I don't knock Bliz for trying to give their characters some character, I knock them for doing it badly.

As for gameplay, the information I've heard so far is that the gameplay modes will include payload and control point maps.... hardly ground breaking.

but you're right, I was unfairly dismissive and I hereby amend my comment:

it's TF2 and DOTA/LOL without the humour and style.

Besides, I think you're reading too much into what I said.
First, it was an obviously flippant comment, not an in-depth analysis of the game.

Second, if you read the whole comment it was

My first thought was "so it's TF2 without the humour and style"

(emphasis mine). So I was literally describing my very first impression, and I stand by that comment.

I will say that after more consideration, the concept of a team based FPS with moba-style heroes could be interesting. I suspect it won't be for me though, for the same reasons I don't play DOTA or LOL; I simply don't have the time to learn all the characters and their counters.

@renatojj The distinction between no and bad choice or even good choice depends on the point of view and in that regard I agree with you, it is arbitrary in both directions. I argue that 0 or 1 choice (good or bad) = no choice. I argue that sometimes even more choices are no choice. Would the ability to vote for 3 presidential candidates be no choice, a choice or multiple choices if all 3 are extreme right and there is no other option? I argue that 3 x extreme right = same choice = 1 choice = no choice. Without any good choices, if all options are bad, there really isnt any choice, even if there are many bad choices. If employers were to offer 1 euro per hour in Spain to those unemployed, that is below the minimum required to live. You can say that is a good choice in economical terms as it is more than 0, but I doubt the employees would agree. It is the same as not offering salary so again not an option. Now the question is which viewpoint should you take? I would say the idea is to protect the less powerful against the more powerful and maximize the total amount of choices for the total group.

There is something interesting to note here: Where government makes laws protecting employees from certain hardships (against unfair dismissal, discrimination, too low pay etc) arguable limiting the choices of employers, it also makes laws that limit the employees (for instance setting higher pension ages.)

"When will that someone or a group ever be satisfied with their choices if we give them the choice of removing the choices of others forcefully? "
Exactly! In a world where the powerful can set their own rules with no one there to stop them, what incentive have they to do the right thing? That is exactly what we have seen go wrong time and again in fully free markets. There are so many examples of this. You believe government is the one removing choice? Look at monopoly markets and see what happens to prices there.
You believe government only sets rules one way, always against a group. That is not the case. The idea is that policy makers try to find a middle ground between the freedom of one group vs the freedom of another group. That is a fine line to walk and continually needs to be adjusted but it is a much more ethical line than simply giving a group with power full control in the hope that they will do well because of "the market".

"If you mess with the incentives for people to get out of their own undesirable situations, people end up imposing their costs on those who instead made an effort of having more choices, thus establishing a moral hazard (good being punished, evil being rewarded)."

Do you have an example? Maybe I am missing your point. In my mind, its not about the incentives as all people always want to improve themselves. Its about the amount of choices they can have. If you leave it to a part of the people who have reason to take control and coerce another group, they will.

"It's easy to see any economic problem being directly solved with laws, but not so easy to see the consequences. Even worse, the moral hazard leads to people misbehaving, and that ends up being invariably blamed on the concept of a free market, specially where there is no actual free market to speak of, like when you talk about Spain."

Spain is not a free market? In what way?

About the charity: No I dont think charity is pointless You cant compare charity to employment because in employment there is an exchange, hours work for pay, which creates mutual dependence and a relationship. In the case of charity there is none. Though the person in the unfortunate situation may depend on charity, he or she is not giving anything in return. Without this exchange, there is no relationship between giver and taker, which means no power over anything as there is no economic reason to give. If the giver demanded something for it, it is pay and not charity and a true mutual dependence with possible coercion would appear.