[Off Topic] Heroes of the Storm Rant

[alyssandra]

Does anyone here have access to the alpha? If so, how do you like it so far and how do you feel about the recent addition of artifacts (essentially LoL runes, you buy them with currency you gain from playing games to improve passive stats on your character).

If you don't play it, does it seem interesting to you? How do you like some of the design decisions in the game? For example, all hero EXP on a team is shared, there's no last hitting, the talent system (will outline below), more focus on team fights and objectives than laning phases, etc.

I ask these questions because after hitting the previous level cap of 40 (Like LoL's level 30 cap) and playing about a hundred(+) games (since they only last 15-25 minutes, not too impressive, but still a decent chunk under my belt), it's been hard to log on. The gameplay feels as though it gets stale fast. I know it's only in Alpha and I may be speaking too soon, but at the same time... getting bored in Alpha doesn't feel right.

Why do I feel it gets stale fast? Because for one, it's too team oriented. Yes, too teamplay oriented to the point where you feel helpless far too early in the game with no hope of recovery. I think why League and DotA appeal to such a wide audience is because one player can make a difference, very noticeably. They may farm well, have good mechanics, have great team fight positioning and timing, etc. One person doing well and being the reason a team wins is a great feeling for a lot of people, let's face it. This feeling appears absent in Heroes due to teams sharing levels, no items, and so on. You essentially need to move as one unit, be on the same page constantly, and have almost premade-like communication. Not all games are like this of course, you still have your one sided stomps here and there. Just to note: while there are some mechanics in play in an attempt to reduce snowballing, such as "underdog exp" which grants more hero kill EXP to the lower level team, this sometimes feels too little too late.

Also, a lot of team fights feel like a cluster of button mashing and large AoEs with very little aiming and user input. While some heroes require aiming, the majority are very simplified. For example, the latest hero has two ultimate choices: Allies in an AoE around him gain bonus MS and AS (it's called Bloodlust as well, he's a shaman) or he has a full HP heal, essentially, point click. Now I'm not saying these are necessarily bad gameplay elements nor am I saying lack of aiming is some sort of flaw, but it feels as though the game is going for a more dumb downed feeling in general. Rarely would you hear someone proclaim "awesome Bloodlust!" since it's just a click and forget in an AoE around the hero. Also, the level 20 talent makes it global anyway.

The recent addition of a system called "artifacts" -- essentially League of Legends Runes, is the nail in the coffin for me. There is a lot of negative backlash against Blizzard by the playerbase for adding this system. As well, Blizzard made a controversial step in locking certain talents and ultimates on a hero if you are new and lack progression with that hero. Heroes normally have access to 2 ultimates, but if you are new to the hero, you only have one unlocked. Since talents are so important to gameplay, being in the dark from the start, with a limited pool to choose from --whereas your enemies may have full access -- is a baffling a design decision by Blizzard. Also, it makes trying new heroes against good players very intimidating and anti-fun if you aren't playing with a full deck of cards.

As stated above, you may also have certain talents locked when you are new to a hero, and they can only be unlocked as you play more games and increase your "hero experience levels." Each hero level (this is a system outside the actual game to track a player's progression with a hero) unlocks more talents, second ultimates, and then eventually cosmetic effects. However, locking talents from the getgo is awful design-wise. Talents are essentially substitutes for items, since HotS has no items, every ~4 levels or so you pick one "talent" to upgrade an ability your hero may have, or add a new one entirely. Talents can range from simple damage increases, to giving your hero an ability to shield an ally, or making abilities hit twice / have two charges, etc. 

What does this do? It may create toxic dialogues among new players where team mates get mad at a player for not picking a certain talent or ultimate (but they can't help it, because for some reason Blizzard thought locking talents and ultimates was a good idea...).

Moving back to artifacts (runes), they do nothing but create a grindy atmosphere with little feeling of reward. For example, you need to use your gold from "dailies" and games played in order to unlock artifacts, which have ten levels and approximately cost ~5.5k to hit the max level. For reference, winning a game now gives about 40-100 gold. While you need to buy artifacts in order to feel relevant in the actual game, you can't get a chance to really buy new heroes at the same time. And when you do, guess what, they have a lot of features locked to you as explained above. As a side note, artifacts do things such as give your current hero mana regeneration, life steal, bonus live, attack damage, etc. and you can change which artifacts are equipped for said hero before each match.

Thanks to the new limitations and the addition of the very mediocre system of runes (in my opinion), I feel as though the game is heading in a very bad direction. 

With all that being said, it is still in Technical Alpha stage and changes can be tweaked/reversed, but I was wondering what some of your opinions were on this new up and coming MOBA. Especially you Soft, as a developer, I am curious to know your opinion on some of the systems in Heroes. Personally, I'm much more appreciative of DotA 2's  F2P system now more than ever (everything available from the get-go).

I just needed to go on a slight rant, because the game looked promising, but these recent changes and general flow of the game don't seem to inspire much faith for me. It was very fun at first though and I may stick with it for a bit longer. If you are in a position of waiting and really wanting to play, don't worry too much.

May add more later in case I missed some points or didn't explain clearly. I wrote this quite late for me so forgive any repetition. 

[Softmints]

I have not played in the alpha, but I have been keeping tabs on it.

• HotS is interesting to me because it is the only commercial game without direct roots in DotA. I have a deep appreciation and respect for many of the innovations Blizzard have made (such as tower ammo, fully shared experience, and talent trees), and that is an appreciation founded in my own struggles to tackle similar design issues. I don't necessarily think their solutions are optimal (yet), but they are pushing the boundaries and the genre needs that.
  
  
• I like shared resource gain because it decreases potential for conflicts, but I dislike being unable to allocate resources towards a particular player. It reduces a team's available strategies. Resource allocation is over-emphasised in DotA, but under-emphasised in HotS.
  
  
• Happy to see no last-hits.
  
  
• Objectives, from my second-hand knowledge of them, are over-emphasised. If I wanted to make each map noticeably different, I suppose I would do the same. Personally, I don't like feeling obliged to participate in what I see as a "sub-game", but not having experienced it myself my opinion holds little weight.
  
  
• Based on what you've written, it seems HotS does not hold much appreciation for individual players. I find that is actually contradictory to the goal of encouraging teamwork: it is easier to coordinate around a strong player who can set the rhythm for the entire team, and earn other players' trust by demonstrating that they know what they're doing. If there is no in-game measure of who's doing well (such as hero level, k/d, gpm), everyone's voice holds equal authority, hence no-one's voice holds authority. There are also problems like feeling helpless because you have no way to exceed the average strength of your team. DotA has a lot of appreciation for individual players, though sadly this is tied to hero choice.
  
  
• The hero skills are simple in a way that I think works well for HotS; the game primarily measures teamwork, so interesting abilities aren't needed, and perhaps you don't want your bad teammates to have any more ways to mess up. The original Aeon of Strife had no abilities but remains a great game.
  
  
• Having all basic abilities from level 1 feels weird to me, but that's probably because I'm used to a slower progression.
  
  
• The introduction of specialist heroes is a neat feature and probably the main reason I would like to try the game. They all require advanced levels of teamwork, which is consistent with the measuring teamwork philosophy.
  
  
• Talents are a mixed bag. The good parts are that they are easy to allocate (nice when playing a new hero) and provide very granular control over balance (nice for designers/gameplay). However, they are terrible for "clarity", because it's non-trivial to see what talents an opponent chose, and every hero's individual talents create a huge knowledge requirement. Six item slots completely convey a hero's build; talents can't compete with that.

An 'ideal' moba would be where all gameplay is free and all revenue is cosmetics that don't affect readability (see: valve, thanks to inheriting a large player volume). But that often isn't sustainable, so every company strikes a balance. HoN has all gameplay free, but the cosmetics have abysmal readability; League and most others have majorly locked gameplay and decent readability. Artifacts were not a surprise, but I don't agree with Blizzard's choice to lock gameplay as much as they have. Bad implementation, and in a competitive market like mobas, it's not good to alienate your players like that. We'll see how it pans out.

[alyssandra]

Thanks for taking the time to  reply; it's greatly appreciated. I was curious to see your opinion on the game so far and you outlined everything nicely

I like shared resource gain because it decreases potential for conflicts, but I dislike being unable to allocate resources towards a particular player. It reduces a team's available strategies. Resource allocation is over-emphasised in DotA, but under-emphasised in HotS. The underdog exp "solution" is embarrassing.

Based on what you've written, it seems HotS does not hold much appreciation for individual players. I find that is actually contradictory to the goal of encouraging teamwork: it is easier to coordinate around a strong player who can set the rhythm for the entire team, and earn other players' trust by demonstrating that they know what they're doing. If there is no in-game measure of who's doing well (such as hero level, k/d, gpm), everyone's voice holds equal authority, hence no-one's voice holds authority. There are also problems like feeling helpless because you have no way to exceed the average strength of your team. DotA has a lot of appreciation for individual players, though sadly this is tied to hero choice.

These two points especially grabbed me, mostly because of how well they hit the nail on the head. There's rarely any designated "team lead" in pubs, and very rarely will someone step up. This is because, as you said, everyone's voice holds equal authority. In DotA and League, you know who the big shots in the game are, and you can generally modify strategy and playstyle around them (though it is generally the AD Carries / Middle laners, tied to hero choices as you mentioned). I think that's a good thing that comes from those two games, the resource allocation.

In Heroes, being in the right places at the right times, positioning well, having good mechanics or whatever only go so far, and I think that is what frustrates many people. Since everyone is so far on the same page, it becomes helpless at some point to the extent of what you can offer to a team.

Objectives, from my second-hand knowledge of them, are over-emphasised. If I wanted to make each map noticeably different, I suppose I would do the same. Personally, I don't like feeling obliged to participate in what I see as a "sub-game", but not having experienced it myself my opinion holds little weight.

Right, they are essentially the highlight of each different map and you must participate in most, if not all, objectives if you want to have a chance to win. The Pirate map is especially irritating, as gathering coins eventually becomes a chore. They try to encourage conflict every few minutes by spawning chests that drop coins as you hit them, but after the chests are gone, you generally have people doing objectives and killing creeps to gain more coins. Since coins drop on death, it may produce some passive play on the part of the players. Is a player holding 15 coins going to want to engage any player? At the same time, dying with so many coins can also be GG for your team if the enemy picks them up.

I find split pushing in this game to rarely be a good thing. If your enemy is roaming as 5, doing objectives or whatever, they will usually come out on top. The hired mercs do most of the siege work in this game and can kill forts/keeps on their own (some creeps have potential, even with 4-5 people wailing on it, to kill a keep on its own -- although getting to this point is a bit tricky). It's generally a good thing to always participate with your team in this one, which is either a good or bad thing. I think it's not the best decision, because as I've stated, I like one player making a difference doing something else, but that's just the way this has been designed.

Blizzard also added a lot of forced game enders, such as the golem in Haunted Mines, getting a lot of cannon fires off in the Pirate map, and so on which I find interesting and was wondering how you felt about those mechanics (forgot to mention it in OP).


Unfortunately need to head out, will add more later. Curious to see what more think as well!

[Softmints]

In any lpg, lanes are a visual metaphor for who's winning, and fully pushed lanes are equivalent to victory. Mechanics which don't adhere to that metaphor are, frankly, in the wrong genre. When someone wins because a timer counted down, because they had the most kills, or because they bombarded you from afar, that is not a satisfying conclusion. It does not fit the narrative of lpgs.

The map objectives are something I would need to read about more to decide if they're achieving the right things for HotS or not. I don't know enough about the game to make that call yet. Some aspects like the ones you outlined and the victory by bombardment could certainly be improved.

A question for you Alyss: how do you feel about HotS compared to Tides of Blood, another lpg with heavy teamwork emphasis. What was the latter doing right?

[Sarenarass]

I think you might find this of interest, on the note of the artifacts...

[alyssandra]

@Sarenarass: Yeah, he hits the nail on the head multiple times and sums up what many in the Alpha are feeling. Haven't watched much of TB's videos, but it's nice to see a popular Youtuber and streamer using his voice and alerting everyone on why these changes are bad, to players and non-players alike.

@Softmints: I've been thinking about that question a lot ever since I tried the game out. ToB has multiple things I believe they did right that separates it from HotS.

1. ToB has heavy strategy; it was a big map with multiple expansion bases and key points that could be hit. More importantly, it requires full hero participation. Heroes could do timely zeppelin warps into an unattended lane, or when enemies are out of position. Certain heroes could backdoor towers/bases on their own, or kill enemy workers. It was essentially an open field, and it felt great to pull things off. There was no backdoor protection, and heroes could really shine on their own without an outside mechanic like Heroes usage of golems, dragon knights, etc. Why did it feel great to pull off? Because it was by your own hand. This brings us to what we discussed earlier:
   
   In Heroes, the "strategy" is very shallow and generally forced by the game anyway. It does not feel great watching cannons destroy enemy forts and keeps. It does not feel great watching a 100 skull golem tank 5 heroes and solo an enemy keep or nexus.
   
   In Heroes, strategy goes about as far as maybe killing some siege mercs before the game tells your team where to go for the specific map's mechanic so that they can deal damage to buildings while your team fights for said mechanic. The game tells you what to do, literally. In the Raven Lord map, the game tells you where to go for the tribute every x minutes, the pirate map tells your team where to go every x minutes for the coins that are needed for the cannons, etc. It does not feel genuine and generally boils down to two things: is your team more organized and aware (luck of the draw in "solo queue" matches) and who simply has the better team comp for the upcoming battle?
   
   
   
2. ToB, in my opinion, was one of the most balanced AoS maps. This is because it had strict hero roles, and stuck to them.
   
   Supports did not stray from their "support" archetype. Let's take a look at Shadow Hunter: Ethereal Mines (invisible, enemy stepping near them caused them to detonate and stun for x seconds), chain heal, Pain Ward (AoE ticking damage around it, easily destroyed but still useful) then Big Bad Voodoo as an ultimate. Nothing here screams heavy damage dealer, and rightly so in my opinion, since he has his support kit. Adding damage numbers to this would send him over the top.
   
   Now let's look at HotS supports. Tassadar has a shield, a self use only invisibility/invulnerability, and a hard hitting AoE DPS skill. One of his ultimate choices essentially turns him into a quasi-assassin, since it gives him an additional shield and makes his auto attacks deal more damage and splash.
   
   Then you have heroes like Uther who have a melee ranged damage/stun, a shockwave heal/damage, Holy Light, then an ultimate that's an heavy AoE damage/stun around him. He's also very durable.
   
   To summarize, I believe in Heroes you have multiple people doing multiple things too well. Sure, rarely will you see an Uther out-damage an Assassin class hero (although Tassadar can and generally does 100% of the time), but this creates somewhat imbalanced situations and non-genuine feelings when playing the hero. Also important to note that all heroes have AoE spells, pair this with supports also dealing moderate damage on their own and team fights really feel cluttered and unsatisfying.
   
   I can best relate this to the balance issues I believe we faced in RoW regarding heroes like Sivaz, Heretic and Psychic. They have seemingly support related kits, yet had high damage numbers and other things that made them overpowered at one point or another. Maybe it was their auto attack damages, their spell damages, or the fact that they were hard to kill, made allies hard to kill, while at the same time doing a lot on their own.
   
   I can give more examples/comparison here if needed.
   
   
3. ToB has carries; individuals that can decide the outcome of a game by their own hand, and give their allies someone to work off of.
   
   While ToB carries are not like the traditional DotA and League carries that have high AD or AP and many items, they shined through their skill usages.
   
   Take Pirate for example, Spirit of the Adrian (also known as boat) was very hard to aim but if it hit, did about 1200 damage in an AoE. This is a game changer and no other hero has something like this. He also can't be stopped or threatened by a solo support hero on the enemy team, like would happen in Heroes. With his crab summons, he was also a great sieger and could be highly mobile and do hit and run attacks, slowly withering the opponent down if they were not paying attention or carrying TPs to stop him. Yet, he still needed his team. That was the beauty of it.
   
   In ToB, thanks to the distribution of power (Pirate was very strong and the main source of Undead damage) teams did not feel "broken" or overpowered. There were strict supports and hero killers in addition to Pirate on a team. If support heroes in ToB, for example, did moderately high AoE damage and CC like they do in HotS, then Pirate would be way over the top and broken. But it is the perfect balance, he still needs his team (he can't really 1v3 or something like a stacked Vayne in LoL or whatever) and his team still needs him. BUT he can still make noticeable impacts in the game on his own, that is the difference.
   
   In Heroes, as an individual, there is only so much you can do without your team. A good Pirate or Maiden can win you a game in ToB. You can do as best as you can, the best in the entirety of the HotS community even, yet it won't ever be enough thanks to these stream lined mechanics the maps have (coins, mercs, curses, golems..) as well as every hero being good at multiple things.
   
   Lastly: ToB had great aiming mechanics and ways to differentiate the better players from the moderate.
   
   Yes, while ToB has heroes like Malfurion with spells such as Roar, Entangling Roots, and Rejuv, they also had heroes like Leto, Sashi, Pirate, Maiden, etc. with iconic spells and aiming mechanics. Wind, The Golden Path, Spirit of the Adrian, Pluck Yew, etc.
   
   It also had consumable items that created fun situations, such as using AMS right before a spell lands, or using Wands of Negation on someone with AMS right before Sashi's Wind (the leap to a target area stun spell)
   
   Also, since you could pool gold. You could funnel resources in ways you'd know it would affect the game. You could pool for repairs, so there was micromanagement involved -- while undesirable in modern MOBAs, it was still a skill and you could tell who microed well and who didn't -- or pool to heroes that were more fragile so they could buy items like the Frost Wyrm Skull Shield (33% damage reduction). There were blink daggers in the game, but they were expensive so the game didn't become a blink fest, and blink dodging spells was very fun and skillful as well.

That was long winded, and if there's anything else I can explain or that was not clear I can attempt to rectify.