Is there any point to playing PvP?

[Razosh]

Hello so I now have 197 total hero levels under my belt, which certainly isn't an ungodly amount but enough experience to make a valid opinion of this.

I've recently played quite a few games to try to figure out the optimal way to get experience and gold. And I found out that the average game I played against beginner AI lasted about 8 minutes while the average PvP game I played lasted about 25 minutes. In my AI games I got roughly 45 000 XP per win and my win rate is 100% while in PvP I got roughly 60 000 XP per loss and 120 000 XP per win with roughly a 50% win to loss ratio. If we say that each PvP game lasted 24 minutes that means that I got an average of 90 000 XP per 24 minutes while against AI opponents I got an average of 135 000 XP per 24 minutes spent. This means I got 45 000 experience more per 24 minutes spent against beginner AI than I did against human players. In addition I also got an average of 30 gold in these 24 minutes against the AI while I got 25 against players. Also since every match only lasted 8 minutes and I always won I am also able to finish of dailies much faster which rewards an immense amount of gold. I could also play any character I liked without having it affect the teams win ratio.

Not only did I get more experience and gold against the AI also I have as I said 100% win ratio against the AI while only 50% against humans. Anyone who has ever played a moba knows that loosing is the most frustrating thing in the world and against the AI I never had to deal with that frustration. And as a final bonus I did not have to deal with the infernally dreaded and infamous moba community since you didn't really need to communicate to win against the AI.

So in conclusion against AI:
- I got more XP
- I got more gold
- I finished dailies faster
- I could play with any character I liked without my win ratio being affected
- I had 100% win ratio which meant I enjoyed the experience more
- I did not have to deal with the abysmal community

From my point of view at least I see no reason what so ever why I would ever want to play against players and I wanted to ask whether or not you felt alike? If nothing else I wanted everyone to be informed that if you're looking for the most efficient way to farm gold, XP and dailies AI opponents are definitely the way to go.

Also in addition a tip I wanted to pass along to any who wants to start farming AI opponents. If your goal is to farm XP try to not win the game until you're 10 minutes in for the maximum XP reward. Around the 6 minutes mark your experience gain will increase something fiercely and after 10 minutes it will start to increase much slower again so your goal should be to always try to get that insane XP bonus granted between the 6 and 10 minutes mark.

 

[PurgeandFire]

I personally think that it might not be the game for you if you don't enjoy the PvP aspect (that's not a bad thing). Rewards (i.e. XP and gold) *should* be secondary. But, eh, for some games that doesn't always work out.

The conclusion that "100% win ratio -> enjoy the experience more" might not hold up over time. The AI may get stale or the whole game may become stale because of it.

One criticism I have about current Blizzard games, modern games, and mobile games is how they work in an isolated situation. Without all the flashy rewards, how much fun is there (in complete isolation)? i.e. how mechanically fun is the game? How mentally stimulating? When I ask myself that question, there are certain games that will often fail--even Hearthstone. A similar case could be raised for WoW as well.

I think it is fine to play against the AI if you're not in the mood for PvP. Even in hearthstone, I'll sometimes try to make the most out of tavern brawls or arena to have it coincide with the quests so I can kill two birds with one stone (and then stop playing after I've finished the quests). But ultimately the intended gameplay is the PvP gameplay, and if you don't enjoy that, then I don't see any point in playing the game. Play to have fun, and you'll never go wrong. I've chosen not to play some great games simply over their themes or whether I *really* desired to play the game (e.g. Metroid, Starcraft, Counterstrike), and I think that is completely fine. Just don't waste your time playing it if you really aren't into the focus of the game--chances are there are better games that focus on what you enjoy.

 

[Razosh]

I personally think that it might not be the game for you if you don't enjoy the PvP aspect (that's not a bad thing). Rewards (i.e. XP and gold) *should* be secondary. But, eh, for some games that doesn't always work out.

The conclusion that "100% win ratio -> enjoy the experience more" might not hold up over time. The AI may get stale or the whole game may become stale because of it.

Maybe, though I am 537 wins into the game and still enjoying it. ^^

One criticism I have about current Blizzard games, modern games, and mobile games is how they work in an isolated situation. Without all the flashy rewards, how much fun is there (in complete isolation)? i.e. how mechanically fun is the game? How mentally stimulating? When I ask myself that question, there are certain games that will often fail--even Hearthstone. A similar case could be raised for WoW as well.

Well there's a point to that and I don't know how the game would last without rewards. However on the moba scene HotS has solved a lot of the problems I had with mobas such as the fetish they have for last hits. It has always seemed bizarre to me that players are rewarded for last hits rather than damage done. The game type in itself promotes stealing kills rather than being an effective member of your team.

The point of this speech is that maybe the game wouldn't last well without the rewards but it would certainly fair better than any other moba in my opinion.

I think it is fine to play against the AI if you're not in the mood for PvP. Even in hearthstone, I'll sometimes try to make the most out of tavern brawls or arena to have it coincide with the quests so I can kill two birds with one stone (and then stop playing after I've finished the quests). But ultimately the intended gameplay is the PvP gameplay,

Is it though, if the community is dreadful and your earnings are less than against AI opponents. If you search as a premade team you can overcome the community but otherwise I don't think you can really justify calling this a PvP based game. That is a bit like saying that the point of PvP in WoW is to use PvE gear.

and if you don't enjoy that, then I don't see any point in playing the game. Play to have fun, and you'll never go wrong. I've chosen not to play some great games simply over their themes or whether I *really* desired to play the game (e.g. Metroid, Starcraft, Counterstrike), and I think that is completely fine. Just don't waste your time playing it if you really aren't into the focus of the game--chances are there are better games that focus on what you enjoy.

Well I'm saying that I'm into the game I'm just arguing the focus of the game. Considering the community, you get rewarded less and the fact that if you search individually into a game your chances of winning are less than 50% even if the oponants are your equal. (Since all 5 members of the enemy team have the potential to be premades but only 4 of yours.) If you have a fully premade team I could understand your logic but I can not see a justification for why this game would be PvP based if you're searching individually. I think you're to dependant on your team for this to actually function on an individual level while a game such as StarCraft where the main focus is 1v1 is clearly in my opinion designed for PvP.

 

[PurgeandFire]

"Last hit" was probably just a slip-over from wc3. The MobA designers probably felt like it extended the skill cap, lol. Perhaps it does--there is still very little to do individually in MobA's, but I don't think dumb mechanics like that are a smart way to approach it. That is indeed one of the things that is attractive about HotS.

Is it though, if the community is dreadful and your earnings are less than against AI opponents. If you search as a premade team you can overcome the community but otherwise I don't think you can really justify calling this a PvP based game. That is a bit like saying that the point of PvP in WoW is to use PvE gear.

I haven't played HotS beyond the tutorial ever since I got it. I don't quite know the purpose of the XP/rewards. Do they make you stronger or give you more options or something (kinda like with hearthstone and their cards)? Or are they just cosmetic?

Ultimately I feel like MobA's inherently are focused on team vs. team. That is where their championships go, and that is what everyone thinks of when they hear of HotS, LoL, or DotA. In WoW it is different because you have both PvP and PvE, but I don't think Blizzard wants players to play against AI--which is why they give it less rewards (even if you're guaranteed said rewards).

Whether the community is a cess-pool or not doesn't determine whether it is a PvP game. That is the fault of the player-base. Usually you just have to keep trying until you can get enough friends that you enjoy playing with. I can agree that queueing into PuG's all alone can get really frustrating and stress-inducing. Even finding one friend to queue with can make the experience so much better. I feel like that applies to most MobA's--most of the people I talk to irl who play League or DotA casually wouldn't play it if they weren't playing with their friends.

As for the focus--even queueing alone is still PvP. Most games behave that way, even queueing into battlegrounds in WoW. I don't consider PvP to be anything specific beyond the fact that you're playing against other players.

 

[Razosh]

I haven't played HotS beyond the tutorial ever since I got it. I don't quite know the purpose of the XP/rewards. Do they make you stronger or give you more options or something (kinda like with hearthstone and their cards)? Or are they just cosmetic?

Purely cosmetic, though there is gated talents they have been promised to be removed.

Ultimately I feel like MobA's inherently are focused on team vs. team. That is where their championships go, and that is what everyone thinks of when they hear of HotS, LoL, or DotA. In WoW it is different because you have both PvP and PvE, but I don't think Blizzard wants players to play against AI--which is why they give it less rewards (even if you're guaranteed said rewards).

Well those people all play in premade teams I guarantee you'll never see a tournament where 10 players line up without knowledge of who they end up with. AI's do give higher rewards than players.

Whether the community is a cess-pool or not doesn't determine whether it is a PvP game.

Wait so you're saying the community of the game doesn't determine if it's a PvP or PvE game? I would think so. Lets put that argument in any other concept. If the military of Zimbabwe consisted of three year old babies then it's no longer a military nation. Why would the people who play the game not have any affection of the image of the game?

That is the fault of the player-base. Usually you just have to keep trying until you can get enough friends that you enjoy playing with. I can agree that queueing into PuG's all alone can get really frustrating and stress-inducing. Even finding one friend to queue with can make the experience so much better. I feel like that applies to most MobA's--most of the people I talk to irl who play League or DotA casually wouldn't play it if they weren't playing with their friends.

That is exactly my point you need other people to play this game with, in addition in HotS you get a 50% xp bonus if you're in a party with a friend. If you do not have a friend to play with then the argument that this game is centric around PvP is inaccurate.

As for the focus--even queueing alone is still PvP. Most games behave that way, even queueing into battlegrounds in WoW. I don't consider PvP to be anything specific beyond the fact that you're playing against other players.

I'm not arguing that, if you queue against players that is still PvP.

 

[PurgeandFire]

I meant that whether a game is centered around PvP or not is independent of the player. Right here:

If you do not have a friend to play with then the argument that this game is centric around PvP is inaccurate.

You're making the assumption that whether a game is centered around a player depends on the player. i.e. if you have a friend, it can be PvP centric. If you don't have a friend, it isn't. That doesn't make much sense imo, a game is either centered on PvP or it isn't--for everyone.

Ultimately, that means we're arguing different aspects. My definition of a "PvP-centric game" is: (1) majority of players play in a PvP environment (2) balancing is done with PvP in mind. Under that assumption, whether a player is an asshat or not doesn't matter. What is your definition?

I see what you mean though--you enjoy the game (and the PvP?) but the community sucks. That is fair. It is pretty tough to go into a game alone. But it is quite satisfying to beat players--even more so than computers! (at least for me) Rewards aside. I think my ultimate point is that the "point" to playing PvP should be to have fun and be satisfied killing real players--it gives a certain fulfillment that is different than killing an AI. I assume there is a ladder too? So that might be another incentive.

 

[Razosh]

I meant that whether a game is centered around PvP or not is independent of the player. Right here:



You're making the assumption that whether a game is centered around a player depends on the player. i.e. if you have a friend, it can be PvP centric. If you don't have a friend, it isn't. That doesn't make much sense imo, a game is either centered on PvP or it isn't--for everyone.

That isn't quite what I meant though I can understand if I gave away that impression. Of course you're allowed to play PvP and if you enjoy that more than PvE I say play it. I'm only saying that for the general person it seems more likely that they'd enjoy PvE if they do not have a friend to play with as it is less frustrating and give better rewards. I simply wanted to educate people on the fact that the PvE in this game gives a respectable reward compared to other games.

Ultimately, that means we're arguing different aspects. My definition of a "PvP-centric game" is: (1) majority of players play in a PvP environment (2) balancing is done with PvP in mind. Under that assumption, whether a player is an asshat or not doesn't matter. What is your definition?

I would say that there are a few more variables but lets go with your model as the standard. Balancing isn't any different in PvP and PvE in this game since regardless of the skill of the user the characters are still equally as good. And I am not arguing that PvP shouldn't exist I'm just trying to free people of a headache. Second "the majority of the players play in a PvP environment." Now this one is a bit interesting since I generally have a 2 second wait time in PvE and when trying just now I had a 7 seconds wait time in PvP and even considering that I need to find 125% more people that still adds up to more people in PvE. You could then make the argument that I am not accounting for ranked gameplay but I am also not accounting for all the other AI difficulties. My experience even though the queue time is only a few seconds in both game modes is that PvE goes faster especially if you're searching for ranked gameplay, even. I do not have exact numbers but I would guess that the amount of hosted games against AI and PvP are about the same.

I see what you mean though--you enjoy the game (and the PvP?)

If you play alone it is the worst thing imaginable, with a good friend it is acceptable at its best. You brought up an interesting topic in your first post, you asked "what is the game without all the shiny things" let me ask you an almost identical question. What is the game without a friend?

but the community sucks. That is fair. It is pretty tough to go into a game alone. But it is quite satisfying to beat players--even more so than computers! (at least for me)

That is also true but in my opinion and from most people I've spoken to not enough so to justify the loosing part.

Rewards aside. I think my ultimate point is that the "point" to playing PvP should be to have fun and be satisfied killing real players--it gives a certain fulfillment that is different than killing an AI.

Well fun is the major point what is right for one person is not right for another. I'm not talking of any universal rule but simply what would serve general population.

I assume there is a ladder too? So that might be another incentive.

There is indeed a ladder although the wait time in it is usually at least 30 seconds. It doesn't seem to be that popular and I don't expect it to be. Heroes of the Storm is a really goofy game and less competitive based than other mobas and that is also why I think that versus AI's more popular here than in lets say league.

 

[PurgeandFire]

That isn't quite what I meant though I can understand if I gave away that impression. Of course you're allowed to play PvP and if you enjoy that more than PvE I say play it. I'm only saying that for the general person it seems more likely that they'd enjoy PvE if they do not have a friend to play with as it is less frustrating and give better rewards. I simply wanted to educate people on the fact that the PvE in this game gives a respectable reward compared to other games.

Well, my point was that my definition of PvP centric applied to the game as a whole. I wasn't saying that players should play what you enjoy (that is true, but that wasn't my point ).

You could then make the argument that I am not accounting for ranked gameplay but I am also not accounting for all the other AI difficulties. My experience even though the queue time is only a few seconds in both game modes is that PvE goes faster especially if you're searching for ranked gameplay, even. I do not have exact numbers but I would guess that the amount of hosted games against AI and PvP are about the same.

Which AI difficulty are you referring to? Ranked will make a bit of a difference because of MMR, but you're the more experienced one so I'll take your word for it. I didn't actually know that AI was that popular since I never hear about it, sorry. My commentary is more on MobA's in general rather than Heroes of the Storm specifically--I clearly only know the bare minimum about HotS.

That is also true but in my opinion and from most people I've spoken to not enough so to justify the loosing part.

Hmm.. yeah. That might be a testament to unfun gameplay then. One thing I liked about WoW is that I could at least have a bit of fun in battlegrounds (on an individual level) regardless of winning/losing (in fact, that is part of the reason why some people won't focus on objectives!). Long matches are definitely frustrating to lose--I tend to prefer quicker games, especially if they are hard to turnaround from.

If you play alone it is the worst thing imaginable, with a good friend it is acceptable at its best. You brought up an interesting topic in your first post, you asked "what is the game without all the shiny things" let me ask you an almost identical question. What is the game without a friend?

Good question. Honestly a lot of multiplayer games suck if you don't have anyone to suck with you (at least at first). It is tough to say whether that is inherently bad--it might be a design decision that encourages you to party up (e.g. vanilla WoW). If executed correctly, it can work. But I think the game has to be fun individually, on some level, for it to work. Otherwise the players won't have an interest from the start.

The information part of your post was perfectly valid. And although I don't play HotS, I wanted to respond since it was an interesting question. Although, my response was more generic as to why you would want to PvP in any game, so it may have come off as a bit inaccurate when applied to HotS. Usually I will just ask myself: "what is my endgame?" i.e. what am I pushing for through this game? For hearthstone players, some people may want to get legendary. Some people may strive for Blizzcon. Others may strive for as many 12-win arenas as possible.

In HotS, I imagine you'd have the most fun playing with 2-4 other friends to play with regularly and perhaps push rating. Kinda like how running dungeons with friendly guildies is usually funner than running with randoms. That's the dream. But you probably have to wade through a bunch of shit before you can get there (or find friends through the AI matches?). I suppose your question would be more aptly renamed as "why would anyone ever want to PuG?" In most games, PuG's are usually just preparation for the real thing. So it may serve as good practice (or again, if you gain special satisfaction from fighting players), but if it isn't your thing then it isn't your thing. Out of curiosity, do you think they could change anything to make it more accommodating? Or is it just a consequence of a bad community?

 

[Razosh]

Which AI difficulty are you referring to? Ranked will make a bit of a difference because of MMR, but you're the more experienced one so I'll take your word for it. I didn't actually know that AI was that popular since I never hear about it, sorry. My commentary is more on MobA's in general rather than Heroes of the Storm specifically--I clearly only know the bare minimum about HotS.

Lowest difficulty, highest and second highest difficulty, I THINK there are 6 in total.

Hmm.. yeah. That might be a testament to unfun gameplay then. One thing I liked about WoW is that I could at least have a bit of fun in battlegrounds (on an individual level) regardless of winning/losing (in fact, that is part of the reason why some people won't focus on objectives!). Long matches are definitely frustrating to lose--I tend to prefer quicker games, especially if they are hard to turnaround from.

I also found BGs fun the problem is only that the majority who play BG does it casually unlike mobas where in most games at least people play ranked. In addition in BGs you're constantly rewarded with little green lights that say +honor while in LoL for example there's no such thing. I would rather compare losing to LoL as getting severely grave ganked in a BG.

Good question. Honestly a lot of multiplayer games suck if you don't have anyone to suck with you (at least at first). It is tough to say whether that is inherently bad--it might be a design decision that encourages you to party up (e.g. vanilla WoW). If executed correctly, it can work. But I think the game has to be fun individually, on some level, for it to work. Otherwise the players won't have an interest from the start.

Yeah Vanilla WoW really only worked because it was a completely new experience and it would never have lasted today as I see it.

The information part of your post was perfectly valid. And although I don't play HotS, I wanted to respond since it was an interesting question. Although, my response was more generic as to why you would want to PvP in any game, so it may have come off as a bit inaccurate when applied to HotS. Usually I will just ask myself: "what is my endgame?" i.e. what am I pushing for through this game? For hearthstone players, some people may want to get legendary. Some people may strive for Blizzcon. Others may strive for as many 12-win arenas as possible.

I can't guarantee that the info is correct I can only really speak for the 500 games I've won. But also Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm are quite different in the way that Hearthstone was the first really good fre to play card game while there are a huge range of free to play mobas. I don't think I've ever heard any competitive moba player say I'm going to go for HotS.

In HotS, I imagine you'd have the most fun playing with 2-4 other friends to play with regularly and perhaps push rating. Kinda like how running dungeons with friendly guildies is usually funner than running with randoms. That's the dream. But you probably have to wade through a bunch of shit before you can get there (or find friends through the AI matches?). I suppose your question would be more aptly renamed as "why would anyone ever want to PuG?" In most games, PuG's are usually just preparation for the real thing. So it may serve as good practice (or again, if you gain special satisfaction from fighting players), but if it isn't your thing then it isn't your thing. Out of curiosity, do you think they could change anything to make it more accommodating? Or is it just a consequence of a bad community?

I do not think there's anything Blizzard could do at this point that would really embrace a hardcore competitive crowd simply because the competition is too much. LoL and DotA gets by simply by being the oldest who have gathered all the fans. The third one that makes it is SMITE and that's only because you can buy the entire game for 30$. I also think the general populations view of HotS is that it is only a goof and to become competitive that would mean to change the community and why would they risk that when they're making money of their current one?

 

[Xonok]

About lasthitting, I have found a use for it. Although it is an unintuitive mechanic(why does it matter who gets the last hit, as long as enemies die?), it does considerably raise the meaningfulness of zoning and gives a default activity other than pushing.
It gives a reason to hold yourself back at times and then play more offensive at other times, making the gameplay more fluid.
However, it also serves to raise the skill floor for people that haven't played this kind of games before, as it takes quite a long time to actually get good at lasthitting. This trend applies to mechanics in general - the more dynamic a mechanic makes the game, the more it locks out less skilled(or less dedicated) players.
According to those I'd rank the 3 most popular games of this genre like this:
1. DotA - For the tryhards. The mechanics(denying minions, losing gold by dying) give ways to punish mistakes extremely hard, but also promote teamwork a lot. Even if you carry the game it is fairly easy to stunlock you if you don't work with your team.
2. LoL - Middle ground. Requires high consistency in mechanical skills, because the game is designed to allow turning things around more than once and doesn't punish mistakes very hard, except in the ultra-lategame. The result - once you are rich your opponents can't stop you in any other way except stalling the game until they catch up. You still get stunlocked by any halfdecent team composition though, if you try to go rambo mode.
3. Heroes of the Storm - For the casuals. Most of the high-skill-floor mechanics don't exist(lasthitting,denying). The game is quite forgiving to personal mistakes, although you have to fight nail and tooth for objectives if you intend to win. The whole team wins and loses together, reducing the impact of players on themselves.
Of special note is that due to the game being less focused on mechanical skill it is way more about strategy, such as objectives, pushing and positioning.
Note that I have the least experience with this game and mostly know it from what other people have said.

I have played LoL an order of magnitude more than any other game this genre though, so my observations may be skewed or plain wrong at times.
It would be interesting if to know a more logical mechanic than lasthitting that would be as mechanically intensive and make the gameplay as dynamic.

About the toxic communities, I think this is due to a lack of any default sense of belonging. In WoW, for example, you always belong to some groups. You are in one of the 2 factions and there are people who are willing to help you simply because of that. There are guilds that you can join and many of them seek out new members on their own. It also gives some belonging that the area you are currently in makes it more likely for you to meet some players than others. All this give some mutual respect, as you can't just ruin someone's day and never notice them after that (as easily, at least).
Also, the tribunal system in LoL is absolute bollocks. It's too random to have any real effect on anything except the worst cases. I've been reported for flaming in games where I hadn't even said anything and apparently those reports still count.

 

[Razosh]

About lasthitting, I have found a use for it. Although it is an unintuitive mechanic(why does it matter who gets the last hit, as long as enemies die?), it does considerably raise the meaningfulness of zoning and gives a default activity other than pushing.

Although not an inaccurate point I must admit you're the first person I've met who has seen last hitting as a positive thing. While it is true it may raise your awareness it also in many cases compensates the amount of damage you deal which means that people in many cases chooses to save up their strong abilities for when they know it'll kill the enemy rather than using it when it will deal as most damage which would have helped the team if the focus was damage. Also if you are serious about the PvP you should be able to remain aware in every situation and not have to have the game babysit for you.

It gives a reason to hold yourself back at times and then play more offensive at other times, making the gameplay more fluid.

I don't know if fluid is the right word but it does add a dynamic to the game that's true. I don't know if you disagree but I'd like Blizzard to maintain their old system and not have last hitting as their personal fetish. If you play at a very competitive level and want every single second to count then yes last-hitting might be a good system to use.

According to those I'd rank the 3 most popular games of this genre like this:
1. DotA - For the tryhards. The mechanics(denying minions, losing gold by dying) give ways to punish mistakes extremely hard, but also promote teamwork a lot. Even if you carry the game it is fairly easy to stunlock you if you don't work with your team.
2. LoL - Middle ground. Requires high consistency in mechanical skills, because the game is designed to allow turning things around more than once and doesn't punish mistakes very hard, except in the ultra-lategame. The result - once you are rich your opponents can't stop you in any other way except stalling the game until they catch up. You still get stunlocked by any halfdecent team composition though, if you try to go rambo mode.
3. Heroes of the Storm - For the casuals. Most of the high-skill-floor mechanics don't exist(lasthitting,denying). The game is quite forgiving to personal mistakes, although you have to fight nail and tooth for objectives if you intend to win. The whole team wins and loses together, reducing the impact of players on themselves.
Of special note is that due to the game being less focused on mechanical skill it is way more about strategy, such as objectives, pushing and positioning.
Note that I have the least experience with this game and mostly know it from what other people have said.

I have played LoL an order of magnitude more than any other game this genre though, so my observations may be skewed or plain wrong at times.
It would be interesting if to know a more logical mechanic than lasthitting that would be as mechanically intensive and make the gameplay as dynamic.

Well I didn't expect this to turn into a philosophical debate on last-hitting.

 

[PurgeandFire]

I also found BGs fun the problem is only that the majority who play BG does it casually unlike mobas where in most games at least people play ranked. In addition in BGs you're constantly rewarded with little green lights that say +honor while in LoL for example there's no such thing. I would rather compare losing to LoL as getting severely grave ganked in a BG.

Not just that--individual confrontations are meaningful and exciting. WoW may have been a poor example, but my main criticism is that individual approaches aren't exciting. Approaching someone 1v1 in any MobA is just an ebb and flow of shuffling back and forth near a tower until help comes or until someone over-extends. You have such a ridiculously small moveset and little impact unless you play poorly.

BUT I AM BIASED since I prefer fighter games. MobA's are all about teamwork/macro decisions. The lessened impact on the individual could be described as an important design decision--in fact, I've seen that argument many times before. I still feel like there should be more skillful things to do as an individual. Otherwise you're left to team-communication for stimulus, and that can often be nonexistent in PuG's. I think that is why it isn't really fun to play PuG matches unless you're playing with friend(s).

Yeah Vanilla WoW really only worked because it was a completely new experience and it would never have lasted today as I see it.

Really? There are parts that wouldn't work--namely the downtime and imbalances, but I don't think it wouldn't work today. There are still stuff in vanilla WoW that I miss when looking at retail WoW--usually it is stuff that is no longer fixable. Sure the audience has changed, but Blizzard is Blizzard. They can be trendsetters, and they've proved it with Hearthstone--a game I (and many others) laughed about during the beta. I still laugh about it, but I admit that I enjoy it and it definitely was a bold move in the current state of video games.

I do not think there's anything Blizzard could do at this point that would really embrace a hardcore competitive crowd simply because the competition is too much. LoL and DotA gets by simply by being the oldest who have gathered all the fans. The third one that makes it is SMITE and that's only because you can buy the entire game for 30$. I also think the general populations view of HotS is that it is only a goof and to become competitive that would mean to change the community and why would they risk that when they're making money of their current one?

For more respectable competitions/eSports, but there probably isn't much fixing that now. I think striving for a more competitive environment can be good for a game in the long run. It is fine to have it considered a goof of a game for now, but it can't be good for the longevity of the game.

 

[Xonok]

Although not an inaccurate point I must admit you're the first person I've met who has seen last hitting as a positive thing. While it is true it may raise your awareness it also in many cases compensates the amount of damage you deal which means that people in many cases chooses to save up their strong abilities for when they know it'll kill the enemy rather than using it when it will deal as most damage which would have helped the team if the focus was damage. Also if you are serious about the PvP you should be able to remain aware in every situation and not have to have the game babysit for you.

Well consider this: Real wars are not won by killing every enemy soldier. Dealing maximal damage isn't really the point except when you're a suicide bomber. The actual point during a war is to get the delta of your power and their power maximally in your favour, so you could end the war. (Except if you're USA, because then you have an industry that actually benefits from constant, but limited wars)
Having unlimited minions is what skews this - being unlimited, the optimal strategy would be to hoard your own and do area damage assassinations against enemy minions until one side reaches a critical mass that can't be stopped. This is specifically prevented by having minions walk into lane one at a time in small groups, because although more optimal, it would be boring to just wait for a critical mass.
Instead the focus is on creating elites(the heroes in DotA, champions in LoL, etc) that are capable of singlehandedly bringing the enemy nation to their knees. This ties together very well with the power fantasies that most people play these games for in the first place.
You could think of XP as exposure to battle and gold as battle prowess, which comes from repeatedly practicing your combat skills.

It must be noted that although the way I talk often seems authoritative, it is not authoritative towards the subject. That is, I speak like this to represent that this is how I believe things are, but that others still have to make up their own minds. It's often misunderstood for an attempt at being "more right".
As such, take whatever I say more as a sketch to fill in than an exact formula of how things are.

I still don't have lasthitting as a serious mechanic in any of my maps, although I do cater to that style a bit(I like to make at least a few passives that work through lasthitting).

 

[Dr Super Good]

The problem with Heroes of the Storm is the Versus AI balancing. You get 100% EXP from Versus AI games no matter what difficulty they are played at. At Beginner you can steam roll them as they will purposely focus minions over heroes and getting a 8 level lead is easy. At Elite the game is much harder with some bad on good compositions leaving you struggling to win. A good time for Beginner is <6 minutes. A good time for Elite is 15+ minutes.

This means you could steam roll beginners, get your 10 gold and full exp from all the forts and efficient farming in 6 minutes. Or struggle slightly and get 10 gold, all fort experience, less efficient farming in 15+ minutes. That is not at all fair and is counter productive to the game.

They really need to lower gold from Beginner to 5 and raise Elite to 15. Like wise Beginner should give you 50% exp while Elite 150%. One should not be able to get the most from farming the easiest difficulty.

 

[Razosh]

The problem with Heroes of the Storm is the Versus AI balancing. You get 100% EXP from Versus AI games no matter what difficulty they are played at. At Beginner you can steam roll them as they will purposely focus minions over heroes and getting a 8 level lead is easy. At Elite the game is much harder with some bad on good compositions leaving you struggling to win. A good time for Beginner is <6 minutes. A good time for Elite is 15+ minutes.

This means you could steam roll beginners, get your 10 gold and full exp from all the forts and efficient farming in 6 minutes. Or struggle slightly and get 10 gold, all fort experience, less efficient farming in 15+ minutes. That is not at all fair and is counter productive to the game.

They really need to lower gold from Beginner to 5 and raise Elite to 15. Like wise Beginner should give you 50% exp while Elite 150%. One should not be able to get the most from farming the easiest difficulty.

Yep I agree completely, however as someone who enjoys AIs a lot more than people I think it's good however that you get equal amount of XP from Elite AI and players.

 

[WhiteFang]

They really need to raise gold from Beginner to 50 and Elite to 150. Like wise Beginner should give you 500% exp while Elite 1500%.

Fixed for ya xD

 

[Dr Super Good]

Fixed for ya xD

That would cause gold inflation. They would have to raise hero costs from 10k to 50k-100k.

 

[WhiteFang]

As if the heroes weren't expensive enough...
Seriously though,the amount of time it takes to make a lot of gold compared to how expensive heroes are is ridiculous to me

 

[Dr Super Good]

Seriously though,the amount of time it takes to make a lot of gold compared to how expensive heroes are is ridiculous to me

I have most heroes unlocked and I have not paid a thing. You just need to play for the dailies and events every day.

At the moment you will get anywhere from 320 to 980 gold a day from just doing the dailies and event. Over the month (as that is how long the event will last) that would yield you anywhere from 9,600 gold to 29,400 depending on luck.

Heroes also easily refund you 1,250 gold from level 9. As such even the most expensive heroes will only cost you 8,750 in the long term. If you really over play the hero it can become as low as 5,750 for a 10k hero but to me levels 15 and 20 are impractical.

 

[Razosh]

As if the heroes weren't expensive enough...
Seriously though,the amount of time it takes to make a lot of gold compared to how expensive heroes are is ridiculous to me

I may agree that they could increase the gold accumulation to be somewhat faster, I will give Blizzard credit however since they reduce the price of one old hero almost every time they introduce a new one, this is not something I'd expect from LoL. In the end though since most players have payed nothing for the game and I have baught one skin for real money I wouldn't say Blizzard owes me the entire roaster of champions.

 

[Dr Super Good]

I wouldn't say Blizzard owes me the entire roaster of champions.

Yet after 1 and a bit years playing I almost do own the entire roaster without paying for anything. You have to make sure to do dailies, take advantage of events and tactically level up heroes to 9 to free 1250 gold.