Report: Heroes of The Storm to Use LoL's Free Champion Model

[Mahorfeus]

I admittedly favor Dota 2's character model over LoL's, but still prefer the latter's gameplay. There is a great number of champions that I will likely never play, but just the ability to do so on a whim would be nice.

 

[infinity_turtles]

... there are heroes, that are more expensive than others and this is because they are ... better/stronger than others!? So correct my interpretation, but this means, that something is broken! Also if you start and want to get into (my) competitive play, you can't until you have all the important heroes (bought or grinded). But, ok, if you only need a hand full, because the others are just bad ...

Wanted to address this. The more expensive Champions in LoL are the newer ones. Some of the most used champs are also the cheapest. It's also worth noting that LoL has a metagame leveling system, where you need your account to hit lvl 30 and have a certain number of champions before you can even play ranked. Needing to unlock a certain number of champions to play ranked isn't a big deal though, as in the time it takes to hit 30 you'll bank enough in-game currency(Influence Points or IP) to buy the required number of champions.(That number being exactly as many as you need so that if you have last pick and every ban and pick prior to you is a champion you own you still have one character left) Most longtime players have banked enough IP that they've bought everything(aside from cosmetics which require money), or at least can buy everything if they want to, and still have a ridiculous amounts of it stored. I haven't touched the game since November, but I'm sitting on more than enough IP to buy all the champions all over again. I've never spent any real money on LoL by the way.

It's funny seeing how people treat LoL now though, when it used to be damn near universally praised as a fair free to play model. Still is, and in fact they've continually made things even more fair with price reductions and other stuff.

 

[Omnicrom]

Which is better depends wholely on how fast you gain the in-game currency, what else there is to spend in-game currency on, and whether or not there are massive differences in price tiers. I would have no problem with Blizzard's system assuming you get currency at a decent clip, there isn't a tier of heroes that are massively more expensive, and there's nothing else you absolutely NEED to buy with in-game money.

In my view League isn't exactly Pay to Win, but it's definitely Pay to have a definite and often decisive edge. Runepages are a major thing in League. The fact you have to buy them in IP is nice in theory for balance's sake, but if you're buying heroes with real money then you can bank your bank all your accumulated IP for runes. In essence using real money gives you an advantage even with the system that's supposedly fair.

 

[Vigormortis]

Oh man, I'm loving the attempts at rationalizing LoL's hero system as if it's something "good". I'm especially loving the attempts at demonstrating why it's a "better" and a more "new player friendly" system than Dota 2's. It's like watching Stockholm Syndrome in progress, but without the need for hostages.

Hilarious. But, anyway....

I had only a little bit of interest in Heroes of the Storm. This news leaves me with almost none.

Well played Blizzard.

 

[ecoho]

Well gotta say if your going copy someone might as well be the leader in the genera. Face it Dota players your game is not as popular as LoL and it never will be due to its very nature of being more challenging. Further more until reading this thread the fact that Dota was played competitively was unknown to me and I LOOK for Esport games on twitch.

 

[Rack]

Obviously DOTAs system is infinitely preferable, but this is Blizzard, it was always going to be pay to win.

I can understand if you "infinitely" prefer one method over the other, but tell me why you think so. I'd like to hear why an all-champion release would be a good choice apart from avoiding paying for champions. I'm not looking to debate the thinly veiled P2W option, just why you think it would be objectively better for the gameplay.

1) Pay to win. You might not want to argue it, but it's there. Someone who pays has more options than someone who doesn't and is therefore going to be at an advantage. This is kind of a big deal.

2) You can't play as who you want. For all you say that rotating champions gets you to play more characters which lets you improve your game being able to play as the character I enjoy is fairly important.

3) Stagnant metagame. As you get to higher ranks youy'll probably be playing against people who have spent thousands of hours/dollars and who have everything, but playing casually you'll be seeing the same classes over and over again.

When it comes to multiplayer games it breaks the cardinal sin of not having an even playing field. That's the way modern games are these days which is a tragedy but the one good thing DOTA did was eschew that.

 

[ecoho]

Obviously DOTAs system is infinitely preferable, but this is Blizzard, it was always going to be pay to win.

I can understand if you "infinitely" prefer one method over the other, but tell me why you think so. I'd like to hear why an all-champion release would be a good choice apart from avoiding paying for champions. I'm not looking to debate the thinly veiled P2W option, just why you think it would be objectively better for the gameplay.

1) Pay to win. You might not want to argue it, but it's there. Someone who pays has more options than someone who doesn't and is therefore going to be at an advantage. This is kind of a big deal.

2) You can't play as who you want. For all you say that rotating champions gets you to play more characters which lets you improve your game being able to play as the character I enjoy is fairly important.

3) Stagnant metagame. As you get to higher ranks youy'll probably be playing against people who have spent thousands of hours/dollars and who have everything, but playing casually you'll be seeing the same classes over and over again.

When it comes to multiplayer games it breaks the cardinal sin of not having an even playing field. That's the way modern games are these days which is a tragedy but the one good thing DOTA did was eschew that.

League of legends is not pay to win, if you believe that then you apparently have never played the game.

now on to your other two points that are at least a bit more reasonable.

2.you kind of contradict your third point as the fact that there is banning in LoL creates a better metagame and as to having a limited selection of champs, it forces you to learn new ones which is also good for the Meta.

3. I know quite a few plat league players and ill tell you right now they usually only play 4 champs regularly. Also if were talking pros all official league of legends events have all the champs unlocked from the start so that both sides can pick who they like.

now Dota has its place don't get me wrong but two things make it a really bad investment as a play model:
1.the reason they unlock all the characters is that the learning curb for play is like a brick wall right next to a cliff. Lets face it the fact that dota is a more challenging game is a bad thing.

2. notoriety. the fact that very few people know what dota is. I can tell my friends the game is like LoL and they'll know exactly what im talking about but I say its like dota and they have no clue. Remember when dota first showed its face it was a time when only those who were well off had a gaming computer and as such its player base is rather low.

 

[Zakarath]

There is nothing better about the LoL system compared to Dota's. Having everything unlocked lets you find what you like and play it. It doesn't make the game more difficult to pick up-- all you have to do is look or ask to find a handful of good, straightforward heroes. And once you find a hero or three that you like, you can just play them, rather than having to wait for them to rotate in or pay money/points to unlock them. And if any hero catches your eye for whatever reason, you're free to immediately try it out and see if you like it, rather than being forced either to wait for weeks or months for it to be in rotation, or to buy it without even being sure you'll end up liking it.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Curious.
Last I heard, Blizzard were aiming to have all the champions unlocked at the start. This is... unfortunate.

 

[blizzaradragon]

Personally I think the LoL model is a better choice, especially for people who are newer to MOBA games. Having everything unlocked at the start can be overwhelming, whereas 10 champs of varying roles and difficulty makes things much more manageable for those learning. It makes you feel accomplished when you unlock a champion as well, and if you're unlocking champs you played while they were free then you essentially build up a roster of champs you know you enjoy rather than essentially throwing darts at a board and hoping you land on one you like.

 

[GladiatorUA]

Not a good move. LoL's model is good for a small studio that can't lose money at all. It will probably bite LoL's ass pretty soon. For a small company with an inferior client it's a way to survive. For a big company it's just unpleasantly greedy.
There are tons of ways to shape a learning curve without tying it to money. Blizzard has experience and resources to be better and a greedy monetization model looks cheap.

 

[GladiatorUA]

They could, absolutely.
But this is the same company selling lv 90 characters instead of making their game better, so, there you go.
"But grinding is boring! I have a job!"
"Ok, then pay us!"

Weirdly, I don't see that much wrong with selling lvl90. $60 price tag seems to be a bit too high, but that only makes it better. It's basically selling time and it should be good for people who want an alt. It's very different from lazy unlock monetization.

 

[GladiatorUA]

Riot had a $200 million revenue in 2013 and have about a thousand employees. They might've started out small, but they're not anymore. Calling their client "inferior" (by which I assume you mean their game) is laughable, considering that it's becoming as big an esport as SC2.
Also, how will champion rotations bite their asses?

Exactly. They are no longer a small company with no money. The game client is objectively worse(has less features) from a technical standpoint compared to the one of Dota2. They are a bigger esport than SC2. And it's not the rotation that will bite their asses. Dota2 is growing and adding more and more features. The whole monetization system for TF2, Dota2 and CSGO is huge and complex. Again, it's objectively better than LoL's. It's impossible to pull it off as a small company... but Riot is no longer small, so the lack of improvement is concerning.

But I didn't want to go into all the detail because this thread is not about them. Oh well...

It's the same as if I were to say that Madden will soon take a turn for the worse, because I dislike American football and think the games are stupid.

I don't care about LoL or Dota2 as games to play. I tried both, didn't get into either of them as games. But it's fun observing them and the dramas that pop out occasionally. More so Dota2 than LoL. Because the "system" that surrounds it is fascinating. It's like that with Eve Online.