Possible Third Anomaly?

People discussed minions, camps, objectives, or even physical map anomalies.

What I’m proposing is tower-based. The main takeaway from the second anomaly (I got) was the call for help mechanic where towers target aggressors like in LoL. The armor shred was a second, but separate change in the same anomaly. Armor shredding isn’t the main function from that anomaly, just the tower seeking heroes from attacking other heroes function.

New anomaly idea

Primary change:
Tower shots no longer reduce armor. Towers (fort, turrets, keep, possibly core) will have their ranges increased by 1.
Fort tower: 7.75–>8.75 range
Keep tower: 7.75–>8.75 range
Keep: 8–>9 range
Fort: 8–>9 range
Core cannon: 8–>9 range

Secondary change:
Towers ramp up in damage through repeated attacks in increments of 50% up until a total of 300% increased damage compared to normal. Switching targets maintains this 300% increased damage to the next target(s). Towers will “cool down” after 5 seconds of not firing.
Example: Turret does 100 damage normally. Second hit does 150, third hit 200, until 300 damage. 5 seconds of not firing resets the damage to 100.

These tower changes takes away armor shred for one. Now tanks and melees who have higher health will benefit, and they should since melees have it harder in game. Tanks who rely on high health/armor will have their place again (I didn’t think they were weak but this will get those players who keep complaining Garrosh got shafted). To compensate for towers being weaker from no armor shred, towers will slowly ramp up until they do triple the amount after 6 shots. Ranged heroes will most likely be hit as increased tower range means they’ll get hit once assuming the defending hero is close to the tower.

With these new tower changes, the meta could be shaken up and current heroes could be “strengthened.” Insert my Valla 0.5-0.8 range here idea. Any hero with 8.75 attack range or lower can be retaliated by the fort. This means 7.7 range Valla could be increased to 8.2-8.5 (more powerful late game if completing a long quest) while not taking towers for free. Please give Valla level 1 quest instead of Hot Pursuit She’d be more powerful in a teamfight and we wouldn’t have to code her to hit 5.5 against objectives, and longer range for non-objectives. The main concern was she didn’t need more late game power which is a valid concern if not nerfed early, but another concern was outranging towers. Now this concern is dealt with. Another point to add would be Sgt Hammer might actually be considered if tower ranges are longer.

I’m even tempted to give the core +2 range instead of the normal +1 range so it’d be 10 range. The battle at the core if both sides are up should be the “final hurrah” and final chance the enemy team has to defend themselves. Current core stuff is cool so keep that in, but adding two more range would buff the defensive capabilities of the core to actually be a threat. Usually when enemy teams run to the core, the enemy team has 3-4 players dead. They’d still be able to kill those 1-2 remaining players as they do now. The difference this range would make for core defense is if 4 or more defenders are still up. The defending team would be able to get extra help in the form of a core actually doing something equivalent to a player (10 range, ramping up damage is no joke).

Any concerns about how catapults would be affected is not needed. Catapults start at 11 base range and increase to 13. They’d still pose a threat to the Core if left unattended.

Another idea I had was increase the lines of towers by 1 to get three layers of turrets instead of our current two which would require slightly stretching the map horizontally, but with less space in-between the layers of towers to not make the maps too much bigger. This would require drastic changes to maps, which I don’t think our devs would be willing to do unless it’s easy enough to recode the size limits of every map and simply insert turret code in new areas. This discussion for the extra layer of turrets would be for another thread, not this one. It was just another idea.

That’s nice and all if my ideas and heheh Valla changes were implemented or even new late game heroes that had longer attack range (but still not outranging towers) to give them superior teamfight power relative to other heroes right now existed, but I’m looking for the playerbase opinion too. Of course like the 2nd anomaly, players could be kicking and screaming and only a light touch was done towards the second anomaly (lowered armor shred of towers and fixed attacking heroes not in tower range?), but it’d be nice to see if any support could be gained from the players before their world is flipped upside down.

It took awhile before the playerbase changed their usual HOTS charge in under towers and “aggressive” playstyle to change to be more refined and only going in if you’re not gonna die mentality. If my changes were taken seriously by the devs, and the playerbase was given a month’s notice to prepare strategies to adapt, then I think there will still be complaints, but counter-strategies will exist too for players that can’t find a solution to the changes. Ex: Not charging in with Diablo even if he’s meant to do that! Devs could also take player feedback to prevent “unfun” mechanics such as tower aggro from damage over time heroes before the mechanic comes out instead of having to change it a month or two after the anomaly comes out

Nah, make the mage minion actually matter and have a mana bomb if it makes it to a structure and dies. Like a mini sapper.

Let’s combine both anomalies!!
Each time you do not take an xp globe you get one global armor reducing tower shot.

The closer you are to the globe the harder it hits , max you get an unavoidable core shot as a bonus.

Heroes in combat near the active objectives are spared the damage.

Staying in the altar of storms or 10 yards of it for more than 5 seconds makes you vulnerable to the damage to avoid afkers backseat abathurs from being OS.

Raven form and DW’s flight mode are not spared the damage either and are cancelled if hit.

Serious suggestion or just for fun? You normally object to all of my ideas so I’m wondering… pretty sure for fun because those suggestions will trash so many heroes and I’m very sure players will retire from HOTS if that came out. Taking even six tower shots that shred armor would kill a ton of players. If your suggestion hit all allied heroes due to one person’s failure to collect a globe, then even more than 6 shots might happen at one time. At least the tower anomaly only affected areas near the tower.

I’m actually trying to give a genuine anomaly change that could be implemented and balanced. This idea could also buff late games of heroes to begin the differentiation of heroes of early/mid/late that we sort of have now but not fleshed out at all. My idea would also allow HOTS to slightly move towards more individual strengths, but still maintain the core identity of a team-based MOBA in the form of objectives where the whole team needs to come together or you lose.

That could be a possible change, but would it be a big enough change to be considered an anomaly? Tower changes definitely impacted how players played. Mage minion acting as a sapper would make towers fall faster I’ll know that much. I think if that change was made, then there should also be a major minion rework. Ex: Minion aggro if their allied hero is attacked by an enemy hero. Make the minions have more attack too to be more impactful early on. Not sure if they should taper off in their danger levels as long as you don’t go 1 hour + as in LoL they infinitely scale, but at a slow rate to not outpace heroes during the normal game length. Heroes scale by levels (and a few by stacks and quests), while minions scale by time. If you make a separate thread detailing a huge minion rework anomaly I’d definitely try to balance what would happen.

Anomalies should be considered outrageous and “unnecessary” to the playerbase, but balanceable. It’s like my hero kit ideas that can be balanced, but “doesn’t fit the theme of HOTS” or “unnecessary” level of complaints. As long as the anomaly is balanceable, it’s fine by me. Would anomalies change the face of what HOTS stands for? If defined by casual and extremely team-based, then it is possible the anomalies goes against what HOTS stands for. You could always make arguments that the changes will increase teamwork. Ex: Shut down hypercarries so they don’t get stacks. It’s a team effort, just like using a dive comp to shut Hammer down. In the hypercarry’s case, unlike Hammer, the hypercarry must get to late game levels AND stack well to benefit. Diving under the new tower changes requires precise, and fast killing of an enemy, then backing out before armor shreds the first hero hit. That requires coordination and teamwork.

Who the hell are you?

1 Like

Idk why you wrote this because I was asking macweak before quoting you. You also responded to other topics I write so I’m also not sure why you responded by asking who I am

Please learn how this game functions and how your ideas would break the game, your Valla ideas would be terrible for the game.

Anomalies are meant to be provocative and shake the game up so massively players are scared

You could’ve said the first two anomalies broke the game too yet they still happened. My anomaly of longer tower ranges would allow heroes to begin a transition towards power spikes at different stages of the game. Huge change in hero design philosophy? Yes. My idea is unlikely to be implemented and for the most part with the few devs left I think it’s just a slow release of heroes until the game is closed