At the end of the day though, they are just hiddens forms of another stat: armor and spell resist are two different reductions to damage that goes towards your main health pool. I agree they are different conceptually, but again, the end result is that your hp is drained by x.
Just because health is the one constant factor in any damage equation doesn't mean that the end result is always the same. Every other factor varies, including the type of the damage. Specialized resistances naturally follow from that and the end result is that you are stronger against some things and weaker against others. That's not just a conceptual difference.
I also disagree with this statement, the idea here is to not overload the player with similar heroes and similar items, but to create less, more distinct heroes and items. You can only have 4 of 16 items, that's a possibility of almost 4000 different item combinations. When each item plays a different role, you'll need to use different items for different situations.
Limiting the selection to just 16 items is an unnecessarily extreme response. You can have a decent item selection without being as ridiculous as DotA. Such choices as opting for sustainability (regen/lifesteal) versus large pools (health/mana), burst damage (pure damage) versus sustained damage (attack speed) are going to be totally neglected in Blizzard All-Stars. That ties heavily into the lack of stat choices as well.
Really all this did was give a more refined role to heroes that are good a pushing lanes and keeping the pressure on (i.e: Nature's Prophet, Tinker, etc).
Again, that wasn't my goal here, at this point in time, ;). In the future, once we've all gotten a chance to thoroughly delve into the content will I take a more analytical approach.
To each his own. The point of my post wasn't really to actually argue the points (sorry, I probably overdid that). I just meant to say that your videos didn't really come across as stating Blizzard's point of view so much as advocating it. I wanted to watch them to get informed but got irritated when I continually disagreed with what you were saying. :P
I don't want to offend, but your series gives off this huge sense of fan-boy-ism. I mean, it makes sense, and it's fine to be really devoted to one particular company's products, but you failed to acknowledge any other point of view.
I for one disagree with many of the things said both by you and Blizzard. Things like "armor is just a hidden form of health" or "weapon speed is just a hidden form of damage" are totally ignorant. A variety of stats and item effects increases the uniqueness of gameplay by more than the sum of its parts.
Ex.:
Weapon speed is more useful to heroes with abilities that proc on attack or items that proc on attack.
Armor and Spell Resist are not just hidden forms of health. They make you strong against some enemies but the investment leaves you weak against others.
Things like lifesteal and health regeneration provide sustainability but again, the investment means you may be lacking in damage or health, which, as an example, may leave you weak to burst damage.
Without this variety there will never be a reason to vary your item selection... One set of items will always be best on a particular hero, even moreso if you can only buy four items.
Also, the notion of a siege hero was based on very faulty premises. Yes, the objective of the game is to destroy the enemy's base, but the purpose is not to do that by outranging towers. Such an idea, at least in my opinion, takes the fun out of the game. Yes, you can say that if a siege hero is attacking your tower uninhibited, then it is your fault for not defending it - but then, if you always defend against these siege heroes, they have no purpose. So they are a subtraction from the game in both cases.
I know your video series was meant to be informational, but a truly informational series would present more than just one point of view. You raised no questions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just because health is the one constant factor in any damage equation doesn't mean that the end result is always the same. Every other factor varies, including the type of the damage. Specialized resistances naturally follow from that and the end result is that you are stronger against some things and weaker against others. That's not just a conceptual difference.
Limiting the selection to just 16 items is an unnecessarily extreme response. You can have a decent item selection without being as ridiculous as DotA. Such choices as opting for sustainability (regen/lifesteal) versus large pools (health/mana), burst damage (pure damage) versus sustained damage (attack speed) are going to be totally neglected in Blizzard All-Stars. That ties heavily into the lack of stat choices as well.
More refined or more limited?
To each his own. The point of my post wasn't really to actually argue the points (sorry, I probably overdid that). I just meant to say that your videos didn't really come across as stating Blizzard's point of view so much as advocating it. I wanted to watch them to get informed but got irritated when I continually disagreed with what you were saying. :P
@Sixen: Go
I don't want to offend, but your series gives off this huge sense of fan-boy-ism. I mean, it makes sense, and it's fine to be really devoted to one particular company's products, but you failed to acknowledge any other point of view.
I for one disagree with many of the things said both by you and Blizzard. Things like "armor is just a hidden form of health" or "weapon speed is just a hidden form of damage" are totally ignorant. A variety of stats and item effects increases the uniqueness of gameplay by more than the sum of its parts.
Ex.:
Without this variety there will never be a reason to vary your item selection... One set of items will always be best on a particular hero, even moreso if you can only buy four items.
Also, the notion of a siege hero was based on very faulty premises. Yes, the objective of the game is to destroy the enemy's base, but the purpose is not to do that by outranging towers. Such an idea, at least in my opinion, takes the fun out of the game. Yes, you can say that if a siege hero is attacking your tower uninhibited, then it is your fault for not defending it - but then, if you always defend against these siege heroes, they have no purpose. So they are a subtraction from the game in both cases.
I know your video series was meant to be informational, but a truly informational series would present more than just one point of view. You raised no questions.