Sign in to follow this  
Rob Zacny

Episode 303: Heroes of the Storm

Recommended Posts

Open your folder of fanfic and scroll down to the Warhammer and Warhammer 40K crossover you've always wanted to publish, the one where the dark elves fight space marines with acid spitting aliens and dragons flying through the sky next to the Serenity (for good measure). Now close that that .txt file, open Heroes of the Storm, and behold: Blizzard have brought your dreams to life! Warcraft, Starcraft, and Diablo come crashing together in the Lords Management/LOMA that promises to be faster to play, easier to learn, and cost more than other, similar titles. Rowan Kaiser and David Heron join Rob to talk about the current state of HotS and whether it lives up to Blizzard's lofty goals.

 

Listen here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the thing that autotranslates M O B A to Lords Management is still working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha hexgrid yes!

 

I thought Dave Heron did a good job of describing the potential issues with the game. I think he's right that it isn't the casual game it is sometimes billed as, but in my experience it doesn't win anyone over that does play LoL or DOTA. I tried it out for a few weeks and lost interest and went back to DOTA. 

 

That being said, I suspect the game will work out pretty well for Blizzard even if it won't be a runaway success. There was a recent market analysis predicting HotS would end up taking 7% of the marketshare of the LOMA space... about half of DOTA 2's. I think plenty of people will be like Fraser, and happy to play the game just because it is a Blizzard game, and it seems like it worked out for Fraser. Blizzard has enough fans of their games that I suspect that will be a pretty successful strategy for them even if the game doesn't set any new records.

 

I'm less convinced it will have a compelling competitive scene. So much of the strategy of the game comes down to which team is being more efficient with their positioning and timing, and I just don't know how interesting that is to watch.

 

Fraser mentioned that he liked how comebacks were always possible, but my experience is that HotS is actually much harder to pull off comebacks with compared to DOTA (especially in the current patch). A lot of that has to do with the lack of items that Dave was bemoaning. There's no question, the array of items in DOTA and League is overwhelming for new players, and makes the learning curve really steep. Learning about all the different items is not fun, and there's no shortcuts, it takes time, and just sucks as a new player. The trade off is that once you do actually learn about all the different items the game really opens up, and allows for all this creativity and exciting play. Always having these different potential tools means the possibility space is a lot more wide compared to HotS, and if you're behind, there is an item you can get to counter whatever problem you are having. It was probably a good trade off for Blizzard to make in terms of getting people to play the game that normally wouldn't, but my guess is it probably limits the longevity of the game.

 

I also wanted to talk about players calling "gg" too early. It took me awhile to pick up on this, and I used to complain about it a lot as well, but I've come to realize that those early "gg" calls are usually typed with a hint of irony. Here's the thing: in my experience those players almost never actually give up or start throwing the game.

 

P.S. I hate those fucking mounts. I think they are so dumb and such a cheesy way to monetize the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was shocked to hear that one hero kill at early levels is only worth 1.5 creep waves.   Does anyone have a link to a good breakdown of the counter-intuitive mechanics in this game?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, this was one of the worst podcasts you've done recently. You're talking about a new release, and one I was thinking of having a play around with (I've been playing Hearthstone a bit, so have seen the PR around HotS bia Battle.net). But I had trouble following a lot of the jargon in this show. I don't know what last hitting is, or what nova/noba means etc etc.



This only seems to happen with the e-sports shows. Usually the panel do a much much better job at explaining the mechanics and what's going on with a game or genre. For example, I'm not really a wargamer at all, but I still enjoy listening to the wargame shows, but Bruce and co do a great job of having an interesting insightful conversation that I can follow along with (I even bought Unity of Command!). Same with RTSs with Tom Chick (I'm a casual rts player, although everytime 3ma talk about one, I end up really wanting to play an rts), and Paradox Grand Startegy with Troy  (only really played CK2 a bit, bounced off EU3, but I can follow the conversation on EUIV and I am really interested in playing it one day). etc.



But with these e-sport games, I can't follow the jargon. Either I'm one of the few listeners who don't follow the scene and it's my fault, or the panel are all a little too far into the scene nd don't have a good handle on what your average gamers knows.



I doubt any of the concepts you talk about in the show are all that complicated (or no more complincated than the finer points of medival succession law... :P ), and I expect there is a really interesting conversation to be about about this game that people like me would be interested in.



Sorry guys. I've tried to make my point constructively. Also, I'm not against shows that require a higher level of background knowledge to follow. Not everything has to be "noob friendly"! But why only for esports? Couldn't we also have a show about Arcen games that is only going to make sense to people who's played AI War, The Last Federation etc? Or invite some high level chess and go players on to discuss what video games can learn from traditional board games?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry guys, this was one of the worst podcasts you've done recently. You're talking about a new release, and one I was thinking of having a play around with (I've been playing Hearthstone a bit, so have seen the PR around HotS bia Battle.net). But I had trouble following a lot of the jargon in this show. I don't know what last hitting is, or what nova/noba means etc etc.

 

Very interesting. I've played LoL for couple of years and tried HotS. When I've listened to the show I didn't even think anyone may not know some of the mentioned terms. And I have problem with wargaming shows cause sometimes I don't understand if its boardgame or Video game up till the end of the show!.. But I've still bought Unity of Command, yeah.

 

I've heard many interesting ideas and facts in this show so I guess it's just for those who already play HotS.+

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting. I've played LoL for couple of years and tried HotS. When I've listened to the show I didn't even think anyone may not know some of the mentioned terms. And I have problem with wargaming shows cause sometimes I don't understand if its boardgame or video game up till the end of the show!.. But I've still bought Unity of Command, yeah.

 

I've heard many interesting ideas and facts in this show so I guess it's just for those who already play HotS.+

 

 

I can add feeding and jungling to the list of terms I didn't follow. And looking things up on a wiki isn't really possible when listening on the train.

 

Again, please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every show should be accessible. I'm just asking nicely that if you're going to geek out down the e-sports rabbit hole, could you discuss other genres to a similar depth? (or, join forces with the idle thumbs e-sports spin off podcast?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can add feeding and jungling to the list of terms I didn't follow. And looking things up on a wiki isn't really possible when listening on the train.

 

Again, please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying every show should be accessible. I'm just asking nicely that if you're going to geek out down the e-sports rabbit hole, could you discuss other genres to a similar depth? (or, join forces with the idle thumbs e-sports spin off podcast?).

 

It's pretty crazy how far Lords Managements have penetrated into gaming.  There are more active players every month playing League of Legends than all of Xbox Live, all games, both consoles, combined.  There are almost 10x as many active players on LoL as there are on Steam, all games combined.  So words like 'jungle' and 'last hit' really have entered the common vocabulary, but there's still a huge wall between people who who have played Lords Managements and those who haven't.

 

I found a decent breakdown of hots mechanics here: http://www.gosugamers.net/heroesofthestorm/features/4041-what-you-should-know-when-playing-heroes-of-the-storm-for-the-first-time

 

No joke, I haven't lost a game since listening to this podcast and getting a basic understanding of some of the mechanics I never bothered to look into before.  8 - 0!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much of that is that not many people will be playing a pirated cracked version of LoL (it's free to play after all) while we know that piracy is endemic in PC gaming and numbers from Steam will miss all the people who have torrented the game.

 

Which isn't to say that LoL etc aren't hugely popular. But, I imagine it's similar to the way WoW was really popular. Slightly different audience and people who don't play those games aren't going to be able to follow the conversation.

 

I would have a shot myself, but I'm still trying to get to a good standard at playing go/baduk, so trying to master another high-skill level game just now would be a bad idea :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the interesting discussion. I've been playing a bunch of HotS recently and having a blast. I played LOL lo, many years ago when the world was young (before season 1), but quit because the length of matches couldn't be made to fit in my life. This is much more friendly. 

 

I'm not sure the whole 'lane pusher for casuals' thing holds too much water. All games in this genre are deep and complex, and HotS is no exception. It's just removed a lot of the arbitrary complexity that Dota in particular somehow thrives on, thus lowering the barrier to entry. David was worried players might get a ways in before realising it's not so casual after all; I don't think they'll ever be fooled. You have 5 vs 5 extremely diverse characters on these dynamic maps where everything keeps changing. This is intense and difficult right from the start, just not unmanageably so.* I think the curve is sufficiently sloped that you'll realise how much you have to learn as you go, but because you kind of get it it'll be fun while you do. Heck, if you never want to delve into exact timings and golem strength you don't have to, and be comfortable with your skill ceiling.

 

I also hear complaints about the monetisation, but I haven't found it burdensome. While playing matches doesn't net you much gold, the dailies add up, and there are a bunch of gold rewards as you level. Any character you level to 5 gets you 500 gold, so you can cycle through the ones that are free. Without being able to play a whole lot I have a stable I'm pretty happy with, including a 7000 gold and a 10000 gold character. There will be a point where income from leveling will drop off, but a that point I'll have played for dozens of hours and will be happy to drop a little money on a character I fancy. It's not Dota generous, but it's fine.

 

For my own picky sake, Zagara is pronounced with emphasis on the second syllable. Same with Tyrande (Tie-ron-duh). Zagara might be my favourite so far. I love getting in a lane, dropping down some fresh decor, and having a party with all my family. Don't like it? Talk to Ms. Hydralisk here. Getting a 3+ Maw timed just right so the Banelings and the Roaches arrive just as they pop out is the best feeling.

 

 

* Here's the new player experience. You stomp out the gate as Raynor, knowing at the very least what your buttons do. You opponents in lane are a tank and a big cow. Sometimes the cow wears a squid hat. Every so often the announcer yells at you and you all rush to a spot where a lot of flashes and explosions happen and you die. At one point you clicked on a thing that seemed to want to be clicked on and you were a dragon for a bit. You got to summon a spaceship a couple of times, which seemed cool. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how much of that is that not many people will be playing a pirated cracked version of LoL (it's free to play after all) while we know that piracy is endemic in PC gaming and numbers from Steam will miss all the people who have torrented the game.

 

I'd also add that Steam doesn't force you to send statistics. Judging by achievements for various games high percentage of people either doesn't even play their games or use it in offline mode because of superstitions or privacy.

 

Also previous stats are lie. Yesterday Steam had 9 millions of concurrent players. It's much more than what LoL has - they have as much unique visitors per day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing which should be noted in the discussion about HotS future popularity, is the fact what the game is really bad as a spectator sport. Its viewership on twitch is by far lowest of all recent Blizzard games, on par with games like Smite or Path of Exile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the interesting discussion. I've been playing a bunch of HotS recently and having a blast. I played LOL lo, many years ago when the world was young (before season 1), but quit because the length of matches couldn't be made to fit in my life. This is much more friendly. 

 

I'm not sure the whole 'lane pusher for casuals' thing holds too much water. All games in this genre are deep and complex, and HotS is no exception. It's just removed a lot of the arbitrary complexity that Dota in particular somehow thrives on, thus lowering the barrier to entry. David was worried players might get a ways in before realising it's not so casual after all; I don't think they'll ever be fooled. You have 5 vs 5 extremely diverse characters on these dynamic maps where everything keeps changing. This is intense and difficult right from the start, just not unmanageably so.* I think the curve is sufficiently sloped that you'll realise how much you have to learn as you go, but because you kind of get it it'll be fun while you do. Heck, if you never want to delve into exact timings and golem strength you don't have to, and be comfortable with your skill ceiling.

 

I still hold the opinion that the whole popularity of Lords Managements is their similarity to the RTS games from which they came, but being easier to get into and play overall.  This is why, I think, other genres trying to work like them doesn't really work that well, e.g. Monday Night Combat, among others. 

 

This isn't to say there's not depth to them, because there obviously is, but I don't think they would have the popularity they have if they weren't less imposing than Starcraft 2 or Warcraft 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still hold the opinion that the whole popularity of Lords Managements is their similarity to the RTS games from which they came, but being easier to get into and play overall.  This is why, I think, other genres trying to work like them doesn't really work that well, e.g. Monday Night Combat, among others. 

 

This isn't to say there's not depth to them, because there obviously is, but I don't think they would have the popularity they have if they weren't less imposing than Starcraft 2 or Warcraft 3.

 

I think that's true. There's always something fundamentally satisfying about the top-down, ordering units about experience, but classic RTSs are so demanding to learn to play that they no are no longer able to appeal the the broader audience gaming has, vs the more limited audience of the late 90s, early 00s. 

 

I'm not sure why HotS should be considered a worse spectator experience than LoL or DOTA. It gets to the exciting parts faster, and you need far less specialised knowledge to understand what's going on. It also has a clear and distinct visual style. I've been watching some of the Heroes of the Dorm college tournament and really enjoying it. I think it's just a young game with a smallish player base that will grow notably on release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why HotS should be considered a worse spectator experience than LoL or DOTA. It gets to the exciting parts faster, and you need far less specialised knowledge to understand what's going on. It also has a clear and distinct visual style. I've been watching some of the Heroes of the Dorm college tournament and really enjoying it. I think it's just a young game with a smallish player base that will grow notably on release.

For me, it's because there's so much less room for mastery than the more complicated games. This means it's less awesome to see truly skilled players playing because there's less opportunity for their skill to shine through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why HotS should be considered a worse spectator experience than LoL or DOTA. It gets to the exciting parts faster, and you need far less specialised knowledge to understand what's going on. It also has a clear and distinct visual style. I've been watching some of the Heroes of the Dorm college tournament and really enjoying it. I think it's just a young game with a smallish player base that will grow notably on release.

 

Compare it to Hearthstone: Hearthstone viewership  has been growing steadily from day one (which is even more impressing, given how bad was public opinion at first),while HotS is more or less stagnating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a salient comparison, although Hearthstone had no direct competitor, so one wouldn't expect their paths to be the same. We'll see. Come back to the question a few months after general release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a salient comparison, although Hearthstone had no direct competitor, so one wouldn't expect their paths to be the same. We'll see. Come back to the question a few months after general release.

 

 

What about Magic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started Dota on WC3 B.Net super casually then played LoL for about a year and a half until Dota 2 came out and I've been playing that with my buddies ever since. 

 

I've played about 20 something games of HotS now and really agreed with a lot of the points brought up on the cast, but came out feeling totally different from you guys. The reason Dota is so great is because it largely ignores "good game design." HotS simplifies your in game choices moreso than LoL does, and makes actually playing feel super stale. Leveling up increases the stats of your skills, and occasionaly lets you alter them in a neat way, so it ends up being like seven choices you can make with regards to how you are going to play your hero that game. This is I think my big problem with the game. There's very little room to counter an enemy after team selection, and you can't counterpick heroes because your team is already selected so you can just get stuck with a team composition that fails vs the enemy. I've not encountered this though, because the heroes rarely feel super different from each other. Most of the spells look pretty cool but don't actually seem very impactful. Which is maybe tied to the fact that heroes cost money/blizzbux to unlock. They can't really balance the heroes around each other because people don't have access to them all. LoL has this same problem and it ends up making a bunch of heroes feel really same-y. 

 

I could go on and on about tweaks simplifying things and making them less engaging (bushes vs trees for juking!) but it's probably not that interesting unless you're already into Dota.

 

I'm admittedly pretty steeped in the genre so my complaints might not matter at all to a person who hasn't dropped hundreds of hours into this shit. After comprehending Dota playing any other LoMa feels like dota minus everything that makes it really great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a salient comparison, although Hearthstone had no direct competitor, so one wouldn't expect their paths to be the same. We'll see. Come back to the question a few months after general release.

There's quite a few free to play ccgs in the market, so I don't believe this is true.

What is true is that none of those are as watchable if you haven't memorised the cards already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I specifically meant it had no competitor in terms of online viewership. It's tough to stream Magic on Twitch, and other digital CCGs lack the audience, and as pointed out in the previous post, the watchability (watchableness?). HotS has to take viewers away from other similar games, or bring new viewers in. I think it will find a solid niche for itself, actually. I'm more convinced the more of the Heroes of the Dorm finals I watch. Boston College vs Arizona State game 1 is on Youtube, and I think it's an excellent showcase for the skill of its players. 

 

Edit: Oof, game 2 is great too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, it's because there's so much less room for mastery than the more complicated games. This means it's less awesome to see truly skilled players playing because there's less opportunity for their skill to shine through.

 

I just started playing, but I don't think that's the case.  I was watching a Rank 1 player analyze a game he played, and he must have said, "This is what I should have done, or our team should have done, based on what we can see in this situation... but this is what we did instead." more than 20 times for that single match.  There's still a ton of room for improvement at the top.

 

Example: http://www.twitch.tv/followgrubby/b/654591019?t=2h41m

 

I also hadn't seen that the 'standard' way to play Vikings is to have every player take the same lane and push, while Viking player lanes the other two lanes by themselves, and leaves a third viking in the group lane to help push.  Watching someone skilled play that way is pretty nuts, they are dodging enemy skill shots and everything in all three lanes at once!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this