Sounds awesome. I doubt we'll see QM draft for another patch cycle or two though. If we did I'd be so happy.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Heroes of the Storm |OT| Pretty sure that Abathur is AFK
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
- Status
Sounds awesome. I doubt we'll see QM draft for another patch cycle or two though. If we did I'd be so happy.
How would bans even be handled in HL, when you have between 3 to 5 parties per team?
Who would decide the ban(s)?
Who would decide the ban(s)?
I doubt that Blizzard would use the same MMR for 2 so different modes.
In Dota 2 and Smite, the person who decides bans is generally the one with the highest mmr as far as I understand. (In Dota 2 picks are all decided by one person too in the mode that has bans, not sure on Smite)
QuickDraft/QuickMatch would use the same MMR since they're both open-ended and very similar. There's not a need for different ones, and it helps matchmaking consistency.
I like this.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
played infernal shrines a couple of games. i like the idea, but they seem to do a bit too much damage to heroes, especially since heroes get put on a long cooldown to rez.
i suppose the idea is to have to stay behind towers more and kite it around
i suppose the idea is to have to stay behind towers more and kite it around
May the Naaru have mercy on all the souls who now must contend w your first pick Nova.
jaundicejuice
Member
space goat confirmed.
FTFY
Milly usually does have first pick in our group since he's the assassin player, but it's typically KT or Jaina. I can't even really remember the last time you played Nova.
EDIT: Wow the qq about HL group change on reddit. Months of people clamoring for this, they give it, then the waterworks and "I'm gonna quit" stuff starts. Welcome to the Internet and game development.
People don't like having their ez-win buttons taken away.FTFY
Milly usually does have first pick in our group since he's the assassin player, but it's typically KT or Jaina. I can't even really remember the last time you played Nova.
EDIT: Wow the qq about HL group change on reddit. Months of people clamoring for this, they give it, then the waterworks and "I'm gonna quit" stuff starts. Welcome to the Internet and game development.
I mean we play as 3 or 4 when we can, but we also are just fine with QM.
It's just not a real ranked mode when all the group types but 5 can queue in it. The bigger groups of similarly skilled players will always have an advantage. That left them with this option, which is an option I could swear I've saw 20-25 posts on the front page of reddit about begging for this in the past 6-7 months.
I'm excited because it means you can solo queue with even less worry about having the deck stacked against you which was sort of the main reason to group in HL to begin with. Now that you don't gotta worry about getting hosed so much it should feel more realistic to play by yourself when friends aren't available.
It's just not a real ranked mode when all the group types but 5 can queue in it. The bigger groups of similarly skilled players will always have an advantage. That left them with this option, which is an option I could swear I've saw 20-25 posts on the front page of reddit about begging for this in the past 6-7 months.
I'm excited because it means you can solo queue with even less worry about having the deck stacked against you which was sort of the main reason to group in HL to begin with. Now that you don't gotta worry about getting hosed so much it should feel more realistic to play by yourself when friends aren't available.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Yet another major restructuring of the matchmaking system without a commensurate wipe of one's skill rating that is built, at least in no small part, from the old system.
That and ruining 3 party play for those of us who only play draft modes. Even when they implement draft, if they even do, in QM let's see if they remove mirror matches. Many of the population is barely capable of selecting their own here and now we're going to be dependent upon some random person selecting our bans.
That and ruining 3 party play for those of us who only play draft modes. Even when they implement draft, if they even do, in QM let's see if they remove mirror matches. Many of the population is barely capable of selecting their own here and now we're going to be dependent upon some random person selecting our bans.
It can't realistically be looked at like that; the truth of the matter is that when one serves tens of thousands members in a population some are going to ask for one thing and some are going to not appreciate those changes. It's not like there is some monolithic community that is changing its opinion and being upset with Blizzard no matter what happens. This change caters to come people and not others and it's perfectly acceptable for both groups to voice their concerns.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Yet many of both groups are vocal in a very unbecoming way. It's the reason I don't like going on reddit of any video game, it's great for aggregation but the comments are so full of wannabe developers and know it alls it's unbearable.
If your comments were about how the positions are being presented then I can't reasonably question your opinion (I can understand your concern if it's this); I read your comment and the comment you were responding to in the context of "the community" complains about one thing, and then that *same* "community" complains about the opposite so they're just complainers. I was just pointing out that in a large community like ours there can be several factions with distinct concerns that conflict with one another so it's not fair to characterize it as a singular community that is always complaining regardless of what Blizzard does or doesn't do.
That said, I don't understand why Blizzard didn't make it 1/2/3 (or realistically, solo only, 5 person only). At least then they could have argued 4 person teams need to gain another and hop in TL. Now what are 3 and 4 person teams going to do? If they go to QM then Blizzard is basically saying to 1/2 players in QM that they are either going to have to face premades or else go play ranked.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Ah I understand. The doomed if they do and doomed if they don't was just how I perceive the reception in general of many developers whenever they try to better the situation to the best of their ability and/or resources given. I never meant to insinuate that it's the very same people complaining just that I don't think Blizzard is in a position currently they can please everyone or even a majority.
I'd be interested in the actual development team and/or size of their budget since the game still seems to be in open beta.
I can't speak for groups since I barely ever multi queued for HL so I neither welcome nor damn the changes. I haven't even done my placements after the reset yet.
Edit: and bundle bought I spend too much money on video games this week
They got rid of team league because no one was playing it. They don't want to get rid of duo queuing because that's fairly popular. There aren't many 3+ premades in HL, probably, and so they're not very interested in making sure that 3+ premades can have a great HL experience. But big premades do throw a wrench into everything else they're trying to do with HL, so they got cut. This doesn't ruin QM because QM is already generally seen as less competitive - you expect a certain number of your matches to be won or lost before you even see the other team - and there just aren't that many 3+ teams in HL to drive to QM in the first place.
But this isn't about 3+ premades not having a great experience...this concern is that 3+ pre-mades can't play at all. They can't play in Team League (it's not been removed, only named teams were removed) and they can't play in Hero League. There is no longer an option for 3 or 4 person teams to play ranked or even draft mode.
Right, and I'm saying Blizzard likely doesn't care very much because there aren't very many such teams, and what they're saying is that when people do end up in games with those teams they often have a particularly bad experience. So it's an unpopular way to play the game that makes other players hate you.
They should have instead fixed their matchmaking so that 3+2 vs. 2+3 match-ups were prioritized rather than prioritizing quicker queue times.
Their "cure" may end up worse than the concern because now they are forcing teams of 1's, vs. 2+2+1 and it's going to be a jumbled, uncoordinated mess.
And that's a separate issue from the problem already raised about teams of 3 and 4.
Only Blizzard knows why they are disregarding what every other MOBA (and a fair bit of multiplayer) games have already had to do to resolve this issue. They're trying to reinvent the wheel here and a significant portion of their decisions are unnecessarily novel.
They're not really actually testing the heroes on the PTR, its all the other stuff. The mid-patch release hero won't usually get any public testing on PTR.
They ARE doing what other MOBAs have done to address 3/4-person groups: They kicked them the hell out of ranked.
Sorry, no, it doesn't work that way.
They were trying novel things for the sake of being different and *now* they are half-assing solutions to fix their mistakes.
The problem was letting them into ranked in the first place, so the fact they relented on their poor initial decisions is not evidence of them following other well established practices *sheesh*
The fact that they're going to retain people's MMR even though they're partly in consequences to Blizzard's experimentation underscores the poor development standards that are relatively new within the context of Blizzard.
Yeah, I think our underlying concerns are similar but we were talking past each other a bit.
My issue wasn't specifically whether they should or should not allow 3 person teams into ranked play. The underlying issues seems to be a lack of developmental vision and structural changes long after launch that significantly impact the game...and this isn't a purely free to play game.
Conceivably there are three person teams that have played together since official launch and invested money in the game and now can't play the way the game was presented in its completed form when they decided to pay some money into it.
And that might be a small portion of the overall population, but it's significant in how that development behavior is the backdrop for decisions after the fact regardless of how they impact a portion of the customer base, regardless of its size relative to other portions of the base (i.e., will decisions be based on who is paying the most? that's problematic for a variety of reasons)
So imagine if EA announced that, due to paying customer concerns, Battlefield clans could no longer play on ranked servers. That would be a significant shift after the game's launch that would rightly anger players who are part of clans...but simply because they comprise a minority of players their concerns would be ignored by both the developers and the players. That would never happen because it'd be a serious breach of confidence between paying customers, expectations, and developers...the unstated rules that major structural changes that carve off players (who aren't cheating) is not how things are done.
The other issue this behavior highlights is that it appears the developers are not being guided by a strong roadmap. They are still experimenting long after the game has been released. And that's new for Blizzard, as well. These major structural adjustments also came to light when Blizzard opted to remove the AH from D3. Concerns were raised then as to whether Blizzard's development team was going to cater to certain portions of the paying base at the expense of others.
These two examples, D3 and HoTS, are highlighting that Blizzard is now engaging in a pattern of behavior that is disturbing on a number of levels.
As an aside, we could also look at this new announcement to implement bans. It's a feature I think is essential to draft play. It's also not something that is going to organically fit into the way they sold the game. It used to be ten heroes and you get to play ranked. Some people paid real money to participate. So what happens to them when half of their roster is banned from the picks? Will Blizzard require more than ten heroes to play ranked?
There's a certain amount of disgust in my throat at the way development is being handled, and not an insignificant portion at the expense of paying customers.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
so theyre keeping 5 player team league then, still?
hm, unfortunate for 3/4 player teams. basically i won't be playing HL with anyone anymore with that change.
hm, unfortunate for 3/4 player teams. basically i won't be playing HL with anyone anymore with that change.
They're going to have to require 14 heroes for HL. And it does suck for people who want to play HL in groups of 3 or 4.
But I'd say these changes actually bode well for the future of the game. They're necessary changes that I'll make the game better. And even though they probably should have been the default to begin with their willingness to change it now, despite it being totally unfair for a portion of their player base, shows that they are more committed to making a good game then just making as much money as possible. I feel the same way about the D3 auction house.
But I'd say these changes actually bode well for the future of the game. They're necessary changes that I'll make the game better. And even though they probably should have been the default to begin with their willingness to change it now, despite it being totally unfair for a portion of their player base, shows that they are more committed to making a good game then just making as much money as possible. I feel the same way about the D3 auction house.
ohi. Allow myself to introduce...myself. I've been lurking the HotS threads since I bought my way into Closed Beta back in ~January and have been lurking on NeoGAF for many years now. It only took two, tantalizing months to be able to post here. I like long walks on the beach and
who gives a shit, amirite.
When? WHEN? Blizz, plz!
Yea this and adding another 2 minutes or so to the draft phase.
The next thing blizz is gonna drop is their Hardon for short que times. They want the casual player so badly, but they've got to realize that a shitty match up is not worth the extra 2-3 minute que time saved.
Also adding more heroes to the pool, increasing gold gains, and more free hero promotions (like the SC or D3 crossovers) can help alleviate the requirement. Give muradin away to everyone who follows on Facebook or something.
Oh god bae is here!
Good points; along with Ketch's point that these widespread changes signify non-pecuniary investment in the game is well taken.We should see these changes in 4 weeks.
Kinda funny- Ben tweeted he was doing mono-HL and only a few days later this announcement went out. The issues were not hard to see.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Considering monk just came with a new patch and before that it was butcher with the patch I'd guess the hero after Rexxar, Medic hopefully, 4 to 6 weeks. Depending on whether we'll get Rehgar next week
MMR should be seperated by gameplay factors, and draft, versus no-draft is the big difference.
If an unranked draft mode comes, I would bet, that it would use your current HL MMR as a starting point, and then be separate. That's what Blizzard supposedly did, when they introduced unranked match-making in SC2
Wasn't the pattern, that we got a trailer/spotlight for a new hero about one week in advance, and usually also a good detailed leak from a 3rd party?
Well, if you can call the last 2 heroes a pattern
I am kinda expecting a 4 week rhythm, which thankfully would also be enough time to earn 10k without grinding, even without the goblins, which we will lose in 5 days.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
Wasn't the pattern, that we got a trailer/spotlight for a new hero about one week in advance, and usually also a good detailed leak from a 3rd party?
Well, if you can call the last 2 heroes a pattern
I am kinda expecting a 4 week rhythm, which thankfully would also be enough time to earn 10k without grinding, even without the goblins, which we will lose in 5 days.
Well they said they wanted to have a 3 week schedule and they technically did with monk on PTR. Anyways 4 weeks is the minimum if it's 3 weeks per hero and 6 week is the maximum with 4 weeks per hero
IIRC Dustin Browder said 3 to 4 week schedule. I believe that was at Heroes of the Dorm.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/heroes/484574-dustin-browder-interview-at-heroes-of-the-dorm
at around 3 minutes in the video.
If I remeber the timeline correctly, that was after he tweeted about a 3 week rhythm
Yoshichan
And they made him a Lord of Cinder. Not for virtue, but for might. Such is a lord, I suppose. But here I ask. Do we have a sodding chance?
Welcome sir!
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll