There’s supposed to be an arena mode (?) Blizzard Announces Goofy New 'Arena' Mode For Heroes Of The Storm
I’ll think about getting back in then, but on paper at least it sounds interesting, a more pick up and play game as opposed to the drudge a full on MOBA game has (and I know HOTS is already a lot more streamlined than usual MOBAs).
I was only ever interested in the teamfights anyway.
There’s an ARAM channel you can join that’s always looking for people.
Yep, and if nobody seems to be actively recruiting for a game there’s pretty good odds that there’s at least nine people waiting for somebody to make one. Create a game and then type [lobby] into the ARAM channel chat. That’ll throw a link into the chat so that people can go right into your lobby.
I’ve played probably 30 or 40 ARAM games. They’re a great way to play stress-free, and I like teamfighting with characters I don’t necessarily get to play with much. I did end up buying Gazlowe just to expand my pool of specialists, though, after a three-game streak of being forced to play Abathur (who is not great on that map).
Not going to happen. Players would just veto based on their character picks. Some characters are better on certain maps and worse on others.
I suppose it wouldn’t make much difference on AI mode, but even there people would just veto maps that take longer to win (like Towers). The data would be useless for driving development.
And the problem with that is? If I don’t think a particular map is going to be fun for me, does it matter why it won’t be fun? It’s not like I can just pick a character who’s good on one and only one map: There’s still 90% of maps that might be in play, and I have to be prepared to play on any of them. Is anyone really saying “I hope we get Towers against a team with a lot of specialists, so we can kick their butt”?
And if they’re planning on adding an “arena mode”, that’s just one more proof that this genre of games needs a better name.
The point is that you want the ability to veto maps to make the game more enjoyable, but you are also not Blizzard’s target demographic. Most people would just use map vetoes strategically. Premade groups of even three players would have pretty good odds of being able to always choose which map to kick out of the rotation. It would completely change the meta of the game.
So like I said, it may not be a big deal for AI matches, but your perceived benefit (that it would inform development of future maps) wouldn’t be there because folks who only play AI matches aren’t really on Blizzard’s radar. HL/TL and competitive balance will always be first and foremost in their mind. Those changes will trickle down to QM players next. AI matches are just sort of… there. Their main purpose for probably 95+% of the playerbase is to knock out quests as quickly as possible. Very few people use it as the baseline game.
I’m not trying to be dismissive of your playstyle, mind you, and if I’m coming off that way I apologize in advance. I’m HL rank 33, so in terms of Blizzard’s radar I don’t matter any more than you do.
Yes, of course players would use it strategically. I still don’t see what the problem is with that. Who wants to see a game where one side wins because the other had a hero composition that’s good in general, but is just weak on that particular map? I wouldn’t want to be on either side of a game like that.
Less players want to see a game where a premade 5-stack is able to consistently veto a map that they’d have a disadvantage on. In any case it’s moot, since HL matches show the map that’s being played on before the draft occurs and adjusting to a random map is part of the gameplay.
Like I said, it would be perfectly fine for AI matches. I would not complain or be upset to see it implemented. I wouldn’t be happy to see it in PvP matches because premade stacks already have enough of an outsized influence as is.
Oh, and I think you might have misunderstood my original idea, given your talk of teams doing this “consistently”. My proposal was a veto, not a vote, so if even a single player didn’t like a particular map, it wouldn’t be used. Though I expect that you’d find that even more distasteful.
I didn’t know, though, that HL let you see what map you’re on before you choose heroes. That would simultaneously blunt my annoyance at getting a bad map for my character, and your objection that people would veto maps based on what character they’re using. I will admit to being a bit puzzled why they would use different systems for the two modes, though.
Oh my, yes. That sounds just awful. :eek:
One of the reasons I play HotS as opposed to DotA is because of the map rotation. A straight veto just means that the least popular 50% of maps would never get played. It would effectively cut the map rotation in half, and possibly by as much as two thirds.
OK, how about this, then? Each player gets to choose one map to veto, and then if any map has at least one veto from each team, it’s taken out of rotation for that match. This wouldn’t give premade teams significantly more power than individuals, and it would only take out maps with some degree of consensus against them.
I like the variation of maps, too, but that doesn’t change the fact that I think some are better-designed than others. I’d rather see a few good maps than a few good maps plus a few bad ones.
And how different is this than player-chosen hero bans, which they’ve also now implemented? There, too, it’s the same heroes that keep getting chosen, and there’s a reason for that.
Yeah, in QM a veto sounds horrible. I don’t see the point in HL. You already build your team/bans off the map.
Probably not the reasons you think.
Remember what I said before, about how everything trickles down from the competitive scene. Bans were implemented in pro tournaments long before they made it into HL. In pro matches, the initial bans are based on denying particular strengths to the enemy team. Dignitas knows that mYinsanity likes to field Rehgar on this particular map, so they ban. mYinsanity knows that Dignitas has been fielding a particular character duo, so they ban out half of it.
In HL, none of that knowledge is there. So you just have to ban high-impact characters for the initial two bans. On the other hand, the second line of bans are much more interesting and can still be adjusted for team compositions. It’s a very interesting process.
Ah, I think I see the distinction. Hero bans are a dynamic process, with further hero choices and bans in response to the previous ones. But a map is only chosen once per game, so there’s not that opportunity for response and counter-response. Is that about right?
Though of course, it can also be as simple as “I like playing Hero X, but Hero Y is really good against X, so let’s ban Y”.
This weekend (April 8) every hero will be free.
Wait, as in on rotation until the end of the weekend, or as in obtain them this weekend, and then keep them forever? I only just recently built up enough gold to be able to afford every hero I might conceivably ever want, and that was kind of neat, but if it’s the latter, that takes some of the luster off of it.
Ah, OK, it looks like it’s just on rotation that weekend, if I’m reading that correctly. That’s cool, it’ll give me a chance to get Abathur up to level 5, and try out Xul and Dehaka.
Since I have discovered the joys of Ravenous Spirit Nazeebo, I’m 3-0 in QM and and 6-1 in hero league for a combined 9-1. In most games I lead in hero damage even over the assassins and had 0-2 deaths and lead total damage in more than half (hard to outdamage xul in siege).
Ravenous Spirit is good, but like any channeled ability (and especially ult) it’s shut down hard by CC if the enemy has a chance to get it off (obviously depending on team comp, your team’s skill, your skill at positioning etc).
Yeah, the stats say the gargantuan is better - or that better players pick gargantuan - which usually are the same thing although you can’t tease that out of the data available on hotslogs. And maybe it’s because I’m playing 1300 MMR people and not good players and so they’re easier to exploit. But I’ve been dominating with it.
I linger on the edge of the battle, throwing in spiders and toads, and when the enemy commits onto one of us to attack and groups up, that’s when I get in range as out of the way as I can and cast it on the group. Someone has only gone out of their way to stun me maybe twice so far. It’s also obviously really good for the pursuit phase, especially once upgraded - enemies running away with low health can’t do anything to escape it. I especially love getting people with it after we’ve broken off the pursuit because they’ve ran past their bases.
The level 20 upgrade says it increases the range by 50% and speed by 30% - does range in this case mean the casting range, or the range of the AOE effect? I wish their language was a little more unambiguous.