giving it a try (and more).
WoW isn't the original. Ultima Online is... and Everquest was the one that popularized it. WoW blew everything else out of the market (and grew the market at least 100-fold in the process).
On November 10 2013 11:47 spacemonkeyy wrote: Seems confusing to have SC2 characters outside of the SC2 universe- not a fan.
You can imagine a black hole opening near mar sara, This black hole sucked in the wc3 heros and the diablo heros inside. Now they all poped out in the sc universe. Alliances are made and wars start being waged to see who has the biggest dick
On November 10 2013 11:47 spacemonkeyy wrote: Seems confusing to have SC2 characters outside of the SC2 universe- not a fan.
It's also confusing to have "dire" and "radiant" heroes on the same team in Dota. Why are they killing the ancient? Where do the infinity minions spawn, etc. If you're going to look at this game from a storyline point of view then you're going to have a bad time.
I don't understand why people are bashing this game right now. Blizzard usually takes its long ass time to develop these games. It's good to start the skill floor to the approach level to recruit more people to test out the game. If more people are interested, then Blizzard will find another way to make the game more competitive, if possible.
One game that comes to mind with a relatively high skill floor was Team Fortress 2. It was a very good game with a lot of strategic elements, builds, etc. However, the game was hard to play for a semi-casual like me. So, it's good to play it safe and work your way up like LoL did!
Right now, Blizzard wants the community to define the game first before making the next step, and I think that's a very smart move. Again, remember that this is the alpha stage, so there's still a lot more for growth (if you look at how Blizzard develops its games, you will know that alpha stage is usually nothing compared to the final product). I am pretty sure that Blizzard does have the eSports image in mind but wants the game to develop organically along with the gamers before making its statement as an eSports game.
On November 10 2013 18:57 hansonslee wrote: I don't understand why people are bashing this game right now. Blizzard usually takes its long ass time to develop these games. It's good to start the skill floor to the approach level to recruit more people to test out the game. If more people are interested, then Blizzard will find another way to make the game more competitive, if possible.
One game that comes to mind with a relatively high skill floor was Team Fortress 2. It was a very good game with a lot of strategic elements, builds, etc. However, the game was hard to play for a semi-casual like me. So, it's good to play it safe and work your way up like LoL did!
Right now, Blizzard wants the community to define the game first before making the next step, and I think that's a very smart move. Again, remember that this is the alpha stage, so there's still a lot more for growth (if you look at how Blizzard develops its games, you will know that alpha stage is usually nothing compared to the final product). I am pretty sure that Blizzard does have the eSports image in mind but wants the game to develop organically along with the gamers before making its statement as an eSports game.
Couldn't of said it better myself. Blizzard is first and fore most trying to make the game FUN. Which it should firstly cause it is a game. Give the community the tools to maybe take it a little further and see where it goes from there.
They did this perfectly with Hearthstone. Game is easy to get into but not only that it's fun to play. As you can see with that game, if it's fun the community will try and take it to the next step.
100k views for an online card game... in Blizzard I trust!
On November 10 2013 21:12 BananaJunkie wrote: if only blizzard would use their time on the games they already released instead of copying other games... but it seems to work for them..
Recipe for instant failure:
Work on games you've already released instead of developing new games.
On November 10 2013 21:12 BananaJunkie wrote: if only blizzard would use their time on the games they already released instead of copying other games... but it seems to work for them..
Recipe for instant failure:
Work on games you've already released instead of developing new games.
More like fixing the games released way to early =)
On November 09 2013 13:57 xxjcdentonxx wrote: Calling it HotS. What's the big idea.
If it was still called Blizzard All-Stars, the acronym for it would be BallS
All I really see this as is a coffee break Dota. Not deep but it'll be fun to play here and there when my friends aren't up for some Dota. Hopefully unlocking new heroes doesn't require a grind as huge as LoL's, because that would conflict with what I want out of this game.
Obviously going to take the wait and see approach, but I am really interested in their approach. I know most people don`t agree, but I actually like them removing the whole last hit and creep farming mechanic. That laning/farming phase is boring for me in Dota. Not sure how I feel about the shared global exp though. As for lack of items, that may limit diversity greatly, but I am hopeful the talent tree can help fill that gap (still not entirely sure how it works).
Also keeping in mind this game is in alpha phase, there is a lot of time to improve and the polish will be there in the final product. I currently don`t see it replacing Dota as my "go to" game, but I would definitely try this with friends.
On November 11 2013 02:36 mango_destroyer wrote: Obviously going to take the wait and see approach, but I am really interested in their approach. I know most people don`t agree, but I actually like them removing the whole last hit and creep farming mechanic. That laning/farming phase is boring for me in Dota. Not sure how I feel about the shared global exp though. As for lack of items, that may limit diversity greatly, but I am hopeful the talent tree can help fill that gap (still not entirely sure how it works).
Also keeping in mind this game is in alpha phase, there is a lot of time to improve and the polish will be there in the final product. I currently don`t see it replacing Dota as my "go to" game, but I would definitely try this with friends.
The laning in phase in dota is as boring as you make it. You can go extremely aggressive from -30 seconds and keep the pace if you want. Or you can sit back and afk burning farm. Something this game lacks.
On November 11 2013 02:36 mango_destroyer wrote: Obviously going to take the wait and see approach, but I am really interested in their approach. I know most people don`t agree, but I actually like them removing the whole last hit and creep farming mechanic. That laning/farming phase is boring for me in Dota. Not sure how I feel about the shared global exp though. As for lack of items, that may limit diversity greatly, but I am hopeful the talent tree can help fill that gap (still not entirely sure how it works).
Also keeping in mind this game is in alpha phase, there is a lot of time to improve and the polish will be there in the final product. I currently don`t see it replacing Dota as my "go to" game, but I would definitely try this with friends.
The laning in phase in dota is as boring as you make it. You can go extremely aggressive from -30 seconds and keep the pace if you want. Or you can sit back and afk burning farm. Something this game lacks.
Gonna see Korean doto evolve into lvl 1 5-man push.
On November 10 2013 09:38 FuzzyJAM wrote: Seems ultra-casual.
Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, of course, just not something I'm interested in.
As someone who is busy and likes Moba, I am happy someone is making one that takes 20 minutes and is super fun. My girlfriend wants to play Dota 2 with me, but its to much of a time sink for her(she is a musician and can't justify the time). A game like this, which has elements of Dota in it, but is a bit easier, is very exciting for me.
Lets face it, if it gets people to try it out, play and then maybe look at Dota 2 with new eyes, thats great for all of us.
I like their approach - you just cannot get a into the scene with another Dota / LoL clone - you need a new idea. Sth. S2 is also trying to do with Strife and i'm really looking forward to see how boths those game will do.
Also playtested a shitload of other MOBAs beside the two big ones but they're often just bad or overcomplicated clones than don't really add anything new or fun.
It seems... interesting. I at first thought I liked the different maps idea, but I'm not a fan of the fact that each map has a different gimmicky mechanic.
On November 11 2013 05:51 PetitCrabe wrote: ITT: people who are obsessed with being the new Jaedong.
It`s called a game guys, why does it absolutely need to have depth and a pro scene... So many people here trying hard to appear pro and hardcore...
I'd like to point out you are on teamliquid, a website which spawned from one of the most intense and deep games that had(has) an important pro scene. Do you really think its a stretch to think a majority of the user base likes deep strategic games?
On November 11 2013 05:51 PetitCrabe wrote: ITT: people who are obsessed with being the new Jaedong.
It`s called a game guys, why does it absolutely need to have depth and a pro scene... So many people here trying hard to appear pro and hardcore...
I'd like to point out you are on teamliquid, a website which spawned from one of the most intense and deep games that had(has) an important pro scene. Do you really think its a stretch to think a majority of the user base likes deep strategic games?
On November 11 2013 05:51 PetitCrabe wrote: ITT: people who are obsessed with being the new Jaedong.
It`s called a game guys, why does it absolutely need to have depth and a pro scene... So many people here trying hard to appear pro and hardcore...
I'd like to point out you are on teamliquid, a website which spawned from one of the most intense and deep games that had(has) an important pro scene. Do you really think its a stretch to think a majority of the user base likes deep strategic games?
I know that people on TL like to comment on the depth in games without having played them or event touched them. But this is the internet, everyone has bunches of opinions.
Glad they decided to scrap the farming meta and jungling and other crap. also no russians. no fuking russians! the game play looks fun. cant wait to play
On November 11 2013 13:29 ShoRyuKen wrote: Glad they decided to scrap the farming meta and jungling and other crap. also no russians. no fuking russians! the game play looks fun. cant wait to play
what makes you think there will be no russians? i already checked HEROES in my beta profile @battle.net
On November 11 2013 05:51 PetitCrabe wrote: ITT: people who are obsessed with being the new Jaedong.
It`s called a game guys, why does it absolutely need to have depth and a pro scene... So many people here trying hard to appear pro and hardcore...
It's not about being the new jaedong, it's about games which challenge you. Games where you can see the big difference between good players and bad players, and go from bad to good by practicing and learning about the game. When games are casualized on a huge scale like this, this difference becomes isignificant and hard to spot.
I don't care if a game doesn't have a pro scene, but if the game has no real skill difference and it's all about mashing buttons, I don't see the point in playing the game at all.
Hmm. personally i hate the idea that you buy heroes with 'in-game currency' Rather have em all available too. Another thing im sort of worried about is the skin system. Cause blizzard has iconic characters, re-skinning them to be something completely different i think kinda sucks The nova on roller skates is just silly. Some crossovers i dont mind, like uther in a medic outfit is 'OK' Part of why why dota 1 was so popular was because of its art style and memorable character models. (Well most of them)
Also I might be nit-picking this like crazy but... The announcer sounds similar to LOL. They have so many iconic characters from their games, but they decide to use that stupid generic female voice. Also the base design is extremely similar to LOL. The stairs into the fountain? I know all of the points i listed is not a big deal at all but i do hope they dont 'copy' too much. Be their own thing They have probably millions of props to play around with to design the map. Be more original blizz. Btw i love how the game looks. Just some concerns.
Theres no point in them making some super hardcore moba, they are never going to be able to compete with the competitive scenes of LoL and dota2. At least they are aiming to do something different with all the different maps, theres a lot of scope for these games with map editing etc...
Seems like what someone mentioned earlier where people just want a hardcore game to milk early adopter status with, be the next jaedong, or feel like they are pro for a few weeks abusing their beta experience to say they are the best before quitting when everyone catches up.
I feel like the greatest strength to this game that people haven't mentioned much/glossed over is it looking like Blizzard's attempt to re-introduce a strong custom game environment/community that SCBW/WC3 had and they sort of failed with SC2, their 2nd chance. I thought they were practically telling us that when they were talking about rotating map pools and the up and coming map editor. Hell, the game itself is basically looking like 3 shitty custom maps already
On November 11 2013 19:00 Demizzle wrote: I feel like the greatest strength to this game that people haven't mentioned much/glossed over is it looking like Blizzard's attempt to re-introduce a strong custom game environment/community that SCBW/WC3 had and they sort of failed with SC2, their 2nd chance. I thought they were practically telling us that when they were talking about rotating map pools and the up and coming map editor. Hell, the game itself is basically looking like 3 shitty custom maps already
The editor is really a good thing, but considering the game is F2P, I don't know what kind of limitations it will have. Blizz will make no money if the editors are powerful enough to make things better than what they're selling (so there's no point in buying it).
I dont get it why so many people complain about the game not being copy of dota 2/lol. Well if you like those, play em. Its like saying - I dont like snowboard, because it is different, that skiing. No lasthit/items means more focus on teamplay/strategy.
Some people here are saying weird stuff like if u remove last hit/activates on items it will make game very casual. Whats casual in chess, in which u dont do anything mechanical other than move your fingers once in a while? Chess is not LOL and HoS is not lol either.
Needless to say last hitting is the worst looking skill you can imagine. It is fun to do, when u play the game, but it is like dividing your workers in sc2. If you remove lasthitting, would that make a game less interesting? It is one of those skills anyone can learn in under an hour. Its not something that pro dont do. And when everyone does it, its not that good looking. Its not marine control vs banelings. Its more like workers split (that anyone can learn in under an hour), or walking on the ground (something we all learned how to do when we were kids).
I'd rather watch different maps with different objectives / strategy than watch for 10 minutes a bunch of guys last hitting creeps. As if it is something that requires SUPERB skill to do. Guys, comon. Solving integrals, playing the piano, swimming fast requires more skill than last hitting.
I would love to congratulate blizzard for a wise decision of not competing lol/dota but rather make their own version that will be quite different and definitely wont be casual. Its not last hits that make u good in dota. Its brains, experience and good teamplay.
Also I dont see a problem with no store. Why not make certain heroes that will scan/place wards/teleport etc? No items doesn't mean there wont be heroes with abilities that u can buy in a store in other games
Well, I feel sad with the lack of a shop to buy items, the items makes the game interesting, they allow you to evolve you character in a different way from one mach to another (pure damage <-> tank <-> Armor/magic pen <-> speed <->....).
But there are other things that sounds interesting like the new maps mechanics, I m looking forward to this game.
PD: will the game feature a lack of toxic players like flammers?
On November 11 2013 17:08 Acnologia wrote: I wonder what the pricing will be like for this game....or is there some info on that out already?
I'm quite sure they've said it'll be F2P with microtransactions for skins etc like LoL
They've said it'll definitely be f2p with an unlock system similar to lol: you can pay to unlock heroes or grind to get them for free, and on top of that you have skins that you can only buy with real money. They were also considering providing alternative abilities for heroes to unlock. Overall i feel that it's great that they are trying to do something completly different, but I hate their proposed business model, it's one of the biggest reason I could not enjoy playing lol over dota2.
On November 11 2013 19:38 mynhauzen wrote: Needless to say last hitting is the worst looking skill you can imagine. It is fun to do, when u play the game, but it is like dividing your workers in sc2. If you remove lasthitting, would that make a game less interesting? It is one of those skills anyone can learn in under an hour. Its not something that pro dont do. And when everyone does it, its not that good looking. Its not marine control vs banelings. Its more like workers split (that anyone can learn in under an hour), or walking on the ground (something we all learned how to do when we were kids).
I agree that last hitting is not a spectacular display of skill for the viewer, but people don't learn proper last hitting in an hour and it's not as easy as worker split. In fact, pros train last hitting allll the time and due to attack animations / attack speed / dmg dealt, every hero has different timings you need to remember. An example that comes closer to last hitting imo is building supply depots/pylons/overlords in time. Not exactly amazing to watch, but a skill that takes some amount of training. I wouldn't want supply to be removed from sc2 - and that skill is even more trivial than lasthitting is in mobas. So, while it's not a fun thing to watch, it is one of the skills that differentiates a good from a bad player in dota2/LoL. And when you want to look at a game in terms of eSports, I think it has to have several areas where good players can excel over newbies. Not saying Heroes of the Storm doesn't have those. I sure haven't seen enough of the game to judge it and I don't get the community backalsh either.
On November 11 2013 17:08 Acnologia wrote: I wonder what the pricing will be like for this game....or is there some info on that out already?
I'm quite sure they've said it'll be F2P with microtransactions for skins etc like LoL
They've said it'll definitely be f2p with an unlock system similar to lol: you can pay to unlock heroes or grind to get them for free, and on top of that you have skins that you can only buy with real money. They were also considering providing alternative abilities for heroes to unlock. Overall i feel that it's great that they are trying to do something completly different, but I hate their proposed business model, it's one of the biggest reason I could not enjoy playing lol over dota2.
And to be clear, all those skins look really cool.
On November 11 2013 19:38 mynhauzen wrote: I dont get it why so many people complain about the game not being copy of dota 2/lol. Well if you like those, play em. Its like saying - I dont like snowboard, because it is different, that skiing. No lasthit/items means more focus on teamplay/strategy.
Might have to do with the game literally being called Blizzard DotA not too long ago, so this isn't quite what people were expecting me included.
Personally I'm fine with this though, I will at least give the game a chance. It might end up being a casual game I can play on the side of DotA 2 when I'm not up for that.
Would have been interesting if they made actual commander units and added some RTS aspect in it but probably not going to happen, I'm not exactly sure what the deal with Abathur is but probably nothing as big like that.
I can't believe people are complaining this game is too casual. Like most people here, I've been playing DotA for what, at least 10 years now, and with a minimum of objectivity, DotA has some design flaws that go from ''terrible'' to ''abysmal''.
If there's anything this genre needs, it's a more casual approach to it, and less ''20 minutes of babysitting a carry that ends up being terrible with a support hero on which you will barely get any item'', or ''fighting on who buys the wards and the chicken'', or even ''the game is already over but let's all waste another 15 minutes until we can all leave''. And I can't imagine how confusing the item system must be for a new player. In many ways, this is pretty much one of the most hardcore games out there.
We ignore or accept all those terrible gameplay aspects in DotA simply because we got used to it, and because the good overcomes the bad, the heroes are so much fun. But come on, after 10 years, we should expect more from games we put countless of hours into.
Also, every hero having a ''good skin'' and an ''evil skin'', depending on which team you're on, that's just amazing.
On November 11 2013 05:51 PetitCrabe wrote: ITT: people who are obsessed with being the new Jaedong.
It`s called a game guys, why does it absolutely need to have depth and a pro scene... So many people here trying hard to appear pro and hardcore...
It's not about being the new jaedong, it's about games which challenge you. Games where you can see the big difference between good players and bad players, and go from bad to good by practicing and learning about the game. When games are casualized on a huge scale like this, this difference becomes isignificant and hard to spot.
I don't care if a game doesn't have a pro scene, but if the game has no real skill difference and it's all about mashing buttons, I don't see the point in playing the game at all.
Eh, all games have their place. CoD has millions of players... and the skill ceiling is really low (unlike some other FPS).
I think I'll enjoy it, but take it for what it is: a casual version of Dota. Given that we already have Dota 2 (or LoL if that's your poison) for all the strategic depth you could want, I don't see a casual game as a problem at all. No need to play 150 games to start to understand it. No, jump in and kill shit. Maybe you can't differentiate yourself as much if you are highly skilled, which will cause it to not become an eSport (just as CoD isn't). But not all games have to be like that.
On November 12 2013 00:28 Acrofales wrote: But not all games have to be like that.
In fact majority of players are casuals. Farmville is a prime example. Game with no graphics, no depth, no mechanics at all is one the most popular games in the history.
Pretty cool that they used Diablo 2 appearance for Diablo and Tyrael. I think they looked way better there. Now I just wish they used Death Knight Arthas rather than Lich King. Still, looks like a really fun game.
If people are wondering about how carries can "farm", Kerrigan can gather shield when attacking an opponent, Sonia can attack to gain "rage" points, which can be used for her abilities, and Valla can increase her attack and movement speed when attacking. I just hope Blizzard incorporates that "build-up" mechanic for most of these assassins to make them more like carries!
On November 11 2013 19:38 mynhauzen wrote: Needless to say last hitting is the worst looking skill you can imagine. It is fun to do, when u play the game, but it is like dividing your workers in sc2. If you remove lasthitting, would that make a game less interesting? It is one of those skills anyone can learn in under an hour. Its not something that pro dont do. And when everyone does it, its not that good looking. Its not marine control vs banelings. Its more like workers split (that anyone can learn in under an hour), or walking on the ground (something we all learned how to do when we were kids).
I agree that last hitting is not a spectacular display of skill for the viewer, but people don't learn proper last hitting in an hour and it's not as easy as worker split. In fact, pros train last hitting allll the time and due to attack animations / attack speed / dmg dealt, every hero has different timings you need to remember. An example that comes closer to last hitting imo is building supply depots/pylons/overlords in time. Not exactly amazing to watch, but a skill that takes some amount of training. I wouldn't want supply to be removed from sc2 - and that skill is even more trivial than lasthitting is in mobas. So, while it's not a fun thing to watch, it is one of the skills that differentiates a good from a bad player in dota2/LoL. And when you want to look at a game in terms of eSports, I think it has to have several areas where good players can excel over newbies. Not saying Heroes of the Storm doesn't have those. I sure haven't seen enough of the game to judge it and I don't get the community backalsh either.
Well, people just love to jump conclusions before giving Blizzard a chance. Also, what sucks is the community is pretty harsh towards Blizzard, even if Blizzard is trying very hard to interact with the forum (you should check the WCS Q&A and see how much smack the eSports director, Kim Phan, got, even though she did not do anything wrong on David Kim's level; I still won't forget how poorly he responded to the depth of micro video).
On November 11 2013 22:50 lepape wrote: I can't believe people are complaining this game is too casual. Like most people here, I've been playing DotA for what, at least 10 years now, and with a minimum of objectivity, DotA has some design flaws that go from ''terrible'' to ''abysmal''.
If there's anything this genre needs, it's a more casual approach to it, and less ''20 minutes of babysitting a carry that ends up being terrible with a support hero on which you will barely get any item'', or ''fighting on who buys the wards and the chicken'', or even ''the game is already over but let's all waste another 15 minutes until we can all leave''. And I can't imagine how confusing the item system must be for a new player. In many ways, this is pretty much one of the most hardcore games out there.
We ignore or accept all those terrible gameplay aspects in DotA simply because we got used to it, and because the good overcomes the bad, the heroes are so much fun. But come on, after 10 years, we should expect more from games we put countless of hours into.
Also, every hero having a ''good skin'' and an ''evil skin'', depending on which team you're on, that's just amazing.
When i hear people talk about dota i sometime wonder if we play the same game... I almost never "babysit" my carry for more than 10 min. I would either be in a 2v2 or 3v3 lane, trying to zone out the other and to kill them, or if it's against a solo offlaner i would try to kill him, rotate to mid etc. The early game is by far my favorite part of the game when i play a support hero, this is the time where supports shine. People still talk about dota as if the metagame was still all about 4 protect 1.
On November 12 2013 03:37 RagequitBM wrote: Pretty cool that they used Diablo 2 appearance for Diablo and Tyrael. I think they looked way better there. Now I just wish they used Death Knight Arthas rather than Lich King. Still, looks like a really fun game.
I'm sure there will be a DK Arthas skin - they already have LK and Paladin Arthas in.
On November 12 2013 03:43 hansonslee wrote: If people are wondering about how carries can "farm", Kerrigan can gather shield when attacking an opponent, Sonia can attack to gain "rage" points, which can be used for her abilities, and Valla can increase her attack and movement speed when attacking. I just hope Blizzard incorporates that "build-up" mechanic for most of these assassins to make them more like carries!
A lot of these are pretty short duration. I didn't play Kerrigan or Sonya, but Valla's attack speed buff only lasts for 10-15 seconds (didn't pull out a stop watch). I think it's mostly something to make their damage stand out in sustained battles.
I really think we are looking at the the wrong way - this is not going to be played in the same way as DOTA or League, so using the same preconceptions on how the game will go is wrong.
For example I think the laning phase will be gone. As you are no longer getting any bonus from last hitting, there is little reason to stay in lane, what I speculate will happen is that people will jungle/hover around the lanes, targeting neutrals or ganking in order to secure bonus XP, and then they'll return to lane once the enemy has pushed, so as to push it back.
The carry/support role as we know it from DotA will be removed as well I suspect. Exactly how it'd be replaced I do not know, but I think it'd be in a burst/sustain/control trinity form. Difference from DOTA being that the people providing sustain/control can contribute significantly to burst as well, seeing how everyone is on the same level.
And people WILL find ways to differentiate good players from bad - if you can do it in poker, you can do it in anything. it just won't be in the same way we do for other games of the same genre.
Only thing that makes me kinda sad is that they will probably bring in heroes from the metzen era of lore. Random gids that appeared only in novels, characters that got introduced in WoW and the like.
I have no idea how often I have seen Uther in the spotlight for example, and it feels forced. What about Medivh, Lothar or personalities from diablo 2. At least there are rumors Fenix will be in the game.
On November 12 2013 12:01 Mataza wrote: Only thing that makes me kinda sad is that they will probably bring in heroes from the metzen era of lore. Random gids that appeared only in novels, characters that got introduced in WoW and the like.
I have no idea how often I have seen Uther in the spotlight for example, and it feels forced. What about Medivh, Lothar or personalities from diablo 2. At least there are rumors Fenix will be in the game.
Metzen kind of made Warcraft as a universe, anyone from the franchise will be from "His era." Lothar is a strong possibility for the future since he's the Alliance focus in the movie, so they'll probably do some cross promotion with him.
I know when Uther first showed up, my point is that it feels forced how often he is shoved in our faces. For characters like Arthas or Kerrigan it feels appropriate to to brought up often. In WC2 and WC3 Uther was just one of many characters. And those other characters don't appear nearly as often.
It's clear that someone at Blizzard really loves to bring out Uther.
On November 12 2013 12:20 Mataza wrote: I know when Uther first showed up, my point is that it feels forced how often he is shoved in our faces. For characters like Arthas or Kerrigan it feels appropriate to to brought up often. In WC2 and WC3 Uther was just one of many characters. And those other characters don't appear nearly as often.
It's clear that someone at Blizzard really loves to bring out Uther.
I assume it's because there's a real dearth of paladin characters and more people are gonna know Uther than, say, Liadrin or Dezco or even Turalyon. That might change after WoD brings Yrel and Maraad to the forefront, but for the time being Uther is still the face of Warcraft paladins.
On November 12 2013 12:20 Mataza wrote: I know when Uther first showed up, my point is that it feels forced how often he is shoved in our faces. For characters like Arthas or Kerrigan it feels appropriate to to brought up often. In WC2 and WC3 Uther was just one of many characters. And those other characters don't appear nearly as often.
It's clear that someone at Blizzard really loves to bring out Uther.
I assume it's because there's a real dearth of paladin characters and more people are gonna know Uther than, say, Liadrin or Dezco or even Turalyon. That might change after WoD brings Yrel and Maraad to the forefront, but for the time being Uther is still the face of Warcraft paladins.
Tirion Fordring?
Not that I mind Uther, but there are only 2 or 3 famous lore characters for any given class (mages and warriors being the obvious exceptions... I guess shamans as well).
Name one priest other than Tyrande. Name one warlock other than Gul'dan, a druid other than Malfurion (Staghelm the gimp doesn't count) or a rogue other than Garona.
Sure, they exist, and if you think a bit you can come up with 1 or 2 more for each, but it's hardly surprising that there aren't that many famous paladins.
Watching the videos of the matches they played I got an impression that 90% of time you run around with your whole team and do the objectives. I dont like that aspect so much. In LoL and Dota I mostly enjoy the first half of the game when you are alone or with one more teammate pushing your lane, trying to gang. Late game, when you are all bunched up engaging the enemy feels like a cluster**** to me and Im not really fond of that.
Maybe in this game they make those battles more fun I hope.
On November 12 2013 20:39 NukeD wrote: Watching the videos of the matches they played I got an impression that 90% of time you run around with your whole team and do the objectives. I dont like that aspect so much. In LoL and Dota I mostly enjoy the first half of the game when you are alone or with one more teammate pushing your lane, trying to gang. Late game, when you are all bunched up engaging the enemy feels like a cluster**** to me and Im not really fond of that.
Maybe in this game they make those battles more fun I hope.
I don't know, I don't really *love* laning very much. It can be very frustrating to "win lane lose game", which is one major reason I took a break from LoL.
Running around as a team, teamfighting, and completing objectives is WAY more fun than PvE'ing in lane against minions.
On November 12 2013 20:39 NukeD wrote: Watching the videos of the matches they played I got an impression that 90% of time you run around with your whole team and do the objectives. I dont like that aspect so much. In LoL and Dota I mostly enjoy the first half of the game when you are alone or with one more teammate pushing your lane, trying to gang. Late game, when you are all bunched up engaging the enemy feels like a cluster**** to me and Im not really fond of that.
Maybe in this game they make those battles more fun I hope.
I don't know, I don't really *love* laning very much. It can be very frustrating to "win lane lose game", which is one major reason I took a break from LoL.
Running around as a team, teamfighting, and completing objectives is WAY more fun than PvE'ing in lane against minions.
To be fair, winning your lane is usually more about removing your opponent from it than who clicks on creeps better.
On November 12 2013 20:39 NukeD wrote: Watching the videos of the matches they played I got an impression that 90% of time you run around with your whole team and do the objectives. I dont like that aspect so much. In LoL and Dota I mostly enjoy the first half of the game when you are alone or with one more teammate pushing your lane, trying to gang. Late game, when you are all bunched up engaging the enemy feels like a cluster**** to me and Im not really fond of that.
Maybe in this game they make those battles more fun I hope.
I don't know, I don't really *love* laning very much. It can be very frustrating to "win lane lose game", which is one major reason I took a break from LoL.
Running around as a team, teamfighting, and completing objectives is WAY more fun than PvE'ing in lane against minions.
To be fair, winning your lane is usually more about removing your opponent from it than who clicks on creeps better.
Yeah people keep repeating that laning it's PvEing vs minion... it's not you have a lane opponent and that's what makes it interesting! Clearing jungle/map objective camps though like heroes seems to be revolving around is actually PvE most of the time though...
On November 12 2013 20:39 NukeD wrote: Watching the videos of the matches they played I got an impression that 90% of time you run around with your whole team and do the objectives. I dont like that aspect so much. In LoL and Dota I mostly enjoy the first half of the game when you are alone or with one more teammate pushing your lane, trying to gang. Late game, when you are all bunched up engaging the enemy feels like a cluster**** to me and Im not really fond of that.
Maybe in this game they make those battles more fun I hope.
I don't know, I don't really *love* laning very much. It can be very frustrating to "win lane lose game", which is one major reason I took a break from LoL.
Running around as a team, teamfighting, and completing objectives is WAY more fun than PvE'ing in lane against minions.
The thing you seem to miss is that most laning is 1v1 or 2v2 with jungler or roam interaction for temporary numbers advantadge. Teamfighting is by definition reliant on your team. If the game has a significant laning phase you can still feel good about that even if your team is a bunch of trolls or are playing like retards (a significant risk in any teamgame, hell sometimes I'm the guy who plays like a retard). You might have lost the game terribly but you can say stuff like "at least I totally owned that XY 1v1" and still feel pumped after the game (on the flipside that same thing often leads to flamewars, "I owned top so hard but you fed mid even harder etc. etc.").
As it looks this game will be all about teamwork and coordination. The part of LoL and Dota that pisses me off often is exactly that part when I try to find a quick game solo, simply because it usually doesn't exist (or is restricted to a very basic level).
It looks like a fun game for 5v5 with friends or other arranged groups, but the SoloQ aspect looks like a complete nightmare to me. Maybe I'm just too jaded and the entire community will rock and 5 random guys will mesh into a team immediately, but somehow I just can't see that happening.
This looks like a graphed up funmap to me… And not one thats actually fun in the long haul. Objective based gameplay is a neat idea, but i fear it forces the game too much towards these objectives instead of the real goal to kill the enemy base/ancient/stronghold (whatever they call it here).
I somehow get a Dawn of War 2 „extreme version“ (no armies at all) vibe from it.
On November 13 2013 22:55 Velr wrote: This looks like a graphed up funmap to me… And not one thats actually fun in the long haul. Objective based gameplay is a neat idea, but i fear it forces the game too much towards these objectives instead of the real goal to kill the enemy base/ancient/stronghold (whatever they call it here).
I somehow get a Dawn of War 2 „extreme version“ (no armies at all) vibe from it.
I think that's the point. Get the reward, and the reward makes it easier to strike the enemy.
My question is how often will there be team fights trying to get these objectives? And what's the benefit of not getting the objectives to doing so. I guess we'll have to wait until beta to play around with it.
On November 09 2013 19:27 JustPassingBy wrote: Stiches should've been the butcher, imo and Valla should've been either Natalya or Danetta
During the Deep Dive panel on Saturday before the live matches at Blizzcon, they showed a bunch of champions and some of their skins in alphabetical order. The butcher was on that list, then later on you saw stitches with like 5 skins or so. So they are both in the game, at least from what they showed, but of course that could change.
On November 09 2013 19:27 JustPassingBy wrote: Stiches should've been the butcher, imo and Valla should've been either Natalya or Danetta
During the Deep Dive panel on Saturday before the live matches at Blizzcon, they showed a bunch of champions and some of their skins in alphabetical order. The butcher was on that list, then later on you saw stitches with like 5 skins or so. So they are both in the game, at least from what they showed, but of course that could change.
Initially when I heard about this game, it was called "Blizzard Dota" so it was quite a shock when I heard that the experience would be shared and there would be no last hitting. Sounded like they were completely ripping the very basic rules of the genre. It definitely brought a lot of concern and skepticism from me.
After giving it some thought though, If Blizzard really did just make another DotA game I realized that I would probably give it a try for a few days then just go straight back to Dota 2. While I remain really skeptical for heroes of the storm, this new direction and take on the genre is something I can probably agree with and appreciate. I already have Dota 2, I don't really need another one. Just thinking about having a fun, chaotic game to play when I don't have enough time to get a a full DotA match in sounds great. I practically have to plan my schedule before committing to a match of Dota. Not having to do that for a game in an similar genre is not a bad idea at all. For now I will say that this game is very promising but its up to Blizzard to really deliver something amazing and fresh.
On November 09 2013 19:27 JustPassingBy wrote: Stiches should've been the butcher, imo and Valla should've been either Natalya or Danetta
During the Deep Dive panel on Saturday before the live matches at Blizzcon, they showed a bunch of champions and some of their skins in alphabetical order. The butcher was on that list, then later on you saw stitches with like 5 skins or so. So they are both in the game, at least from what they showed, but of course that could change.
I played Abathur and he was really interesting and actually difficult. You have to have complete map awareness since most of his abilities have unlimited range. And you have to know how to play every other hero, since you become the other heroes temporarily. I think he'll be really fun and challenging to play. And I'm interested to see what cool heroes the design team can create with the unique parameters of Heroes.
On November 16 2013 09:32 Antoine wrote: not to mention you need map awareness because you spend half the time inside somebody else, while your own body is just out there doing nothing
So, does that mean someone isn't able to play while you are inside him and can go afk?
On November 16 2013 09:32 Antoine wrote: not to mention you need map awareness because you spend half the time inside somebody else, while your own body is just out there doing nothing
So, does that mean someone isn't able to play while you are inside him and can go afk?
basically, you have one ability where you go inside an allied hero/wall/turret/whatever, and you can give that unit shields, shoot out a skillshot, and shoot off a point blank aoe. in that mode, abathur is just standing around vulnerable wherever you cast the spell from. the allied hero still behaves as normal. When you use abathur's ult to copy an ally hero, the copy takes the place of abathur, so you aren't vulnerable in that state.
On November 17 2013 02:58 Antoine wrote: basically, you have one ability where you go inside an allied hero/wall/turret/whatever, and you can give that unit shields, shoot out a skillshot, and shoot off a point blank aoe. in that mode, abathur is just standing around vulnerable wherever you cast the spell from. the allied hero still behaves as normal. When you use abathur's ult to copy an ally hero, the copy takes the place of abathur, so you aren't vulnerable in that state.
On November 17 2013 02:58 Antoine wrote: basically, you have one ability where you go inside an allied hero/wall/turret/whatever, and you can give that unit shields, shoot out a skillshot, and shoot off a point blank aoe. in that mode, abathur is just standing around vulnerable wherever you cast the spell from. the allied hero still behaves as normal. When you use abathur's ult to copy an ally hero, the copy takes the place of abathur, so you aren't vulnerable in that state.
So Lifestealer + Meepo. Neat.
not helpful at all to put him in terms of some combination Lifestealer + Meepo
There is a HoN hero with pretty much that exact ability called empath. It's like naix infest but you get other abilities to use while inside another hero and you passive buff that hero while inside as well.
I actually like that they call this a hero brawler and not a moba or arts. It really is a hero brawler in that you start fighting from the beginning. There is no "farming" at all and so it basically becomes a 5v5 from the get go which in my opinion is awesome. Looking forward to trying this game out!
On November 17 2013 07:16 sns3rsam wrote: I actually like that they call this a hero brawler and not a moba or arts. It really is a hero brawler in that you start fighting from the beginning. There is no "farming" at all and so it basically becomes a 5v5 from the get go which in my opinion is awesome. Looking forward to trying this game out!
That's cool. The number one thing that ruins games for is snowballing and having to stick around in a unwinnable game. MOBAs and NS2 have this problem and it really destroys my longterm fun in the game because once the opening phase of the game is done the outcome is already determined.
On November 16 2013 09:32 Antoine wrote: not to mention you need map awareness because you spend half the time inside somebody else, while your own body is just out there doing nothing
So, does that mean someone isn't able to play while you are inside him and can go afk?
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.
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.
Sonya (Barbarian) feels imbalanced as hell even though its early. Generating fury due to Q and autoattacks/taking damage means you can have Q (spear pull towards enemy + 20 fury, brief stun and damage) into hammer of the ancients into whirlwind spam nonstop. This plus also stunning with her ulti seems very powerful.
While I believe this can be worked out with cooldowns and its a very early stage, it cannot be that whirlwind in itself consumes whirlwind, has no cooldown and generates fury as well. Other than that, AI too easy, but fun game nonetheless.
On November 11 2013 20:16 Ciryandor wrote: Furion insta-pick, especially if his skill summons Treants.
i will fight u with my Abathur spawning lings and locusts!!
There are 2 heroes I really want to play right now. Techies and/or Abathur. Whichever comes first, I'm done with the other game.
Abathur is ínteresting but I really dislike support. But I think he can work very well in the hands of a master supporter. He can assist any hero on the map (right now, just with stab, spikes and a shield) but his other abilities are not what I would call very useful. The toxic nest is meh and the locust isn't really that sick. But it might get better when he levels up. If anyone needs infos on heroes etc, I am happy to try out stuff and inform people
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
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 ?
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.
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.
People also tend to forget that Blizzard brought the prequels to us. Without them, you would never had the joy of Starcraft and Diablo to begin with.
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.
Thats how i feel since a while, looking at Blizzard games.
The only traditionel thing about Blizzard is, they keep sticking to their credo "gameplay > graphics". unfortunetely, the gameplay isnt that good either that it used to be. :/
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.
It's possible to set "faster" game speed in the first phase of the tutorial (pressing + on numpad), but it doesn't seem to work on the actual map. I wonder what that means... the showmatches we've seen thus far seemed a bit too slow to me, while I'm ok with this "faster" setting in the tutorial. Don't know it it's just my perception or if there is a chance that those showmatches were played on normal/fast speed.
Of course i will give this game a try once i can get my hands on. As latest example: Hearthstone is a classic blizzard game, cooperated with some stock market laws. Easy to learn, hard to master with damn good overall product value. Everybody who feels foolished by Blizzard in some way or an other should give it ( HotS ) at least a try...
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.
People also tend to forget that Blizzard brought the prequels to us. Without them, you would never had the joy of Starcraft and Diablo to begin with.
People also tend to forget that what Blizzard has been doing since the very beginning was giving genres accessible titles. That's what they do and what they are good at.
People also tend to forget that Blizzard brought the prequels to us. Without them, you would never had the joy of Starcraft and Diablo to begin with.
Blizzard didn't do anything. The PEOPLE at Blizzard brought the prequels to us. Unfortunately for your argument, virtually none of the decision-making talent that created the original Diablos, Warcrafts, and Starcraft are at the company anymore.
On February 19 2014 00:31 Godwrath wrote:
People also tend to forget that what Blizzard has been doing since the very beginning was giving genres accessible titles. That's what they do and what they are good at.
You're right. But YOU forget that when Blizzard started the industry was a different place. Nowadays all but the most indie of games are made to be as accessible as humanly possible. So when Blizzard continues this taking genres and making them more accessible they're effectively making things even dumber than they already are. All it takes is a cursory glance at Diablo 3 and the latest WoW expansions to see this loud and clear.
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.
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.
Oh... shudder. It's going to be a game that is fun. The horror!!!
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.
The hell do you mean "less features"? If you're talking about replays and shit: it's an alpha. If you're talking about jungling/denies and stuff, denies have been a horrible idea since their inception and they have a million more sub-objectives in the "jungle" in HoTS than any other DotA game.
The reason why it's not, IMO, going to be a good game is that it focuses so much on teamwork. You live or die by the other members of your team much moreso than in any other DotA-esque game. Given the shared XP, no gold, and all of the group objectives, you can't carry a team of dumbs like you can in the other games. I really don't like that and it gives me a reason to avoid it.
On February 19 2014 01:20 Yacobs wrote: You're right. But YOU forget that when Blizzard started the industry was a different place. Nowadays all but the most indie of games are made to be as accessible as humanly possible. So when Blizzard continues this taking genres and making them more accessible they're effectively making things even dumber than they already are. All it takes is a cursory glance at Diablo 3 and the latest WoW expansions to see this loud and clear.
If anything, now they have even less reasons than ever to change their way to make games, if not to make them even more accessible.
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.
The hell do you mean "less features"? If you're talking about replays and shit: it's an alpha. If you're talking about jungling/denies and stuff, denies have been a horrible idea since their inception and they have a million more sub-objectives in the "jungle" in HoTS than any other DotA game.
The reason why it's not, IMO, going to be a good game is that it focuses so much on teamwork. You live or die by the other members of your team much moreso than in any other DotA-esque game. Given the shared XP, no gold, and all of the group objectives, you can't carry a team of dumbs like you can in the other games. I really don't like that and it gives me a reason to avoid it.
How did you turn a general comment regarding how HotS will almost certainly be one of the more simple, straightforward entries into the genre (ie as streamlined as possible without complicated or "innovative" features to confuse their playerbase) into a tirade against denies? I don't know who you're trying to argue against because it clearly isn't me.
I'm going to play it because playing HotS with my more casual friends is going to be a much more lightweight and relaxing an experience than the DOTA we're currently playing. And if Hearthstone is any indication, the game itself will be fun enough so I don't really mind at all.
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.
So that's one (That most people haven't heard of). Where is the plenty more? Please back up your claim with some examples.
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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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?
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!
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.
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)
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!
It depends on game design. They have that in practically every game now and I don't think it's necessarily bad. First of all, it either forces you to use different heroes, thus expanding your overall game knowledge, or making you play the same hero a lot (the one you bought and are grinding for another one) which makes you understand the hero a lot better. Of course, you then have BLC, where you have 30 different heroes, standard rotation + grind to get permanent unlocks but there are no "better" heroes or hero "tiers" for that matter so you can simply unlock what you like and not worry about not being competitive. But that depends on how well Blizzard can balance their game (so far every moba fails at this and there are always preferred heroes).
so people who are using the b.net client should have seen this already. if you preordered diablo 3 ros, you will unlock demon hunter in heroes of the storm (but the preorder will not give you a spot in heroes of the storm alpha or beta)
so looks like they will be doing some additional unlocks by buying their future games, which imo is fine as long as I can unlock them later. I don't play WoW and if there is a special hero unlockable later on when pre ordering their WoW expansion packs, I will be disappointed
We're called Town Hall and we are going live tonight at 9PM EST (6PM PST) on http://twitch.tv/zoiatv
Tonight will be Episode 2 for us, but if you want to catch up and listen to Episode 1:
We generally are going to talk about state of the game, news released, propose an idea for a hero per show, and whatever else may come! We also have some BIG plans for the future so follow us on twitter: https://twitter.com/TownHallShow
On February 26 2014 03:54 Sn0_Man wrote: TBH it feels kinda too soon to be doing stuff like a periodic podcast but maybe thats just me.
We try to bring up new ideas and stuff we'd like to see. Our first episode we talked about just champions we'd like to see and how we'd like to see them played. This one is a little more structured talking about recent news and how we feel about it! And still more hypothesizing.
A bit early? Maybe, but we have fun doing it so we try to bring that to people
Do you guys know when is it coming out for Open Beta? I heard some rumors that it's coming out after the summer, but I think they'll try to opt it out as soon as possible.
I got into beta a little over a month ago and wasn't having to much fun with it initially. Fast forward to now and I have warmed up to the game a lot. I think apart of that has been me and a buddy duo-ing together a couple hours every day for the past two weeks. I like the UI update, the heroes feel pretty good and varied, I like the fact that the games don't usually go over a half hour in length and I like the game modes that are in right now(Dragon Shire being my favorite).
Anyways, can't wait for open beta so I can finally do full teams of 5. That will definitely boost the talk in the thread as well.
Edit: Going to get caught up on these podcast too!
I've been in for a couple months myself and I'm just not as interested in it as I thought it was. With the amount of time and effort I've put into other mobas I just find Hots lacking. If your team is not as organized as the other team it's so much harder to win than in any other moba. I like the idea there, but I'm a solo kinda player. I don't have many friends who play games with me. It's disappointing to have to make friends to play the game with to have a chance to win more often than you lose.
Course that's just my impression of it. It's a very polished game otherwise, and I'm glad Blizzard is making it. Just doesn't feel like it's for me. I usually boot it up every couple of weeks just to see if my opinion of it has changed. No luck yet /shrug.
On June 19 2014 03:45 Noobity wrote: I've been in for a couple months myself and I'm just not as interested in it as I thought it was. With the amount of time and effort I've put into other mobas I just find Hots lacking. If your team is not as organized as the other team it's so much harder to win than in any other moba. I like the idea there, but I'm a solo kinda player. I don't have many friends who play games with me. It's disappointing to have to make friends to play the game with to have a chance to win more often than you lose
While this is true, I feel it is a LOT easier to work as a team with random pugs in this game. Sure, sometimes you get the people who are just pants on head retarded that there is no helping, but there have been plenty of games where we came back or were coming back when the game ended just from a few pings and a couple of lines of text. It is a lot harder to get caught out of position in this game with the mounts, making it easier for pugs to work together. Of course there is a hidden mmr and this seems to have gotten better, working as a team, over time so that could be another factor if you just haven't played many games yet you're still playing with many people who probably haven't even touched a moba before.
Just as other mobas you win as a team and you lose as a team, but in HotS there are very few games where I thought I played well and my team lost(and those are generally games that are super close); whereas that happened all the time in league. And that is probably what I like most about HotS, that it seems like how well I play directly relates to my odds of winning the game, my success helps my whole team; and I just can't say that about lol, even if I stomp my lane, I'm just one man.
Another reason I started playing more hots is because of the casualness. A couple of weeks ago I watched some lcs and it gave me an itch to play a competitive games so I logged in for the first time in about a year and realized I really didn't feel like learning the new meta/champs/builds, to play the game at anything at a silver lvl or above you need to study the game and I don't know if I want to put in that much effort anymore.
On June 19 2014 03:45 Noobity wrote: I've been in for a couple months myself and I'm just not as interested in it as I thought it was. With the amount of time and effort I've put into other mobas I just find Hots lacking. If your team is not as organized as the other team it's so much harder to win than in any other moba. I like the idea there, but I'm a solo kinda player. I don't have many friends who play games with me. It's disappointing to have to make friends to play the game with to have a chance to win more often than you lose.
Course that's just my impression of it. It's a very polished game otherwise, and I'm glad Blizzard is making it. Just doesn't feel like it's for me. I usually boot it up every couple of weeks just to see if my opinion of it has changed. No luck yet /shrug.
I really feel the biggest thing for HotS at the moment would be for a team lobby before entering the game - right now I feel the success of playing solo is based heavily on what team comp/map/enemy team comp you happen to draw.. and I really don't like my games being dependent on RNG -.-
On June 19 2014 03:45 Noobity wrote: I've been in for a couple months myself and I'm just not as interested in it as I thought it was. With the amount of time and effort I've put into other mobas I just find Hots lacking. If your team is not as organized as the other team it's so much harder to win than in any other moba. I like the idea there, but I'm a solo kinda player. I don't have many friends who play games with me. It's disappointing to have to make friends to play the game with to have a chance to win more often than you lose.
Course that's just my impression of it. It's a very polished game otherwise, and I'm glad Blizzard is making it. Just doesn't feel like it's for me. I usually boot it up every couple of weeks just to see if my opinion of it has changed. No luck yet /shrug.
I really feel the biggest thing for HotS at the moment would be for a team lobby before entering the game - right now I feel the success of playing solo is based heavily on what team comp/map/enemy team comp you happen to draw.. and I really don't like my games being dependent on RNG -.-
Playing solo in this game will be a nightmare. In Dota you can solo and duo queue and just focus on farming and not making mistakes for 15-20 minutes and then carry your team through the mid game.
In HotS the 5 on 5 fights come so soon that all it takes is one dude who's not communicating or ignoring the team to screw up the whole game. And people talked a lot in the first days of the beta about the community being less aggressive and whatnot, but all it took were a few more days of people figuring out the game for the heavy flaming to begin.
I feel Blizzard was aiming to design a MOBA with only the "good parts" in, but it has been very hit and miss so far.
On June 19 2014 03:45 Noobity wrote: I've been in for a couple months myself and I'm just not as interested in it as I thought it was. With the amount of time and effort I've put into other mobas I just find Hots lacking. If your team is not as organized as the other team it's so much harder to win than in any other moba. I like the idea there, but I'm a solo kinda player. I don't have many friends who play games with me. It's disappointing to have to make friends to play the game with to have a chance to win more often than you lose.
Course that's just my impression of it. It's a very polished game otherwise, and I'm glad Blizzard is making it. Just doesn't feel like it's for me. I usually boot it up every couple of weeks just to see if my opinion of it has changed. No luck yet /shrug.
I really feel the biggest thing for HotS at the moment would be for a team lobby before entering the game - right now I feel the success of playing solo is based heavily on what team comp/map/enemy team comp you happen to draw.. and I really don't like my games being dependent on RNG -.-
Playing solo in this game will be a nightmare. In Dota you can solo and duo queue and just focus on farming and not making mistakes for 15-20 minutes and then carry your team through the mid game.
In HotS the 5 on 5 fights come so soon that all it takes is one dude who's not communicating or ignoring the team to screw up the whole game. And people talked a lot in the first days of the beta about the community being less aggressive and whatnot, but all it took were a few more days of people figuring out the game for the heavy flaming to begin.
I feel Blizzard was aiming to design a MOBA with only the "good parts" in, but it has been very hit and miss so far.
I can agree with that, while I didn't play as much dota2 as I would have liked - I did play league up until plat 4~2 And while I wasn't very good, I definitely felt like I had more control on the outcome of my games compared to the current HotS - while I do think trying to call plays and call out objectives seems to help it ultimately comes down to playing as a team. I can argue it has its pros but also its cons (esp for solo play)
Carefoot #1482 over 600 games played in beta was plat in Alpha former Dota 1 Cal-I, and tournament SC2 player looking to form a competitive team or join an existing house.
EPT
![[image loading]](/staff/Heyoka/HeroesoftheSwarm/HotSLogo.jpg)
![[image loading]](/staff/Heyoka/HeroesoftheSwarm/HotSHeroes.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.mmo-champion.com/images/news/2013/november/illidan.jpg)
not helpful at all to put him in terms of some combination Lifestealer + Meepo
![[image loading]](https://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/content_folder_media/SWD9KSUNNOX51393030664880.jpg)
