|
On April 16 2015 08:04 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 16:13 ArgusDreamer wrote:On April 15 2015 15:40 PharaphobiaSC2 wrote:
Ok that's it... it's there again
- We are dumb, we don't want anything new just give us BW economy, Reaver, BW worker split
- Basically f*ck *ff with your new ideas Blizz we wan't BW with full HD support, engine etc.
I'm not surprised they ignore all of this and trying to came with new fresh original ideas... because all of you here should uninstall SC2 and go to BW again, because this is pointless... anything THEY do getting shit talked more than anything, all of TL/community ideas are BW oriented... Yes, yes i know. I honestly refrain from commenting to all the BW posts. Not because i don't care / don't want to correct them. It just seems like a huge waste of time :s. Which is saying a lot because i've been lurking TL almost every day for the past 5.5 years. You just always have these BW wannabe theorists get so much stuff wrong. Over analyzing the shit out of every little thing simply because it doesn't / isn't BW. News flash this is the third installment of Starcraft '2' not BW 3.0 So i entirely agree with you. Either way to people who want a list of more BW things: Lurker has been added, disruptor is kind of similar to the reaver at least 30%. Terrible terrible damage unit with high micro-ability + warp prism 7range pick up. The ability to store 2 disruptors in them at one moment or an immortal. Secondly i'm 100% aware it's not the same unit but then again blizzard already said they weren't going to bring back the reaver so stop beating the dead horse for more minutes of your life. People who actually like the design of sc2 are getting real tired of this nonsensical complaining about something that will never happen. Third: current state of the disruptor is nothing compared to how it'll function in the game at lotv launch or even for the next few weeks/months. ( same for cyclone / ravagers) fourth: All current units/stats will still change and be adjusted. fifth: Same thing when it comes to the in game economy... don't believe me ? feel free to be a bitter-ist but i do happily challenge you to reconsider or see if i'm wrong. As Rotterdam brought up in the lotv showmatches he would like to see if the economy in lotv was distributed equally so all patches can deplete around the same time. If you too like this "concept" then go do something useful and speculate/ do the math. Instead of complaining about all the stuff that hasn't happend yet, you could do something how does that sound? Or i guess you can continue to drop 3-5 sentences posts(or even less) about how "blizzard bad *grrr* Lol relevance is an entire different thing than just your initial gut feelings/ opinions. Tldr; please staph with knee jerk non mathematical emotion tantrums on TL. This place should be a safe haven for strategy and analysis/ enjoyment regarding starcraft/ other stuff we like that actually makes sense to be posted here. this so much. i wonder how much people would complain about the lurker if it wasn't in BW "omg blizzard are you retarded!? a burrow and kill everything unit that requires no skill to use but massive skill to play against. DK should be fired immediately!!!" Now people even want the BW economy and try to convince others with stupid arguments that make no sense like "you get rewarded for expanding but not punished if you don't expand" which is complete bs because you get punished if you have a lower income than your opponent. if you just want sc2 to be BW2 please just say it and don't try to develope ridicolous arguments why BW should be better.
Yes.. Glad someone is putting this into words.
|
I'm a bit confused by such small changes, but hope they have an internal deadline for larger changes... e.g. "After 2 months we begin crafting larger changes (economy core unit design etc.), once people have just begin figuring out the integration opportunities for new units, new economies, maps, etc..
On April 16 2015 16:56 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2015 03:12 cheekymonkey wrote:
Its funny how most people are positive towards each change, but negative overall. LOTV is Obamacare in space?
LOLOL.... best comment this thread.
|
On April 16 2015 08:04 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 16:13 ArgusDreamer wrote:On April 15 2015 15:40 PharaphobiaSC2 wrote:
Ok that's it... it's there again
- We are dumb, we don't want anything new just give us BW economy, Reaver, BW worker split
- Basically f*ck *ff with your new ideas Blizz we wan't BW with full HD support, engine etc.
I'm not surprised they ignore all of this and trying to came with new fresh original ideas... because all of you here should uninstall SC2 and go to BW again, because this is pointless... anything THEY do getting shit talked more than anything, all of TL/community ideas are BW oriented... Yes, yes i know. I honestly refrain from commenting to all the BW posts. Not because i don't care / don't want to correct them. It just seems like a huge waste of time :s. Which is saying a lot because i've been lurking TL almost every day for the past 5.5 years. You just always have these BW wannabe theorists get so much stuff wrong. Over analyzing the shit out of every little thing simply because it doesn't / isn't BW. News flash this is the third installment of Starcraft '2' not BW 3.0 So i entirely agree with you. Either way to people who want a list of more BW things: Lurker has been added, disruptor is kind of similar to the reaver at least 30%. Terrible terrible damage unit with high micro-ability + warp prism 7range pick up. The ability to store 2 disruptors in them at one moment or an immortal. Secondly i'm 100% aware it's not the same unit but then again blizzard already said they weren't going to bring back the reaver so stop beating the dead horse for more minutes of your life. People who actually like the design of sc2 are getting real tired of this nonsensical complaining about something that will never happen. Third: current state of the disruptor is nothing compared to how it'll function in the game at lotv launch or even for the next few weeks/months. ( same for cyclone / ravagers) fourth: All current units/stats will still change and be adjusted. fifth: Same thing when it comes to the in game economy... don't believe me ? feel free to be a bitter-ist but i do happily challenge you to reconsider or see if i'm wrong. As Rotterdam brought up in the lotv showmatches he would like to see if the economy in lotv was distributed equally so all patches can deplete around the same time. If you too like this "concept" then go do something useful and speculate/ do the math. Instead of complaining about all the stuff that hasn't happend yet, you could do something how does that sound? Or i guess you can continue to drop 3-5 sentences posts(or even less) about how "blizzard bad *grrr* Lol relevance is an entire different thing than just your initial gut feelings/ opinions. Tldr; please staph with knee jerk non mathematical emotion tantrums on TL. This place should be a safe haven for strategy and analysis/ enjoyment regarding starcraft/ other stuff we like that actually makes sense to be posted here. this so much. i wonder how much people would complain about the lurker if it wasn't in BW "omg blizzard are you retarded!? a burrow and kill everything unit that requires no skill to use but massive skill to play against. DK should be fired immediately!!!" Now people even want the BW economy and try to convince others with stupid arguments that make no sense like "you get rewarded for expanding but not punished if you don't expand" which is complete bs because you get punished if you have a lower income than your opponent. if you just want sc2 to be BW2 please just say it and don't try to develope ridicolous arguments why BW should be better.
I don't think you understand rewards and punishment.
Rewarding someone is giving them something the like, or removing something they don't like when they do something or don't do something. Jimmy cleaned his room and didn't swear today, I'll give him a cookie. (That assumes Jimmy likes cookies).
BW rewarded a player for expanding far more than SC2, because multiple bases increased income with the same amount of workers.
However, you don't lose anything you already have if you don't expand in WOL, HOTS or BW. You just don't improve your income. That isn't a form of punishment. If Jimmy is only rewarded for his behavior, then if he doesn't clean his room the only result is that he doesn't earn a cookie. He doesn't lose anything, he just missed out on an opportunity to gain something.
Applying that to SC, I can forgo an expansion (more income) while building 3 more Gates so I can 4 Gate you. That is my choice, not a punishment. I'm choosing to stay on one base income so I can attack as powerfully as possible.
Punishing someone is removing something someone wants or applying something they don't want when they do something or don't do something. Jimmy didn't clean his room and swore today, I'm going to give him a spanking. (That assumes Jimmy doesn't like spankings).
LOTV punishes a player much more than HOTS, WOL or BW for not expanding, because it decreases your income by 50% when the reduced nodes run out. Therefore, it is a form of punishment because you lose 50% of the income you normally would have had in HOTS or WOL after those nodes run out, and being on such a limited income is crippling. So you must expand faster in LOTV, that isn't a choice. And that is the problem there are less choices to make in LOTV, and thus less strategies to play.
So, if I choose to forgo my expansion (more income) while building 3 more Gates so I can 4 Gate you, I can, but I'm on a much shorter timer than in HOTS or WOL because my reduced nodes run out. Therefore strategic variety, is limited by a reduction of income to the reduced mineral nodes.
And this isn't just a problem with one base all-ins, it is a problem for anyone who wants to expand at a slower rate as a strategic choice.
So there you have it. The argument is not complete "bs", it is logically sound. But to you it probably seems like I just "develope a ridicolous" argument. But that isn't my fault.
|
Tldr: Balance update:
-we want to force our ideas no matter how terrible they might be.
-we removed interesting unit interactions.
-we still wont try eco changes.
|
On April 17 2015 01:46 abendrot wrote:
Tldr: Balance update:
-we want to force our ideas no matter how terrible they might be.
-we removed interesting unit interactions.
-we still wont try eco changes.
wtf, did you just ninja an earlier comment?
On April 15 2015 05:51 404AlphaSquad wrote:
Tldr: Balance update:
-we want to force our ideas no matter how terrible they might be.
-we removed interesting unit interactions.
-we still wont try eco changes.
|
On April 17 2015 02:03 tili wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 01:46 abendrot wrote:
Tldr: Balance update:
-we want to force our ideas no matter how terrible they might be.
-we removed interesting unit interactions.
-we still wont try eco changes. wtf, did you just ninja an earlier comment? Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 05:51 404AlphaSquad wrote:
Tldr: Balance update:
-we want to force our ideas no matter how terrible they might be.
-we removed interesting unit interactions.
-we still wont try eco changes.
He wanted to get them karma points but forgot this wasn't reddit
|
On April 17 2015 00:26 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 05:58 MrMatt wrote:
I was hoping for at least a mention of all the economy discussion happening lately. Some have a hard time to adapt to the changes after years of classic SC2 economy, so within two weeks they rather criticise the Lotv economy which was internally tested for many weeks/months at Blizzard, because that company just don't know how to make good games.
I know right, I mean they make such great units! I'm going to go play HOTS now and build some Warhounds and wreck face.
But, like the universe, BW's success was not due to intelligent design. BW simply happened to be balanced when things like Muta-stacking that Blizzard never intended to happen, happened and balanced the game. So it wasn't Blizzard that made BW what it was.
Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing. There is more than enough evidence to show that.
|
So Blizzard wants adept to be viable in small numbers just for early harassment but it should still be viable in mid/late game. Does anyone see a problem with that? :D
Hint: you can't have both.
|
On April 17 2015 02:44 darkness wrote:
So Blizzard wants adept to be viable in small numbers just for early harassment but it should still be viable in mid/late game. Does anyone see a problem with that? :D
Hint: you can't have both.
Through upgrades? like a buff to the Shields.
|
The reward/punishment thing makes no sense. You might think it does, but that's because you're imposing a single arbitrary baseline across two games. You are rewarded for expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you didn't. You are punished for not expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you did. Saying you're being punished by comparing what happens with a different game is not logical.
|
Sorry; was trying to edit. Stupid sausage fingers.
|
On April 17 2015 02:03 tili wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2015 01:46 abendrot wrote:
Tldr: Balance update:
-we want to force our ideas no matter how terrible they might be.
-we removed interesting unit interactions.
-we still wont try eco changes. wtf, did you just ninja an earlier comment? Show nested quote +On April 15 2015 05:51 404AlphaSquad wrote:
Tldr: Balance update:
-we want to force our ideas no matter how terrible they might be.
-we removed interesting unit interactions.
-we still wont try eco changes.
actually it's the 3rd time I've seen that in this thread.
EDIT: looking at them I see two of the profiles have < 20 posts each. Probably smurf accounts.
|
On April 17 2015 02:44 darkness wrote:
So Blizzard wants adept to be viable in small numbers just for early harassment but it should still be viable in mid/late game. Does anyone see a problem with that? :D
Hint: you can't have both.
Unless some sort of sarcasm is escaping me, isn't this exactly what widow mines does?
|
On April 17 2015 01:15 BronzeKnee wrote:
(That assumes Jimmy doesn't like spankings).
Oh boy.
In all seriousness, the peanut gallery that is attacking these proposals simply because bw is used in the discussion is sadly missing the point, I'm glad you took the time to explain it.
Someone might prefer the paired worker system, but they shouldn't prefer it solely because it wasn't in bw, no more than someone should prefer a non paired system solely because it was. As it happens, the people who put this together went to great lengths to explain the strategic impact both systems have on the game and the only reason bw comes up is because it makes a good point of comparison, not because anyone is trying to rob sc2 of its identity.
The tribalism (which is what all this "don't make my game anymore like bw" amounts to, at least in this thread) is not constructive.
|
So basically Tempest has Yamato gun that just takes a while for the unit to die. Got it.
|
bleh, useless changes for the most part.
|
Remove the Tempest already. Terrible designed unit that overlaps with the Carrier.
|
|
|
On April 17 2015 04:06 Umpteen wrote:
The reward/punishment thing makes no sense. You might think it does, but that's because you're imposing a single arbitrary baseline across two games. You are rewarded for expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you didn't. You are punished for not expanding in both games, relative to what would happen if you did. Saying you're being punished by comparing what happens with a different game is not logical.
If [# of workers] > [8], building an expansion ("expanding") without any additional worker production increases your income only when there is less than 100% efficiency for two workers on one mineral patch. Therefore you have increased income (you are "rewarded") for expanding in harvesting systems like double-harvest while you would not be rewarded for expanding in similar situations in the current SC2 harvesting system.
Concerning the accelerated loss of income ("punishment"), from what I can understand LotV mineral layout cuts income by 50% 1/3 of the way through the normal duration of a base's total mineral supply.
You may disagree with the semantics of "reward/punishment," but phrased instead as income increase without additional worker production and accelerated income loss respectively I am sure we can agree on the existence of these trends and perhaps move on to more substantial discussion of the merits or demerits of each system.
|
Don't see why they wouldn't change mining time, would make the game so much nicer withouth this half-base stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
