|
Brief background- been playing starcraft competitively since 2008 when I discovered the pro scene through youtube vods (klazart, diggity, moletrap, cholera etc) played sc2 since WoL beta and have been high masters since masters was a thing.
First- More drastic changes need to be tested especially for a prolonged beta. Like most everyone else I was estatic about the new economy changes they unveiled at blizzcon, 12 workers to skip the boring first 3 mins of a game? Bases that mined out faster? Awesome! But upon further digging the econ changes were pretty hollow, its just less resources per base so you mine out faster. the "3 base cap" is still a thing.
Teamliquid came forth with a possible solution to this with Double Harvest, a much more broodwar type economy. Simply put you're not punished for not expanding but you're rewarded for expanding, effectively getting rid of the 3 base cap while still allowing defensive play to still exist in the game.
From blizzards response to the Double Harvest it seems like they don't really understand it and we haven't heard anything about it since... which brings me to point two-
Secondly- In addition to more radical changes being tested we really need to strengthen the communication between the developers and the community, Psione- you're awesome mate but ultimately you're a middle man relaying messages. Blizzard please just talk to us and let us know whats going on as to why you're doing or not doing things. For example skins, design decisions etc. which brings me to my third point...
Thirdly- The units for Lotv feel pretty underwhelming on the whole. With the exception in my eyes being the lurker and Disruptor. The cyclone actually annoys me because its basically just letting Terran players micro a unit like protoss micro Phoenix (just moving around and clicking while the unit attacks while moving. Mech didn't need another strong ground to ground unit, it really didn't. So the cyclone when first released was the new "micro goliath" well now it doesn't shoot up until fusion core so its just a ground phoenix... Honestly, you gave us back the lurker just give us back the goliath at this point.
The Liberator is also a funky unit that doesn't sit well with me. Its a sky tank that its also a valkyrie for some reason. If blizzard wants to make a new version of starcraft they should make new units with new concepts not half assed rehashes which just about all of the new units are, even the disruptor. We want our units to have more microbility this does not mean every unit needs abilities, this means units need to be more responsive like the Depth of micro video Lalush made some time ago suggests.
I'm on the fence about the Ravager it was cool until they overnerfed it, it was too strong for sure but now its too weak... like a middle ground can't be that difficult to find.
Overall I'm not really saying anything that hasn't been said before by people way more popular with a lot more pull in the scene, people like catz and incontrol for example.
To me, if blizzard is hell bent on controlling the scene and not letting the community run the game they really need to step up their game and be more open about wtf is going on in their offices, with broodwar making a comeback in Korea and Starbow being released Its getting to the point where vanilla sc2 is not that appealing anymore, seriously the one thing it has on starbow, broodwar, and sc2broodwar is easy and effective match making.
I've been writing this over the course of several hours while I'm at work so let me just reiterate the main point of my post because reading this back to myself its kind of jumbled and all over the place:
I'm frustrated and disappointed with the direction Lotv is taking and Blizzards lack of communication. The new units feel weird and out of place especially the Terran units.The new economy doesn't solve the core issue of the current hots economy it just puts a timer on turtles which is a good thing but more could be done, just test the damn double harvest already. I've been playing starbow and Iccup recently and been having more fun with those than either hots or lotv and if things continue this way I don't see myself playing lotv past the campaign. I'm making this post to convey what I know a lot of people in the community are feeling and to hopefully get blizzards attention.
|
Agreed with every single point you made.
Disappointed with (yet again) the lack of communication and collaboration with the community from blizzard, the unit design and slow patches.
|
On June 08 2015 12:02 deth wrote:
Agreed with every single point you made.
Disappointed with (yet again) the lack of communication and collaboration with the community from blizzard, the unit design and slow patches.
The good old /sign. Iam glad that you are disappointed.
|
On June 08 2015 12:13 lolias wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 12:02 deth wrote:
Agreed with every single point you made.
Disappointed with (yet again) the lack of communication and collaboration with the community from blizzard, the unit design and slow patches. The good old /sign. Iam glad that you are disappointed.
did you mean to quote me?
|
On June 08 2015 10:48 captainwaffles wrote:
I don't see myself playing lotv past the campaign. I'm making this post to convey what I know a lot of people in the community are feeling and to hopefully get blizzards attention.
Why even buy the game and reward Blizzard for their subpar offering. Watch someone stream it if you're curious. Starbow and BW are where it's at, no need to buy shit game.
|
On June 08 2015 12:50 jotmang-nojem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 10:48 captainwaffles wrote:
I don't see myself playing lotv past the campaign. I'm making this post to convey what I know a lot of people in the community are feeling and to hopefully get blizzards attention. Why even buy the game and reward Blizzard for their subpar offering. Watch someone stream it if you're curious. Starbow and BW are where it's at, no need to buy shit game.
I really want to play the campaign because I really enjoyed the WOL campaign, though the HOTS one was medicore... but I'm starting to think maybe I should skip.
|
Theyre too busy doing this
Im not joking. This is seriously what I think. Too busy on Hearthstone and Heroes of the storm while spending 10 minutes a day on LOTV. LOTV looks totally disappointing with all those new units and gameplay. I don get any WOW effect except maybe Lurker.
|
Completely agree on everything
1. Balance changes are minuscule and geared in the direction of small fine tuning steps when we should be testing radical economy changes and drastic racial changes that the community has long despised such as Gateway reworking.
2. Zero communication, once again with David it feels more like, "meanwhile back at the farm.." dealing with Starcraft matters. Psione is little more then a messenger and has nothing to do with it, he's awesome.
3. The units just suck, sorry but they're bad, like really bad, save the Lurker/Disruptor/Adept the other units are just awful both aesthetically and game play wise, the Cyclone micros for the Terran, the Liberator awkwardly fills a role that the tank should fill on it's own, Ravager was nerf batted and the Kog'Maw thing already wasn't too amazing, seriously, these units suck. Their interaction are shallow in both micro potential and skill cap and they look like they could all be MOBA characters at worst and pathetic knock off combinations of previously well designed units at best.
Disappointed doesn't even describe what I feel, David and the team are completely and totally dropping the ball on this so far.
|
On June 08 2015 12:50 jotmang-nojem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 10:48 captainwaffles wrote:
I don't see myself playing lotv past the campaign. I'm making this post to convey what I know a lot of people in the community are feeling and to hopefully get blizzards attention. Why even buy the game and reward Blizzard for their subpar offering. Watch someone stream it if you're curious. Starbow and BW are where it's at, no need to buy shit game.
Apologies for double posting but this as well, if Starbow had a ranked ladder, there would be no reason to play vanilla SC2, like none whatsoever, it's a vastly superior game design wise, but no ladder means nobody plays reliably understandably. Kim could take some pointers from this most definitely.
|
It's clear a growing number of users feel Blizzard has abandoned the game, must we have a personal letter from everyone to blizzard in the public forum? I wish Blizzard would go about all this different but time and time they have proven to be slow.
|
Starbow does have a ranked ladder but its a real pain to get going.
|
On June 08 2015 13:13 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 12:50 jotmang-nojem wrote:On June 08 2015 10:48 captainwaffles wrote:
I don't see myself playing lotv past the campaign. I'm making this post to convey what I know a lot of people in the community are feeling and to hopefully get blizzards attention. Why even buy the game and reward Blizzard for their subpar offering. Watch someone stream it if you're curious. Starbow and BW are where it's at, no need to buy shit game. Apologies for double posting but this as well, if Starbow had a ranked ladder, there would be no reason to play vanilla SC2, like none whatsoever, it's a vastly superior game design wise, but no ladder means nobody plays reliably understandably. Kim could take some pointers from this most definitely.
http://starbowmod.com/
Now when you know that Starbow has a ranked ladder, can you tell me why this isn't the case then? You have to realize that people have different taste, and that some just don't like Starbow. "Vastly superior game design wise" doesn't mean much. A ton of people are still whining how BW is superior, yet they are still playing SC2 and just keep whining...
People are hypocrites, you should take everything what they say with a grain of salt. I hear people saying "LOTV needs ranked ladder!" while there is hidden matchmaking system and I don't think that ladder would've changed anything at all, not until they make a stable version and get a lot more people in it.
|
at least demonstrate an understanding of what Bliz is doing if you want to be heard
|
On June 08 2015 14:32 y0su wrote:
at least demonstrate an understanding of what Bliz is doing if you want to be heard
I don't understand what they're doing, I would very much like to understand what they're doing, one of the main points of this post...please elaborate?
|
On June 08 2015 14:08 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 13:13 Beelzebub1 wrote:On June 08 2015 12:50 jotmang-nojem wrote:On June 08 2015 10:48 captainwaffles wrote:
I don't see myself playing lotv past the campaign. I'm making this post to convey what I know a lot of people in the community are feeling and to hopefully get blizzards attention. Why even buy the game and reward Blizzard for their subpar offering. Watch someone stream it if you're curious. Starbow and BW are where it's at, no need to buy shit game. Apologies for double posting but this as well, if Starbow had a ranked ladder, there would be no reason to play vanilla SC2, like none whatsoever, it's a vastly superior game design wise, but no ladder means nobody plays reliably understandably. Kim could take some pointers from this most definitely. http://starbowmod.com/Now when you know that Starbow has a ranked ladder, can you tell me why this isn't the case then? You have to realize that people have different taste, and that some just don't like Starbow. "Vastly superior game design wise" doesn't mean much. A ton of people are still whining how BW is superior, yet they are still playing SC2 and just keep whining... People are hypocrites, you should take everything what they say with a grain of salt. I hear people saying "LOTV needs ranked ladder!" while there is hidden matchmaking system and I don't think that ladder would've changed anything at all, not until they make a stable version and get a lot more people in it.
Yeah pretty much this. People don't really know what they want. I totally bought into the whole 'dragoons are awesome add them to SC2' before I went and played starbow and realised that would not be a good idea, at all. Part of the problem is that the people who are largely happy with the game are much less likely to visit and post on the LotV forums.
DotA got a HUGE following and fairly competitive scene despite being a mod in a (not free-to-play, unlike the arcade) game, with no reliable ranked ladder. I think we should know within a few months whether Starbow is really the perfect epitome of design that its supporters claim it is, by the only metric that actually matters - whether or not a lot of people enjoy it and play it. I personally dislike it and think it will flop, but I would love to be proven wrong if only because it might put some more pressure on blizzard.
|
I'm getting a strong deja vu vibe from this thread. I have a unique perspective though, as I came from Wc3:ROC and TFT, AND been master while master has been a thing.
*Starts writing open letter to Blizzard, expect new thread incoming*
edit:
Deja vu vibe & jokes aside, I agree with most of what you've written.
Specially disappointed with their consideration of DH that seemed... flawed in the"understanding" department.
The new system is BETTER, but FAR from great.
|
I would love to see some combination of the Double Harvest mod and early worker start. I just got the beta and I do enjoy playing it, but I have not been wowed by it yet. Although I do think its very fun and I play it more than I do hots (which is not at all).
I agree with basically everything you said, especially points on the economy and communication.
Please Blizzard, just have open communication with this community that cares a lot about the game you made. I am certain lotv would be a better game with communication between everyone. *And note to the sc2 community, as a whole we could really do a better job of giving constructive and solid feedback to blizzard (the helpful kind) instead of just cutting them down and telling them their game is shit. I wouldn't want to have open communication with a community that is constantly shitting all over the game I was trying to make for them.
In my opinion, the economy change is the only change I am really excited about. When I watched some of the scarlett vs ruff DH show match recently and it went into the late game, zerg was really rewarded for taking 5-6 bases and mining them while the terran turtled on mech. That was great! Expanding out actually gave zerg a viable approach to beating mech late game even with the current set of hots units, because there was such an economic reward for doing so. Avoiding as you mentioned the three base cap, and I loved it. That's what I would like to see in lotv. I honestly could give a crap about lurkers or liberators.
Also, about blizzard making money (which is the end game for them I assume) and in regard to skins... ADOPT THE CSGO MODEL FOR SKINS. Clearly this is the most effective model anyone has done for skins in a game... While I don't care that much for skins myself, I even find myself interested when I am playing csgo. The heroes model of pay 10 fucking dollars for a skin is insane, even 5 on sale is steep in my opinion. My guess is they don't sell as many skins as they could. I would rather gamble on the possibility of winning 4 cool skins then paying 10 for the one skin that anybody can buy for 10.
Blizzard could just do something that is already successful, and adopt that model. I think everything else about heroes skins are cool, they fact that they change the animations is great. If lotv had some skin system like csgo where people could trade skins and it made animations different, I think that people would really enjoy that. Have a market place where such skins attain a value, literally just look at csgo and copy/paste.
My hope is that blizzard has just been focusing A LOT on the release of heroes. Now they will be focusing much more on lotv and its upcoming launch, I really think this could be why patches are slower atm.
|
As far as communication goes, yeah it would be nice if they had some kind of weekly blog or w/e just for curiosity's sake, but I doubt it would have any real affect on the direction of the game.
Someone would have to take the time to do the write ups, and people(most of the vocal forum-goers) would complain about anything and everything they shared. They really don't owe you anything, and realistically the lack of a play by play won't hurt sales.
It's likely that they have people they can consult who can give them their concerns on the direction of development. Most people shouting in threads will either have useless advice or things that they are already considering/have considered and heard a thousand times.
These threads are more or less just an opportunity for people who like to complain to complain, little wonder why blizz doesn't address each and every one.
|
On June 08 2015 15:06 StalkerFang wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 14:08 Ramiz1989 wrote:On June 08 2015 13:13 Beelzebub1 wrote:On June 08 2015 12:50 jotmang-nojem wrote:On June 08 2015 10:48 captainwaffles wrote:
I don't see myself playing lotv past the campaign. I'm making this post to convey what I know a lot of people in the community are feeling and to hopefully get blizzards attention. Why even buy the game and reward Blizzard for their subpar offering. Watch someone stream it if you're curious. Starbow and BW are where it's at, no need to buy shit game. Apologies for double posting but this as well, if Starbow had a ranked ladder, there would be no reason to play vanilla SC2, like none whatsoever, it's a vastly superior game design wise, but no ladder means nobody plays reliably understandably. Kim could take some pointers from this most definitely. http://starbowmod.com/Now when you know that Starbow has a ranked ladder, can you tell me why this isn't the case then? You have to realize that people have different taste, and that some just don't like Starbow. "Vastly superior game design wise" doesn't mean much. A ton of people are still whining how BW is superior, yet they are still playing SC2 and just keep whining... People are hypocrites, you should take everything what they say with a grain of salt. I hear people saying "LOTV needs ranked ladder!" while there is hidden matchmaking system and I don't think that ladder would've changed anything at all, not until they make a stable version and get a lot more people in it. Yeah pretty much this. People don't really know what they want. I totally bought into the whole 'dragoons are awesome add them to SC2' before I went and played starbow and realised that would not be a good idea, at all. Part of the problem is that the people who are largely happy with the game are much less likely to visit and post on the LotV forums. DotA got a HUGE following and fairly competitive scene despite being a mod in a (not free-to-play, unlike the arcade) game, with no reliable ranked ladder. I think we should know within a few months whether Starbow is really the perfect epitome of design that its supporters claim it is, by the only metric that actually matters - whether or not a lot of people enjoy it and play it. I personally dislike it and think it will flop, but I would love to be proven wrong if only because it might put some more pressure on blizzard.
Dota was always going to be huge.
It got so popular that the Chinese server began to run their own patch, and there are anime/three dynasty/Japanese history inspired dota.
The Japanese historical spin off at some point even over take dota popularity in Hong kong and china net cafe.
I have to say people just arent that interested in hardcore traditional rts, especially one that focus so much more apm and hard mechanics.
Afterall dota was a mod, just looking at the arcade we can see hardly anyone is interested in another rts.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On June 08 2015 10:48 captainwaffles wrote:
Brief background- been playing starcraft competitively since 2008 when I discovered the pro scene through youtube vods (klazart, diggity, moletrap, cholera etc) played sc2 since WoL beta and have been high masters since masters was a thing.
First- More drastic changes need to be tested especially for a prolonged beta. Like most everyone else I was estatic about the new economy changes they unveiled at blizzcon, 12 workers to skip the boring first 3 mins of a game? Bases that mined out faster? Awesome! But upon further digging the econ changes were pretty hollow, its just less resources per base so you mine out faster. the "3 base cap" is still a thing.
Teamliquid came forth with a possible solution to this with Double Harvest, a much more broodwar type economy. Simply put you're not punished for not expanding but you're rewarded for expanding, effectively getting rid of the 3 base cap while still allowing defensive play to still exist in the game.
From blizzards response to the Double Harvest it seems like they don't really understand it and we haven't heard anything about it since... which brings me to point two-
Secondly- In addition to more radical changes being tested we really need to strengthen the communication between the developers and the community, Psione- you're awesome mate but ultimately you're a middle man relaying messages. Blizzard please just talk to us and let us know whats going on as to why you're doing or not doing things. For example skins, design decisions etc. which brings me to my third point...
Thirdly- The units for Lotv feel pretty underwhelming on the whole. With the exception in my eyes being the lurker and Disruptor. The cyclone actually annoys me because its basically just letting Terran players micro a unit like protoss micro Phoenix (just moving around and clicking while the unit attacks while moving. Mech didn't need another strong ground to ground unit, it really didn't. So the cyclone when first released was the new "micro goliath" well now it doesn't shoot up until fusion core so its just a ground phoenix... Honestly, you gave us back the lurker just give us back the goliath at this point.
The Liberator is also a funky unit that doesn't sit well with me. Its a sky tank that its also a valkyrie for some reason. If blizzard wants to make a new version of starcraft they should make new units with new concepts not half assed rehashes which just about all of the new units are, even the disruptor. We want our units to have more microbility this does not mean every unit needs abilities, this means units need to be more responsive like the Depth of micro video Lalush made some time ago suggests.
I'm on the fence about the Ravager it was cool until they overnerfed it, it was too strong for sure but now its too weak... like a middle ground can't be that difficult to find.
Overall I'm not really saying anything that hasn't been said before by people way more popular with a lot more pull in the scene, people like catz and incontrol for example.
To me, if blizzard is hell bent on controlling the scene and not letting the community run the game they really need to step up their game and be more open about wtf is going on in their offices, with broodwar making a comeback in Korea and Starbow being released Its getting to the point where vanilla sc2 is not that appealing anymore, seriously the one thing it has on starbow, broodwar, and sc2broodwar is easy and effective match making.
I've been writing this over the course of several hours while I'm at work so let me just reiterate the main point of my post because reading this back to myself its kind of jumbled and all over the place:
I'm frustrated and disappointed with the direction Lotv is taking and Blizzards lack of communication. The new units feel weird and out of place especially the Terran units.The new economy doesn't solve the core issue of the current hots economy it just puts a timer on turtles which is a good thing but more could be done, just test the damn double harvest already. I've been playing starbow and Iccup recently and been having more fun with those than either hots or lotv and if things continue this way I don't see myself playing lotv past the campaign. I'm making this post to convey what I know a lot of people in the community are feeling and to hopefully get blizzards attention.
Lol, your post is so far away from everything that is going on its just outright ridiculous and borderline reportable.
You claimed the economic system sucks and the double harvest mod is better and blizzard ignored it. Blizzard looked at the double harvest mod. Its a huge nerf to zerg. (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/484962-double-harvesting-replay-analysis). That's why its dumb. I really just don't get your opinion of how its better in any way.
Secondly, Blizzard is very active on the blizzard forums. Another point where its just a lie they don't listen to the community. You can talk to several people of the balance team. Psione is not the only member of the balance team, and they have very open communication with the pro players. They have a chat channel that they communicate with pro players to get their opinions. There is a recent vod for the late game where this was discussed. Go watch their last 2 or 3 vods. if you don't believe me. It is true blizzard puts much more emphasis on communication with people who make a living playing the game rather than more amateur players.
Thirdly, the focus of Legacy of the void has been always on more active armies and more specialization than has been previously available. Terran has a hard time getting into and committing to different tech paths. LOTV now has 2 major tech paths with 3 different transitions. Before, there was almost no transition its either bio and try to end it, or mech into skyterran. Cyclones fulfill a different role than goliaths. The ravagers make it so zerg does have a counter to high sentry counts, but are not useful in large numbers. They are still used as a counter to sentries and static defense. They are still really good units. Just the early game pushes with zerg were nerfed with the idea that playing vs zerg you can expand more safely, which is more consistent with the trend of the game. More specialization, more engagements, higher economy, more tech options.
I like the new units. You say it feels wierd, but it actually feels much more about being mobile and is much more fast paced to me. The goliath reduces specialization which again is not the current focus of the game, and the liberator keeps muta numbers lower with the ability to control ultras with bio.
The economic system in legacy of the void is better than the double harvest mod.
I like the direction the game is going, other than warpgate recall, warpgate recall cycle so protoss barely is on the map still seems a bit retarded. Particularly, I think the lotv beta is funner than starbow.
The most baffling thing to me is, I don't really see why you feel the need to make this post here, where its unlikely to get as much attention from blizzard as it would on the forums where a direct reply from blizzard would be possible. I can hardly disagree more with this reasoning.
User was warned for pure ignorance in this post
|
On June 08 2015 15:32 ShambhalaWar wrote:
My hope is that blizzard has just been focusing A LOT on the release of heroes. Now they will be focusing much more on lotv and its upcoming launch, I really think this could be why patches are slower atm. Let's hope this is true.
|
On June 08 2015 13:41 aka_star wrote:
It's clear a growing number of users feel Blizzard has abandoned the game, must we have a personal letter from everyone to blizzard in the public forum? I wish Blizzard would go about all this different but time and time they have proven to be slow.
On June 08 2015 13:09 covetousrat wrote:Theyre too busy doing thisIm not joking. This is seriously what I think. Too busy on Hearthstone and Heroes of the storm while spending 10 minutes a day on LOTV. LOTV looks totally disappointing with all those new units and gameplay. I don get any WOW effect except maybe Lurker.
Blizzard did not use 100million dollars on WoL just so they could use 100million more on both HotS and LotV. I dont know the exact sale numbers but from what I can tell the community now is very much smaller than it was 3 years ago. There is no way blizzard is going to go big on LotV. You have to understand that they respond to stock holder demands first and fan demands second. If they can invest in World of Warcraft and Heartstone which give them big returns, they cant really go big on a game just because some fans are really passionate about it. Open letters are not going to work, maybe if you can get 5million of your friends to start playing sc2 then you could have a shot.
|
|
|
Russian Federation1612 Posts
On June 08 2015 20:58 NasusAndDraven wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 13:41 aka_star wrote:
It's clear a growing number of users feel Blizzard has abandoned the game, must we have a personal letter from everyone to blizzard in the public forum? I wish Blizzard would go about all this different but time and time they have proven to be slow.
Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 13:09 covetousrat wrote:Theyre too busy doing thisIm not joking. This is seriously what I think. Too busy on Hearthstone and Heroes of the storm while spending 10 minutes a day on LOTV. LOTV looks totally disappointing with all those new units and gameplay. I don get any WOW effect except maybe Lurker. Blizzard did not use 100million dollars on WoL just so they could use 100million more on both HotS and LotV. I dont know the exact sale numbers but from what I can tell the community now is very much smaller than it was 3 years ago. There is no way blizzard is going to go big on LotV. You have to understand that they respond to stock holder demands first and fan demands second. If they can invest in World of Warcraft and Heartstone which give them big returns, they cant really go big on a game just because some fans are really passionate about it. Open letters are not going to work, maybe if you can get 5million of your friends to start playing sc2 then you could have a shot.
Agree with this so much!
People think that a company must do something for them for nothing.
Actually they could do many multiplayer updates but they need money for it.
Legacy of the Void is all about campaign and they sell a campaign, not multiplayer. Multiplayer is a bonus for fans.
They need to make some system to sell multiplayer like they do with Hearthstone and HotS and then multiplayer will grow to new levels.
But now it's just "we make long beta because we didn't make new units in time, so while we finish our job you can test the game".
|
On June 08 2015 20:37 tokinho wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 08 2015 10:48 captainwaffles wrote:
Brief background- been playing starcraft competitively since 2008 when I discovered the pro scene through youtube vods (klazart, diggity, moletrap, cholera etc) played sc2 since WoL beta and have been high masters since masters was a thing.
First- More drastic changes need to be tested especially for a prolonged beta. Like most everyone else I was estatic about the new economy changes they unveiled at blizzcon, 12 workers to skip the boring first 3 mins of a game? Bases that mined out faster? Awesome! But upon further digging the econ changes were pretty hollow, its just less resources per base so you mine out faster. the "3 base cap" is still a thing.
Teamliquid came forth with a possible solution to this with Double Harvest, a much more broodwar type economy. Simply put you're not punished for not expanding but you're rewarded for expanding, effectively getting rid of the 3 base cap while still allowing defensive play to still exist in the game.
From blizzards response to the Double Harvest it seems like they don't really understand it and we haven't heard anything about it since... which brings me to point two-
Secondly- In addition to more radical changes being tested we really need to strengthen the communication between the developers and the community, Psione- you're awesome mate but ultimately you're a middle man relaying messages. Blizzard please just talk to us and let us know whats going on as to why you're doing or not doing things. For example skins, design decisions etc. which brings me to my third point...
Thirdly- The units for Lotv feel pretty underwhelming on the whole. With the exception in my eyes being the lurker and Disruptor. The cyclone actually annoys me because its basically just letting Terran players micro a unit like protoss micro Phoenix (just moving around and clicking while the unit attacks while moving. Mech didn't need another strong ground to ground unit, it really didn't. So the cyclone when first released was the new "micro goliath" well now it doesn't shoot up until fusion core so its just a ground phoenix... Honestly, you gave us back the lurker just give us back the goliath at this point.
The Liberator is also a funky unit that doesn't sit well with me. Its a sky tank that its also a valkyrie for some reason. If blizzard wants to make a new version of starcraft they should make new units with new concepts not half assed rehashes which just about all of the new units are, even the disruptor. We want our units to have more microbility this does not mean every unit needs abilities, this means units need to be more responsive like the Depth of micro video Lalush made some time ago suggests.
I'm on the fence about the Ravager it was cool until they overnerfed it, it was too strong for sure but now its too weak... like a middle ground can't be that difficult to find.
Overall I'm not really saying anything that hasn't been said before by people way more popular with a lot more pull in the scene, people like catz and incontrol for example.
To me, if blizzard is hell bent on controlling the scene and not letting the community run the game they really need to step up their game and be more open about wtf is going on in their offices, with broodwar making a comeback in Korea and Starbow being released Its getting to the point where vanilla sc2 is not that appealing anymore, seriously the one thing it has on starbow, broodwar, and sc2broodwar is easy and effective match making.
I've been writing this over the course of several hours while I'm at work so let me just reiterate the main point of my post because reading this back to myself its kind of jumbled and all over the place:
I'm frustrated and disappointed with the direction Lotv is taking and Blizzards lack of communication. The new units feel weird and out of place especially the Terran units.The new economy doesn't solve the core issue of the current hots economy it just puts a timer on turtles which is a good thing but more could be done, just test the damn double harvest already. I've been playing starbow and Iccup recently and been having more fun with those than either hots or lotv and if things continue this way I don't see myself playing lotv past the campaign. I'm making this post to convey what I know a lot of people in the community are feeling and to hopefully get blizzards attention. Lol, your post is so far away from everything that is going on its just outright ridiculous and borderline reportable. You claimed the economic system sucks and the double harvest mod is better and blizzard ignored it. Blizzard looked at the double harvest mod. Its a huge nerf to zerg. (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/484962-double-harvesting-replay-analysis). That's why its dumb. I really just don't get your opinion of how its better in any way. Secondly, Blizzard is very active on the blizzard forums. Another point where its just a lie they don't listen to the community. You can talk to several people of the balance team. Psione is not the only member of the balance team, and they have very open communication with the pro players. They have a chat channel that they communicate with pro players to get their opinions. There is a recent vod for the late game where this was discussed. Go watch their last 2 or 3 vods. if you don't believe me. It is true blizzard puts much more emphasis on communication with people who make a living playing the game rather than more amateur players. Thirdly, the focus of Legacy of the void has been always on more active armies and more specialization than has been previously available. Terran has a hard time getting into and committing to different tech paths. LOTV now has 2 major tech paths with 3 different transitions. Before, there was almost no transition its either bio and try to end it, or mech into skyterran. Cyclones fulfill a different role than goliaths. The ravagers make it so zerg does have a counter to high sentry counts, but are not useful in large numbers. They are still used as a counter to sentries and static defense. They are still really good units. Just the early game pushes with zerg were nerfed with the idea that playing vs zerg you can expand more safely, which is more consistent with the trend of the game. More specialization, more engagements, higher economy, more tech options. I like the new units. You say it feels wierd, but it actually feels much more about being mobile and is much more fast paced to me. The goliath reduces specialization which again is not the current focus of the game, and the liberator keeps muta numbers lower with the ability to control ultras with bio. The economic system in legacy of the void is better than the double harvest mod. I like the direction the game is going, other than warpgate recall, warpgate recall cycle so protoss barely is on the map still seems a bit retarded. Particularly, I think the lotv beta is funner than starbow. The most baffling thing to me is, I don't really see why you feel the need to make this post here, where its unlikely to get as much attention from blizzard as it would on the forums where a direct reply from blizzard would be possible. I can hardly disagree more with this reasoning.
+1
i'm happy with how LotV is progressing and i'm having fun with the new LotV units.
my level of play varies from Silver to Diamond depending on what server i'm on and how intensely i'm playing that season.
i'm still in touch with a couple of Blizzard employees on the SC2 team from my time on the ConquerCup and CraftCup.
they are more than willing to discuss game play issues regarding LotV.
the fact these guys are willing to keep the lines of communication open this long after both the ConquerCup and CraftCup have died is an indicator of how open they are...i'm really just some unimportant nobody.
over all i'm happy with the work Blizzard is doing in the RTS genre. relative to what any one else is doing.. Blizzard is just flat out better.
compared to some pie-in-the-sky child-like dream world vision of limitless resources SC2:LotV probably does not stack up too well.
David Kim , Chris Sigaty , and Dustin Browder are great... period.. end of story.
|
This is just yet another random list of subjective complaints based on nothing much. It's not helping anyone. The only point that has any more cachet is the wish for more open communication; but see the posts above about Blizzard's level of communication with pros.
|
On June 08 2015 20:58 NasusAndDraven wrote:
Blizzard did not use 100million dollars on WoL just so they could use 100million more on both HotS and LotV. I dont know the exact sale numbers but from what I can tell the community now is very much smaller than it was 3 years ago. There is no way blizzard is going to go big on LotV.
i'm just happy they are charging the full box $60 USD price in NA. This allows them to do a bit more work on it than if it were just a $40 expansion.
|
Only point is that Lalush was right 5 years ago and Blizz dindt even read his work...
|
Russian Federation93 Posts
Am I the only one who does't expect blizzard to stop acting like huge heartless corporate machine? I am following SC2 scene from WoL beta, I am playing WoW from BC and Diablo 3 from beta and I have never seen them listening to the community.
There are literally zero chance that they will just "We really like DH concept introduced by the community and we decided to bring it into the game." They are not Valve or Riot who cares about their players. It took them a year to nerf terrans in WoL. Retro paladins were 1-shooting everyone for 6 month at the start of Lich King. Just imagine that zealot have 500 hp, 100 damage and costs 50 minerals. They were not fixing this for 6 month. 5 BM hunters were unbeatable top-1 composition in 5v5 for 4 month at the start of the Pandas.
Lets see what they did for HotS in 2014:
1. February 3, 2014:
Time Warp cost increased from 75 to 100
Ghosts start with the energy upgrade built in
2. March 1, 2014:
Mothership Core vision decreased from 14 to 9
Widow Mine splash damage increased from 40 to 40 +40 shields
Hydralisk attack delay decreased from 0.83 to 0.75
3. May 23, 2014:
Removed Transformation Servos upgrade
Changed Hellion/Hellbat transform requirement to Armory
Brood Lord gains the Frenzied ability
4. July 25, 2014
Splash radius is now 1.75. There are no longer 50% or 25% damage zones.
Changed to prioritize Thor AA weapon over the AG weapon
Time Warp duration decreased from 30 to 10 seconds
4 Balance patches in a year. A YEAR! 11 changes. 7 of them are variable changes which takes 5 minutes of development each. The remaining 4 will require some basic method changes and hardly looks like 100 lines of code. Blizzard balance implementation speed is 0.06 lines of code per hour.
They will always say that they are listening to us. But they never will.
|
On June 08 2015 14:08 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 13:13 Beelzebub1 wrote:On June 08 2015 12:50 jotmang-nojem wrote:On June 08 2015 10:48 captainwaffles wrote:
I don't see myself playing lotv past the campaign. I'm making this post to convey what I know a lot of people in the community are feeling and to hopefully get blizzards attention. Why even buy the game and reward Blizzard for their subpar offering. Watch someone stream it if you're curious. Starbow and BW are where it's at, no need to buy shit game. Apologies for double posting but this as well, if Starbow had a ranked ladder, there would be no reason to play vanilla SC2, like none whatsoever, it's a vastly superior game design wise, but no ladder means nobody plays reliably understandably. Kim could take some pointers from this most definitely. Now when you know that Starbow has a ranked ladder, can you tell me why this isn't the case then? You have to realize that people have different taste, and that some just don't like Starbow. "Vastly superior game design wise" doesn't mean much. A ton of people are still whining how BW is superior, yet they are still playing SC2 and just keep whining... .
I'm playing Brood War because I think that it's superior, so if any of you whining kids want to get off your asses and practice what you preach, I'll gladly welcome more players in my game.
|
On the other hand, I'd like to point out that adepts are awesome and 12 worker start as well.
When I read TL it feels like I'm the only one who enjoys playing lotv 
|
On June 09 2015 01:29 sh1RoKen wrote:
Am I the only one who does't expect blizzard to stop acting like huge heartless corporate machine? I am following SC2 scene from WoL beta, I am playing WoW from BC and Diablo 3 from beta and I have never seen them listening to the community.
There are literally zero chance that they will just "We really like DH concept introduced by the community and we decided to bring it into the game." They are not Valve or Riot who cares about their players. It took them a year to nerf terrans in WoL. Retro paladins were 1-shooting everyone for 6 month at the start of Lich King. Just imagine that zealot have 500 hp, 100 damage and costs 50 minerals. They were not fixing this for 6 month. 5 BM hunters were unbeatable top-1 composition in 5v5 for 4 month at the start of the Pandas.
Lets see what they did for HotS in 2014:
1. February 3, 2014:
Time Warp cost increased from 75 to 100
Ghosts start with the energy upgrade built in
2. March 1, 2014:
Mothership Core vision decreased from 14 to 9
Widow Mine splash damage increased from 40 to 40 +40 shields
Hydralisk attack delay decreased from 0.83 to 0.75
3. May 23, 2014:
Removed Transformation Servos upgrade
Changed Hellion/Hellbat transform requirement to Armory
Brood Lord gains the Frenzied ability
4. July 25, 2014
Splash radius is now 1.75. There are no longer 50% or 25% damage zones.
Changed to prioritize Thor AA weapon over the AG weapon
Time Warp duration decreased from 30 to 10 seconds
4 Balance patches in a year. A YEAR! 11 changes. 7 of them are variable changes which takes 5 minutes of development each. The remaining 4 will require some basic method changes and hardly looks like 100 lines of code. Blizzard balance implementation speed is 0.06 lines of code per hour.
They will always say that they are listening to us. But they never will.
Pretty sure getting rid of auction house in diablo 3 was mega big.
|
On June 09 2015 01:29 sh1RoKen wrote:
They will always say that they are listening to us. But they never will.
remember that awesome SC1:Brood War public beta guys? man those were the days! 
if u follow Rob Pardo's comments carefully...
Pardo wanted Blizzard listening to the community less. Specifically, only waiting on the final polishing stages before bringing in the community. Pardo is gone and now we've got the earliest access to a RTS beta ever.
if anything , when it comes to RTS games, Blizz is listening more.. and more EARLY in development than ever before.
i hazard to guess that if Pardo were still at the helm the LotV beta test would not even be happening.
|
On June 08 2015 20:37 tokinho wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 08 2015 10:48 captainwaffles wrote:
Brief background- been playing starcraft competitively since 2008 when I discovered the pro scene through youtube vods (klazart, diggity, moletrap, cholera etc) played sc2 since WoL beta and have been high masters since masters was a thing.
First- More drastic changes need to be tested especially for a prolonged beta. Like most everyone else I was estatic about the new economy changes they unveiled at blizzcon, 12 workers to skip the boring first 3 mins of a game? Bases that mined out faster? Awesome! But upon further digging the econ changes were pretty hollow, its just less resources per base so you mine out faster. the "3 base cap" is still a thing.
Teamliquid came forth with a possible solution to this with Double Harvest, a much more broodwar type economy. Simply put you're not punished for not expanding but you're rewarded for expanding, effectively getting rid of the 3 base cap while still allowing defensive play to still exist in the game.
From blizzards response to the Double Harvest it seems like they don't really understand it and we haven't heard anything about it since... which brings me to point two-
Secondly- In addition to more radical changes being tested we really need to strengthen the communication between the developers and the community, Psione- you're awesome mate but ultimately you're a middle man relaying messages. Blizzard please just talk to us and let us know whats going on as to why you're doing or not doing things. For example skins, design decisions etc. which brings me to my third point...
Thirdly- The units for Lotv feel pretty underwhelming on the whole. With the exception in my eyes being the lurker and Disruptor. The cyclone actually annoys me because its basically just letting Terran players micro a unit like protoss micro Phoenix (just moving around and clicking while the unit attacks while moving. Mech didn't need another strong ground to ground unit, it really didn't. So the cyclone when first released was the new "micro goliath" well now it doesn't shoot up until fusion core so its just a ground phoenix... Honestly, you gave us back the lurker just give us back the goliath at this point.
The Liberator is also a funky unit that doesn't sit well with me. Its a sky tank that its also a valkyrie for some reason. If blizzard wants to make a new version of starcraft they should make new units with new concepts not half assed rehashes which just about all of the new units are, even the disruptor. We want our units to have more microbility this does not mean every unit needs abilities, this means units need to be more responsive like the Depth of micro video Lalush made some time ago suggests.
I'm on the fence about the Ravager it was cool until they overnerfed it, it was too strong for sure but now its too weak... like a middle ground can't be that difficult to find.
Overall I'm not really saying anything that hasn't been said before by people way more popular with a lot more pull in the scene, people like catz and incontrol for example.
To me, if blizzard is hell bent on controlling the scene and not letting the community run the game they really need to step up their game and be more open about wtf is going on in their offices, with broodwar making a comeback in Korea and Starbow being released Its getting to the point where vanilla sc2 is not that appealing anymore, seriously the one thing it has on starbow, broodwar, and sc2broodwar is easy and effective match making.
I've been writing this over the course of several hours while I'm at work so let me just reiterate the main point of my post because reading this back to myself its kind of jumbled and all over the place:
I'm frustrated and disappointed with the direction Lotv is taking and Blizzards lack of communication. The new units feel weird and out of place especially the Terran units.The new economy doesn't solve the core issue of the current hots economy it just puts a timer on turtles which is a good thing but more could be done, just test the damn double harvest already. I've been playing starbow and Iccup recently and been having more fun with those than either hots or lotv and if things continue this way I don't see myself playing lotv past the campaign. I'm making this post to convey what I know a lot of people in the community are feeling and to hopefully get blizzards attention. Lol, your post is so far away from everything that is going on its just outright ridiculous and borderline reportable. You claimed the economic system sucks and the double harvest mod is better and blizzard ignored it. Blizzard looked at the double harvest mod. Its a huge nerf to zerg. (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/484962-double-harvesting-replay-analysis). That's why its dumb. I really just don't get your opinion of how its better in any way. Secondly, Blizzard is very active on the blizzard forums. Another point where its just a lie they don't listen to the community. You can talk to several people of the balance team. Psione is not the only member of the balance team, and they have very open communication with the pro players. They have a chat channel that they communicate with pro players to get their opinions. There is a recent vod for the late game where this was discussed. Go watch their last 2 or 3 vods. if you don't believe me. It is true blizzard puts much more emphasis on communication with people who make a living playing the game rather than more amateur players. Thirdly, the focus of Legacy of the void has been always on more active armies and more specialization than has been previously available. Terran has a hard time getting into and committing to different tech paths. LOTV now has 2 major tech paths with 3 different transitions. Before, there was almost no transition its either bio and try to end it, or mech into skyterran. Cyclones fulfill a different role than goliaths. The ravagers make it so zerg does have a counter to high sentry counts, but are not useful in large numbers. They are still used as a counter to sentries and static defense. They are still really good units. Just the early game pushes with zerg were nerfed with the idea that playing vs zerg you can expand more safely, which is more consistent with the trend of the game. More specialization, more engagements, higher economy, more tech options. I like the new units. You say it feels wierd, but it actually feels much more about being mobile and is much more fast paced to me. The goliath reduces specialization which again is not the current focus of the game, and the liberator keeps muta numbers lower with the ability to control ultras with bio. The economic system in legacy of the void is better than the double harvest mod. I like the direction the game is going, other than warpgate recall, warpgate recall cycle so protoss barely is on the map still seems a bit retarded. Particularly, I think the lotv beta is funner than starbow. The most baffling thing to me is, I don't really see why you feel the need to make this post here, where its unlikely to get as much attention from blizzard as it would on the forums where a direct reply from blizzard would be possible. I can hardly disagree more with this reasoning.
Good point, I just posted it to the LotV beta forums as well. I say the units feel weird because they (terran units) honestly do not feel like starcraft units. The liberator reminds me of the prism tank from CnC RA 2 or the beam cannon from CnC TW 3. Starcraft isn't about having every unit have special abilities its about controlling large armies well and managing large (barring cheese of course) economies. Its not about making 4 cyclones and clicking them away from units while they destroy shit...its just not fun.
You say they're active on their own forums and on the first page of the LotV forum i see no blue posts save for the stickies of news announcements...
I've been watching the Late Game and Remax and I've heard them say psione is taking feedback but thats not enough, hes a community manager. We want an open line of communication straight to the developers! Considering other games have this I don't think its too much to ask really. I mean Starcraft (broodwar) blew up into the biggest esport and then blizzard comes around with sc2 trying to control the scene and for a long while killing off starcraft in korea. If they want this big daddy position they need to accept responsibility for it and listen to the community that pours their souls into the game. Having psione collect feedback that they ultimately ignore is not enough. At this point I'd rather they just give up on WCS and let the community decide which version of starcraft we want to play whether it be broodwar or starbow or sc2bw or whatever.
|
On June 08 2015 12:02 deth wrote:
Agreed with every single point you made.
Disappointed with (yet again) the lack of communication and collaboration with the community from blizzard, the unit design and slow patches.
It's now obvious why Blizzard refuse to communicate. They just allocate more resources for other games, and people may actually be right that SC2 at the moment has few developers. Money hungry Blizzard. It was obvious the moment they said SC2 would be done into three parts with no justification at all. They may say it's because of "campaign" but it's just cover-up for more money. Pro tip: don't buy more games from Blizzard, and they'll understand the message which is to listen to community.
|
On June 08 2015 23:33 Jenia6109 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 20:58 NasusAndDraven wrote:On June 08 2015 13:41 aka_star wrote:
It's clear a growing number of users feel Blizzard has abandoned the game, must we have a personal letter from everyone to blizzard in the public forum? I wish Blizzard would go about all this different but time and time they have proven to be slow.
On June 08 2015 13:09 covetousrat wrote:Theyre too busy doing thisIm not joking. This is seriously what I think. Too busy on Hearthstone and Heroes of the storm while spending 10 minutes a day on LOTV. LOTV looks totally disappointing with all those new units and gameplay. I don get any WOW effect except maybe Lurker. Blizzard did not use 100million dollars on WoL just so they could use 100million more on both HotS and LotV. I dont know the exact sale numbers but from what I can tell the community now is very much smaller than it was 3 years ago. There is no way blizzard is going to go big on LotV. You have to understand that they respond to stock holder demands first and fan demands second. If they can invest in World of Warcraft and Heartstone which give them big returns, they cant really go big on a game just because some fans are really passionate about it. Open letters are not going to work, maybe if you can get 5million of your friends to start playing sc2 then you could have a shot. Agree with this so much! People think that a company must do something for them for nothing. Actually they could do many multiplayer updates but they need money for it. Legacy of the Void is all about campaign and they sell a campaign, not multiplayer. Multiplayer is a bonus for fans. They need to make some system to sell multiplayer like they do with Hearthstone and HotS and then multiplayer will grow to new levels. But now it's just "we make long beta because we didn't make new units in time, so while we finish our job you can test the game".
One option would be to put the game into a "early access" status where people are paying for participation in a beta or alpha build. This would accomplish a goal of more direct communication and feedback with the community and more testing. Also maybe they would initially pull in more money then they had imagined and could put more effort into the game.
I think this approach has had much success as it is very prevalent on steam games at the moment. How much of the community would pay right now for a chance to give feedback and test the game as it is? I believe (especially this community that really wants a say in how the game shapes) tons of people would participate, myself included. I would pay full price for access to this AAA title and because it is blizzard and I know they will make a damn good game no matter what. The WORST blizzard game i have played was still a damn good game... maybe lost vikings (and I really enjoyed that).
As far as making money on games goes, Blizzard has tested 2 free to play options and have clearly made it work in a big way (heroes + hearthstone). While some of the mechanics that make it free to play work and bring in money (expansions in game play such as new charters and cards) may not be viable in sc2 (although you can always add new units for money if you don't mind adjusting balance over time. I would pay for this)...
SKINS as per the csgo model... or even the heroes model (not as good as csgo imo) could be applied to sc2 and I PROMISE they would expand their earnings. Clearly aesthetic additions to games in all genres pull in money, meaning people will pay for them and enjoy them. Especially while you have simple to legendary skins that are rare and make someones account unique and special to them.
|
On June 09 2015 02:08 Geiko wrote:On the other hand, I'd like to point out that adepts are awesome and 12 worker start as well. When I read TL it feels like I'm the only one who enjoys playing lotv
It felt to me that everyone except to loved HOTS when it came out because the new units created new strategies. And then the novelty wore off and everyone realized the base game was worse. Widow Mines were inferior to Siege Tanks, Swarm Hosts were awful, Photon Overcharge was skilless and boring ect...
And for LOTV, I think the proof is in the pudding. A few months after the HOTS beta came out pretty much every player stream was HOTS. Most of the player streams are still HOTS now though, after the initial release excitement of the LOTV beta. That says something.
But I'll agree that Adepts are really interesting, but will they remain that way or will the novelty wear off? And will they even remain balanced the way they are?
|
On June 09 2015 02:19 captainwaffles wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 08 2015 20:37 tokinho wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 08 2015 10:48 captainwaffles wrote:
Brief background- been playing starcraft competitively since 2008 when I discovered the pro scene through youtube vods (klazart, diggity, moletrap, cholera etc) played sc2 since WoL beta and have been high masters since masters was a thing.
First- More drastic changes need to be tested especially for a prolonged beta. Like most everyone else I was estatic about the new economy changes they unveiled at blizzcon, 12 workers to skip the boring first 3 mins of a game? Bases that mined out faster? Awesome! But upon further digging the econ changes were pretty hollow, its just less resources per base so you mine out faster. the "3 base cap" is still a thing.
Teamliquid came forth with a possible solution to this with Double Harvest, a much more broodwar type economy. Simply put you're not punished for not expanding but you're rewarded for expanding, effectively getting rid of the 3 base cap while still allowing defensive play to still exist in the game.
From blizzards response to the Double Harvest it seems like they don't really understand it and we haven't heard anything about it since... which brings me to point two-
Secondly- In addition to more radical changes being tested we really need to strengthen the communication between the developers and the community, Psione- you're awesome mate but ultimately you're a middle man relaying messages. Blizzard please just talk to us and let us know whats going on as to why you're doing or not doing things. For example skins, design decisions etc. which brings me to my third point...
Thirdly- The units for Lotv feel pretty underwhelming on the whole. With the exception in my eyes being the lurker and Disruptor. The cyclone actually annoys me because its basically just letting Terran players micro a unit like protoss micro Phoenix (just moving around and clicking while the unit attacks while moving. Mech didn't need another strong ground to ground unit, it really didn't. So the cyclone when first released was the new "micro goliath" well now it doesn't shoot up until fusion core so its just a ground phoenix... Honestly, you gave us back the lurker just give us back the goliath at this point.
The Liberator is also a funky unit that doesn't sit well with me. Its a sky tank that its also a valkyrie for some reason. If blizzard wants to make a new version of starcraft they should make new units with new concepts not half assed rehashes which just about all of the new units are, even the disruptor. We want our units to have more microbility this does not mean every unit needs abilities, this means units need to be more responsive like the Depth of micro video Lalush made some time ago suggests.
I'm on the fence about the Ravager it was cool until they overnerfed it, it was too strong for sure but now its too weak... like a middle ground can't be that difficult to find.
Overall I'm not really saying anything that hasn't been said before by people way more popular with a lot more pull in the scene, people like catz and incontrol for example.
To me, if blizzard is hell bent on controlling the scene and not letting the community run the game they really need to step up their game and be more open about wtf is going on in their offices, with broodwar making a comeback in Korea and Starbow being released Its getting to the point where vanilla sc2 is not that appealing anymore, seriously the one thing it has on starbow, broodwar, and sc2broodwar is easy and effective match making.
I've been writing this over the course of several hours while I'm at work so let me just reiterate the main point of my post because reading this back to myself its kind of jumbled and all over the place:
I'm frustrated and disappointed with the direction Lotv is taking and Blizzards lack of communication. The new units feel weird and out of place especially the Terran units.The new economy doesn't solve the core issue of the current hots economy it just puts a timer on turtles which is a good thing but more could be done, just test the damn double harvest already. I've been playing starbow and Iccup recently and been having more fun with those than either hots or lotv and if things continue this way I don't see myself playing lotv past the campaign. I'm making this post to convey what I know a lot of people in the community are feeling and to hopefully get blizzards attention. Lol, your post is so far away from everything that is going on its just outright ridiculous and borderline reportable. You claimed the economic system sucks and the double harvest mod is better and blizzard ignored it. Blizzard looked at the double harvest mod. Its a huge nerf to zerg. (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/484962-double-harvesting-replay-analysis). That's why its dumb. I really just don't get your opinion of how its better in any way. Secondly, Blizzard is very active on the blizzard forums. Another point where its just a lie they don't listen to the community. You can talk to several people of the balance team. Psione is not the only member of the balance team, and they have very open communication with the pro players. They have a chat channel that they communicate with pro players to get their opinions. There is a recent vod for the late game where this was discussed. Go watch their last 2 or 3 vods. if you don't believe me. It is true blizzard puts much more emphasis on communication with people who make a living playing the game rather than more amateur players. Thirdly, the focus of Legacy of the void has been always on more active armies and more specialization than has been previously available. Terran has a hard time getting into and committing to different tech paths. LOTV now has 2 major tech paths with 3 different transitions. Before, there was almost no transition its either bio and try to end it, or mech into skyterran. Cyclones fulfill a different role than goliaths. The ravagers make it so zerg does have a counter to high sentry counts, but are not useful in large numbers. They are still used as a counter to sentries and static defense. They are still really good units. Just the early game pushes with zerg were nerfed with the idea that playing vs zerg you can expand more safely, which is more consistent with the trend of the game. More specialization, more engagements, higher economy, more tech options. I like the new units. You say it feels wierd, but it actually feels much more about being mobile and is much more fast paced to me. The goliath reduces specialization which again is not the current focus of the game, and the liberator keeps muta numbers lower with the ability to control ultras with bio. The economic system in legacy of the void is better than the double harvest mod. I like the direction the game is going, other than warpgate recall, warpgate recall cycle so protoss barely is on the map still seems a bit retarded. Particularly, I think the lotv beta is funner than starbow. The most baffling thing to me is, I don't really see why you feel the need to make this post here, where its unlikely to get as much attention from blizzard as it would on the forums where a direct reply from blizzard would be possible. I can hardly disagree more with this reasoning. Good point, I just posted it to the LotV beta forums as well. I say the units feel weird because they (terran units) honestly do not feel like starcraft units. The liberator reminds me of the prism tank from CnC RA 2 or the beam cannon from CnC TW 3. Starcraft isn't about having every unit have special abilities its about controlling large armies well and managing large (barring cheese of course) economies. Its not about making 4 cyclones and clicking them away from units while they destroy shit...its just not fun. You say they're active on their own forums and on the first page of the LotV forum i see no blue posts save for the stickies of news announcements... I've been watching the Late Game and Remax and I've heard them say psione is taking feedback but thats not enough, hes a community manager. We want an open line of communication straight to the developers! Considering other games have this I don't think its too much to ask really. I mean Starcraft (broodwar) blew up into the biggest esport and then blizzard comes around with sc2 trying to control the scene and for a long while killing off starcraft in korea. If they want this big daddy position they need to accept responsibility for it and listen to the community that pours their souls into the game. Having psione collect feedback that they ultimately ignore is not enough. At this point I'd rather they just give up on WCS and let the community decide which version of starcraft we want to play whether it be broodwar or starbow or sc2bw or whatever.
"Starcraft isn't about having every unit have special abilities its about controlling large armies well and managing large (barring cheese of course) economies." , lol did you even play brood war, never heard of plaguuuuuuuuu or irradiate, storm. brood war you could only put 12 units to a hotkey.
Starcraft has always been about controlling armies, being active, and creative. (Hence the name RTS.) It wasn't until the turtle crap from hots that it the game became a lot more macro based and less about individual units.
As far as saying there isn't an open line between players and developers. THE OPEN LINE TO THE DEVELOPERS IS THE BATTLENET FORUMS. Also, There is a direct open line between the pro players and the developers stop saying there isn't. That is just a lie.
The fact you mentioned psione, and not Zoevia simply means you have no clue about how the forums work.
You say- "Having psione collect feedback that they ultimately ignore is not enough." As far as blizzard not looking for community feedback. What?!! They don't ignore feedback they often ask for it. They regularly adjust based off of it.
Let me cite some examples.
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/17779094/call-to-action-january-29-balance-testing-1-29-2015
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/18184815/call-to-action-march-5-balance-testing-3-5-2015
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/18483058/call-to-action-march-26-balance-testing-3-26-2015
The liberator was included for diversity in play.
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/19451932/introducing-the-liberator-5-27-2015
What is the purpose of the beta if not for feedback...lol?
Saying that blizzard never reads or replies to posts.
Here let me help you.
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/search?f=post&a=Zoevia&sort=time
Hes replying every single business day to posts. It is painfully obvious you do not know how to use the forums on battlenet.
And to say that blizzard killed starcraft 2. Lol. They listened to people like you who just want a clash between big armies and nothing happens until 12 to 20 minutes in a game. Its boring to watch, its boring to play. LOTV is a lot funner than starbow, brood war, and sc2bw.
See this is the thing, nearly everything you want I hate. You want double economy to break zerg? You want more deathball play? You don't like active units and abilities because its less a-moving. Go play brood war if you want to play brood war. (You're going to lose a lot to players that use the abilities). You keep complaining that you cannot sit for 20 minutes in a game then a-move your mech army and that you have abilities. That feels not like starcraft because abilities are new according to you. I think the reason sc2 dies, is because you want something that is not part of RTS, and you do not look at forums and listen to what blizzard has to say.
I enjoy legacy of the void and i enjoy the diversity and strategies that are being introduced to the game. I can see how a better player has a higher tendency to win. I love cyclone micro. Sorry you don't enjoy microing the cyclones. I think its a lot funner than goliaths were. Starcraft was never designed that way to deathball until hots, sorry man.
All these claims that blizzard isn't listening to you. Maybe because you do not like what the majority of us do and you have ignored the forums.
|
On June 09 2015 01:29 sh1RoKen wrote:
Am I the only one who does't expect blizzard to stop acting like huge heartless corporate machine? I am following SC2 scene from WoL beta, I am playing WoW from BC and Diablo 3 from beta and I have never seen them listening to the community.
There are literally zero chance that they will just "We really like DH concept introduced by the community and we decided to bring it into the game." They are not Valve or Riot who cares about their players. It took them a year to nerf terrans in WoL. Retro paladins were 1-shooting everyone for 6 month at the start of Lich King. Just imagine that zealot have 500 hp, 100 damage and costs 50 minerals. They were not fixing this for 6 month. 5 BM hunters were unbeatable top-1 composition in 5v5 for 4 month at the start of the Pandas.
Lets see what they did for HotS in 2014:
1. February 3, 2014:
Time Warp cost increased from 75 to 100
Ghosts start with the energy upgrade built in
2. March 1, 2014:
Mothership Core vision decreased from 14 to 9
Widow Mine splash damage increased from 40 to 40 +40 shields
Hydralisk attack delay decreased from 0.83 to 0.75
3. May 23, 2014:
Removed Transformation Servos upgrade
Changed Hellion/Hellbat transform requirement to Armory
Brood Lord gains the Frenzied ability
4. July 25, 2014
Splash radius is now 1.75. There are no longer 50% or 25% damage zones.
Changed to prioritize Thor AA weapon over the AG weapon
Time Warp duration decreased from 30 to 10 seconds
4 Balance patches in a year. A YEAR! 11 changes. 7 of them are variable changes which takes 5 minutes of development each. The remaining 4 will require some basic method changes and hardly looks like 100 lines of code. Blizzard balance implementation speed is 0.06 lines of code per hour.
They will always say that they are listening to us. But they never will.
The problem isn't programming new things. Because as you say it wont take long for them to bring those changes into the game. The problem is, what are those changes that you will bring? Just think realisticly for a second. Game designing is not randomly brought changes to please the patches quota. Especially, in a strategy game with so much depth. A change need to be good in so much way. It takes long time to think and try it.
Another point thats bug me out. Stop comparing Riot to Blizzard or Valve.
Blizzard games: SC2 / Heartstone / Diablo / WoW and Overwatch soon to come.
Valve games: CS / Dota 2 / Dont talk about TF2 they just let it die soffocating in Skins and FFA focus. They totally let the Esport side of this game. Which his far more fun to watch and play than any current FPS. Yea, ANY current FPS. And valve is of course so much more game and especially Steam <3. But lets focus on which game are played today.
Riot: League of legends.
How can you compare a company who has one game to support and the others that have platforms and so much huge games. And in different genres.
Let Riot, the one trick componey, far from Blizzard and Valve plz. (I'm proud of this jk.)
|
On June 09 2015 03:27 tokinho wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 02:19 captainwaffles wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 08 2015 20:37 tokinho wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 08 2015 10:48 captainwaffles wrote:
Brief background- been playing starcraft competitively since 2008 when I discovered the pro scene through youtube vods (klazart, diggity, moletrap, cholera etc) played sc2 since WoL beta and have been high masters since masters was a thing.
First- More drastic changes need to be tested especially for a prolonged beta. Like most everyone else I was estatic about the new economy changes they unveiled at blizzcon, 12 workers to skip the boring first 3 mins of a game? Bases that mined out faster? Awesome! But upon further digging the econ changes were pretty hollow, its just less resources per base so you mine out faster. the "3 base cap" is still a thing.
Teamliquid came forth with a possible solution to this with Double Harvest, a much more broodwar type economy. Simply put you're not punished for not expanding but you're rewarded for expanding, effectively getting rid of the 3 base cap while still allowing defensive play to still exist in the game.
From blizzards response to the Double Harvest it seems like they don't really understand it and we haven't heard anything about it since... which brings me to point two-
Secondly- In addition to more radical changes being tested we really need to strengthen the communication between the developers and the community, Psione- you're awesome mate but ultimately you're a middle man relaying messages. Blizzard please just talk to us and let us know whats going on as to why you're doing or not doing things. For example skins, design decisions etc. which brings me to my third point...
Thirdly- The units for Lotv feel pretty underwhelming on the whole. With the exception in my eyes being the lurker and Disruptor. The cyclone actually annoys me because its basically just letting Terran players micro a unit like protoss micro Phoenix (just moving around and clicking while the unit attacks while moving. Mech didn't need another strong ground to ground unit, it really didn't. So the cyclone when first released was the new "micro goliath" well now it doesn't shoot up until fusion core so its just a ground phoenix... Honestly, you gave us back the lurker just give us back the goliath at this point.
The Liberator is also a funky unit that doesn't sit well with me. Its a sky tank that its also a valkyrie for some reason. If blizzard wants to make a new version of starcraft they should make new units with new concepts not half assed rehashes which just about all of the new units are, even the disruptor. We want our units to have more microbility this does not mean every unit needs abilities, this means units need to be more responsive like the Depth of micro video Lalush made some time ago suggests.
I'm on the fence about the Ravager it was cool until they overnerfed it, it was too strong for sure but now its too weak... like a middle ground can't be that difficult to find.
Overall I'm not really saying anything that hasn't been said before by people way more popular with a lot more pull in the scene, people like catz and incontrol for example.
To me, if blizzard is hell bent on controlling the scene and not letting the community run the game they really need to step up their game and be more open about wtf is going on in their offices, with broodwar making a comeback in Korea and Starbow being released Its getting to the point where vanilla sc2 is not that appealing anymore, seriously the one thing it has on starbow, broodwar, and sc2broodwar is easy and effective match making.
I've been writing this over the course of several hours while I'm at work so let me just reiterate the main point of my post because reading this back to myself its kind of jumbled and all over the place:
I'm frustrated and disappointed with the direction Lotv is taking and Blizzards lack of communication. The new units feel weird and out of place especially the Terran units.The new economy doesn't solve the core issue of the current hots economy it just puts a timer on turtles which is a good thing but more could be done, just test the damn double harvest already. I've been playing starbow and Iccup recently and been having more fun with those than either hots or lotv and if things continue this way I don't see myself playing lotv past the campaign. I'm making this post to convey what I know a lot of people in the community are feeling and to hopefully get blizzards attention. Lol, your post is so far away from everything that is going on its just outright ridiculous and borderline reportable. You claimed the economic system sucks and the double harvest mod is better and blizzard ignored it. Blizzard looked at the double harvest mod. Its a huge nerf to zerg. (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/484962-double-harvesting-replay-analysis). That's why its dumb. I really just don't get your opinion of how its better in any way. Secondly, Blizzard is very active on the blizzard forums. Another point where its just a lie they don't listen to the community. You can talk to several people of the balance team. Psione is not the only member of the balance team, and they have very open communication with the pro players. They have a chat channel that they communicate with pro players to get their opinions. There is a recent vod for the late game where this was discussed. Go watch their last 2 or 3 vods. if you don't believe me. It is true blizzard puts much more emphasis on communication with people who make a living playing the game rather than more amateur players. Thirdly, the focus of Legacy of the void has been always on more active armies and more specialization than has been previously available. Terran has a hard time getting into and committing to different tech paths. LOTV now has 2 major tech paths with 3 different transitions. Before, there was almost no transition its either bio and try to end it, or mech into skyterran. Cyclones fulfill a different role than goliaths. The ravagers make it so zerg does have a counter to high sentry counts, but are not useful in large numbers. They are still used as a counter to sentries and static defense. They are still really good units. Just the early game pushes with zerg were nerfed with the idea that playing vs zerg you can expand more safely, which is more consistent with the trend of the game. More specialization, more engagements, higher economy, more tech options. I like the new units. You say it feels wierd, but it actually feels much more about being mobile and is much more fast paced to me. The goliath reduces specialization which again is not the current focus of the game, and the liberator keeps muta numbers lower with the ability to control ultras with bio. The economic system in legacy of the void is better than the double harvest mod. I like the direction the game is going, other than warpgate recall, warpgate recall cycle so protoss barely is on the map still seems a bit retarded. Particularly, I think the lotv beta is funner than starbow. The most baffling thing to me is, I don't really see why you feel the need to make this post here, where its unlikely to get as much attention from blizzard as it would on the forums where a direct reply from blizzard would be possible. I can hardly disagree more with this reasoning. Good point, I just posted it to the LotV beta forums as well. I say the units feel weird because they (terran units) honestly do not feel like starcraft units. The liberator reminds me of the prism tank from CnC RA 2 or the beam cannon from CnC TW 3. Starcraft isn't about having every unit have special abilities its about controlling large armies well and managing large (barring cheese of course) economies. Its not about making 4 cyclones and clicking them away from units while they destroy shit...its just not fun. You say they're active on their own forums and on the first page of the LotV forum i see no blue posts save for the stickies of news announcements... I've been watching the Late Game and Remax and I've heard them say psione is taking feedback but thats not enough, hes a community manager. We want an open line of communication straight to the developers! Considering other games have this I don't think its too much to ask really. I mean Starcraft (broodwar) blew up into the biggest esport and then blizzard comes around with sc2 trying to control the scene and for a long while killing off starcraft in korea. If they want this big daddy position they need to accept responsibility for it and listen to the community that pours their souls into the game. Having psione collect feedback that they ultimately ignore is not enough. At this point I'd rather they just give up on WCS and let the community decide which version of starcraft we want to play whether it be broodwar or starbow or sc2bw or whatever. "Starcraft isn't about having every unit have special abilities its about controlling large armies well and managing large (barring cheese of course) economies." , lol did you even play brood war, never heard of plaguuuuuuuuu or irradiate, storm. brood war you could only put 12 units to a hotkey. Starcraft has always been about controlling armies, being active, and creative. (Hence the name RTS.) It wasn't until the turtle crap from hots that it the game became a lot more macro based and less about individual units. As far as saying there isn't an open line between players and developers. THE OPEN LINE TO THE DEVELOPERS IS THE BATTLENET FORUMS. Also, There is a direct open line between the pro players and the developers stop saying there isn't. That is just a lie. The fact you mentioned psione, and not Zoevia simply means you have no clue about how the forums work. You say- "Having psione collect feedback that they ultimately ignore is not enough." As far as blizzard not looking for community feedback. What?!! They don't ignore feedback they often ask for it. They regularly adjust based off of it. Let me cite some examples. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/17779094/call-to-action-january-29-balance-testing-1-29-2015http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/18184815/call-to-action-march-5-balance-testing-3-5-2015http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/18483058/call-to-action-march-26-balance-testing-3-26-2015 The liberator was included for diversity in play. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/19451932/introducing-the-liberator-5-27-2015What is the purpose of the beta if not for feedback...lol? Saying that blizzard never reads or replies to posts. Here let me help you. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/search?f=post&a=Zoevia&sort=time Hes replying every single business day to posts. It is painfully obvious you do not know how to use the forums on battlenet. And to say that blizzard killed starcraft 2. Lol. They listened to people like you who just want a clash between big armies and nothing happens until 12 to 20 minutes in a game. Its boring to watch, its boring to play. LOTV is a lot funner than starbow, brood war, and sc2bw. See this is the thing, nearly everything you want I hate. You want double economy to break zerg? You want more deathball play? You don't like active units and abilities because its less a-moving. Go play brood war if you want to play brood war. (You're going to lose a lot to players that use the abilities). You keep complaining that you cannot sit for 20 minutes in a game then a-move your mech army and that you have abilities. That feels not like starcraft because abilities are new according to you. I think the reason sc2 dies, is because you want something that is not part of RTS, and you do not look at forums and listen to what blizzard has to say. I enjoy legacy of the void and i enjoy the diversity and strategies that are being introduced to the game. I can see how a better player has a higher tendency to win. I love cyclone micro. Sorry you don't enjoy microing the cyclones. I think its a lot funner than goliaths were. Starcraft was never designed that way to deathball until hots, sorry man. All these claims that blizzard isn't listening to you. Maybe because you do not like what the majority of us do and you have ignored the forums.
I think you are accusing Waffle of some of the wrong things. His reference to "not controlling large armies" is a reference to large = death ball armies. I think you two agree that death balls aren't good for the game.
Even if there are open lines of communication with pros, many of the pros still complain about why the changes they ask for haven't been implemented in the game. While I don't have the threads to site, many of the times I have seen pros post on team liquid they are asking for changes I never see implemented.
Outside of balance, there is also SO much they could be doing for sc2 that they are already doing for other games (hearth and heroes). For example skins, like a csgo model as I have already mentioned. It's interesting, I was just watching base-trade and Rifkin was saying how he's not a huge csgo fan or player, but as he has started to play it with subs one thing he really enjoys is having give-aways with skins. People really dig that shit! I know for a fact people hang out in streams to win exclusive stuff. While this isn't a gameplay issue, it feeds the community and gets people to watch and have fun with the game.
I million years ago there was a tl poll about skins, while the results weren't big for skins, idk why bliz hasn't even tried.
|
On June 09 2015 03:27 tokinho wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 02:19 captainwaffles wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 08 2015 20:37 tokinho wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 08 2015 10:48 captainwaffles wrote:
Brief background- been playing starcraft competitively since 2008 when I discovered the pro scene through youtube vods (klazart, diggity, moletrap, cholera etc) played sc2 since WoL beta and have been high masters since masters was a thing.
First- More drastic changes need to be tested especially for a prolonged beta. Like most everyone else I was estatic about the new economy changes they unveiled at blizzcon, 12 workers to skip the boring first 3 mins of a game? Bases that mined out faster? Awesome! But upon further digging the econ changes were pretty hollow, its just less resources per base so you mine out faster. the "3 base cap" is still a thing.
Teamliquid came forth with a possible solution to this with Double Harvest, a much more broodwar type economy. Simply put you're not punished for not expanding but you're rewarded for expanding, effectively getting rid of the 3 base cap while still allowing defensive play to still exist in the game.
From blizzards response to the Double Harvest it seems like they don't really understand it and we haven't heard anything about it since... which brings me to point two-
Secondly- In addition to more radical changes being tested we really need to strengthen the communication between the developers and the community, Psione- you're awesome mate but ultimately you're a middle man relaying messages. Blizzard please just talk to us and let us know whats going on as to why you're doing or not doing things. For example skins, design decisions etc. which brings me to my third point...
Thirdly- The units for Lotv feel pretty underwhelming on the whole. With the exception in my eyes being the lurker and Disruptor. The cyclone actually annoys me because its basically just letting Terran players micro a unit like protoss micro Phoenix (just moving around and clicking while the unit attacks while moving. Mech didn't need another strong ground to ground unit, it really didn't. So the cyclone when first released was the new "micro goliath" well now it doesn't shoot up until fusion core so its just a ground phoenix... Honestly, you gave us back the lurker just give us back the goliath at this point.
The Liberator is also a funky unit that doesn't sit well with me. Its a sky tank that its also a valkyrie for some reason. If blizzard wants to make a new version of starcraft they should make new units with new concepts not half assed rehashes which just about all of the new units are, even the disruptor. We want our units to have more microbility this does not mean every unit needs abilities, this means units need to be more responsive like the Depth of micro video Lalush made some time ago suggests.
I'm on the fence about the Ravager it was cool until they overnerfed it, it was too strong for sure but now its too weak... like a middle ground can't be that difficult to find.
Overall I'm not really saying anything that hasn't been said before by people way more popular with a lot more pull in the scene, people like catz and incontrol for example.
To me, if blizzard is hell bent on controlling the scene and not letting the community run the game they really need to step up their game and be more open about wtf is going on in their offices, with broodwar making a comeback in Korea and Starbow being released Its getting to the point where vanilla sc2 is not that appealing anymore, seriously the one thing it has on starbow, broodwar, and sc2broodwar is easy and effective match making.
I've been writing this over the course of several hours while I'm at work so let me just reiterate the main point of my post because reading this back to myself its kind of jumbled and all over the place:
I'm frustrated and disappointed with the direction Lotv is taking and Blizzards lack of communication. The new units feel weird and out of place especially the Terran units.The new economy doesn't solve the core issue of the current hots economy it just puts a timer on turtles which is a good thing but more could be done, just test the damn double harvest already. I've been playing starbow and Iccup recently and been having more fun with those than either hots or lotv and if things continue this way I don't see myself playing lotv past the campaign. I'm making this post to convey what I know a lot of people in the community are feeling and to hopefully get blizzards attention. Lol, your post is so far away from everything that is going on its just outright ridiculous and borderline reportable. You claimed the economic system sucks and the double harvest mod is better and blizzard ignored it. Blizzard looked at the double harvest mod. Its a huge nerf to zerg. (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/484962-double-harvesting-replay-analysis). That's why its dumb. I really just don't get your opinion of how its better in any way. Secondly, Blizzard is very active on the blizzard forums. Another point where its just a lie they don't listen to the community. You can talk to several people of the balance team. Psione is not the only member of the balance team, and they have very open communication with the pro players. They have a chat channel that they communicate with pro players to get their opinions. There is a recent vod for the late game where this was discussed. Go watch their last 2 or 3 vods. if you don't believe me. It is true blizzard puts much more emphasis on communication with people who make a living playing the game rather than more amateur players. Thirdly, the focus of Legacy of the void has been always on more active armies and more specialization than has been previously available. Terran has a hard time getting into and committing to different tech paths. LOTV now has 2 major tech paths with 3 different transitions. Before, there was almost no transition its either bio and try to end it, or mech into skyterran. Cyclones fulfill a different role than goliaths. The ravagers make it so zerg does have a counter to high sentry counts, but are not useful in large numbers. They are still used as a counter to sentries and static defense. They are still really good units. Just the early game pushes with zerg were nerfed with the idea that playing vs zerg you can expand more safely, which is more consistent with the trend of the game. More specialization, more engagements, higher economy, more tech options. I like the new units. You say it feels wierd, but it actually feels much more about being mobile and is much more fast paced to me. The goliath reduces specialization which again is not the current focus of the game, and the liberator keeps muta numbers lower with the ability to control ultras with bio. The economic system in legacy of the void is better than the double harvest mod. I like the direction the game is going, other than warpgate recall, warpgate recall cycle so protoss barely is on the map still seems a bit retarded. Particularly, I think the lotv beta is funner than starbow. The most baffling thing to me is, I don't really see why you feel the need to make this post here, where its unlikely to get as much attention from blizzard as it would on the forums where a direct reply from blizzard would be possible. I can hardly disagree more with this reasoning. Good point, I just posted it to the LotV beta forums as well. I say the units feel weird because they (terran units) honestly do not feel like starcraft units. The liberator reminds me of the prism tank from CnC RA 2 or the beam cannon from CnC TW 3. Starcraft isn't about having every unit have special abilities its about controlling large armies well and managing large (barring cheese of course) economies. Its not about making 4 cyclones and clicking them away from units while they destroy shit...its just not fun. You say they're active on their own forums and on the first page of the LotV forum i see no blue posts save for the stickies of news announcements... I've been watching the Late Game and Remax and I've heard them say psione is taking feedback but thats not enough, hes a community manager. We want an open line of communication straight to the developers! Considering other games have this I don't think its too much to ask really. I mean Starcraft (broodwar) blew up into the biggest esport and then blizzard comes around with sc2 trying to control the scene and for a long while killing off starcraft in korea. If they want this big daddy position they need to accept responsibility for it and listen to the community that pours their souls into the game. Having psione collect feedback that they ultimately ignore is not enough. At this point I'd rather they just give up on WCS and let the community decide which version of starcraft we want to play whether it be broodwar or starbow or sc2bw or whatever. "Starcraft isn't about having every unit have special abilities its about controlling large armies well and managing large (barring cheese of course) economies." , lol did you even play brood war, never heard of plaguuuuuuuuu or irradiate, storm. brood war you could only put 12 units to a hotkey. Starcraft has always been about controlling armies, being active, and creative. (Hence the name RTS.) It wasn't until the turtle crap from hots that it the game became a lot more macro based and less about individual units. As far as saying there isn't an open line between players and developers. THE OPEN LINE TO THE DEVELOPERS IS THE BATTLENET FORUMS. Also, There is a direct open line between the pro players and the developers stop saying there isn't. That is just a lie. The fact you mentioned psione, and not Zoevia simply means you have no clue about how the forums work. You say- "Having psione collect feedback that they ultimately ignore is not enough." As far as blizzard not looking for community feedback. What?!! They don't ignore feedback they often ask for it. They regularly adjust based off of it. Let me cite some examples. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/17779094/call-to-action-january-29-balance-testing-1-29-2015http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/18184815/call-to-action-march-5-balance-testing-3-5-2015http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/18483058/call-to-action-march-26-balance-testing-3-26-2015 The liberator was included for diversity in play. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/19451932/introducing-the-liberator-5-27-2015What is the purpose of the beta if not for feedback...lol? Saying that blizzard never reads or replies to posts. Here let me help you. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/search?f=post&a=Zoevia&sort=time Hes replying every single business day to posts. It is painfully obvious you do not know how to use the forums on battlenet. And to say that blizzard killed starcraft 2. Lol. They listened to people like you who just want a clash between big armies and nothing happens until 12 to 20 minutes in a game. Its boring to watch, its boring to play. LOTV is a lot funner than starbow, brood war, and sc2bw. See this is the thing, nearly everything you want I hate. You want double economy to break zerg? You want more deathball play? You don't like active units and abilities because its less a-moving. Go play brood war if you want to play brood war. (You're going to lose a lot to players that use the abilities). You keep complaining that you cannot sit for 20 minutes in a game then a-move your mech army and that you have abilities. That feels not like starcraft because abilities are new according to you. I think the reason sc2 dies, is because you want something that is not part of RTS, and you do not look at forums and listen to what blizzard has to say. I enjoy legacy of the void and i enjoy the diversity and strategies that are being introduced to the game. I can see how a better player has a higher tendency to win. I love cyclone micro. Sorry you don't enjoy microing the cyclones. I think its a lot funner than goliaths were. Starcraft was never designed that way to deathball until hots, sorry man. All these claims that blizzard isn't listening to you. Maybe because you do not like what the majority of us do and you have ignored the forums.
okay man if you're gonna disregard what i have to say and just make stuff up and put words in my mouth i won't bother replying to you anymore, i didn't even mention mech...at all in any post so far. I said defensive play. I never said amove deathball and again you're putting words in my mouth so take your anger elsewhere because I frankly don't care for it.
|
Yap agree completely, won´t change a damn thing though. Sadly.
edit: I also agree about the new units. Disruptor and ravager are fun, the cyclone is terrible as is the liberator and i mean
the pure design.
|
On June 09 2015 03:38 SinO[Ob] wrote:
How can you compare a company who has one game to support and the others that have platforms and so much huge games. And in different genres.
Let Riot, the one trick componey, far from Blizzard and Valve plz. (I'm proud of this jk.)
Why does that matter? If a company has 10 games and a staff of 100 people, why should we expect less support than a company with 1 game and 10 staff?
And if the company with 10 games only has 50 staff, maybe they need more staff if they can't support their games?
In the end the company making the game is responsibly solely for supporting the game they make. It doesn't matter how many employees they have, how much money they make, how many games they make and what genre the games they make are in. Companies are responsible for supporting their products and we as consumers should hold them to it, not make excuses for why they can't support their games.
Imagine if car companies could escape responsibly for honoring warranties by stating they make too many models, don't have enough staff, or that that they make trucks not cars and because those are different genres they don't need to honor the warranty.
None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company.
|
On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 03:38 SinO[Ob] wrote:
How can you compare a company who has one game to support and the others that have platforms and so much huge games. And in different genres.
Let Riot, the one trick componey, far from Blizzard and Valve plz. (I'm proud of this jk.) Why does that matter? If a company has 10 games and a staff of 100 people, why should we expect less support than a company with 1 game and 10 staff? And if the company with 10 games only has 50 staff, maybe they need more staff if they can't support their games? In the end the company making the game is responsibly solely for supporting the game they make. It doesn't matter how many employees they have, how much money they make, how many games they make and what genre the games they make are in. Companies are responsible for supporting their products and we as consumers should hold them to it, not make excuses for why they can't support their games. Imagine if you car companies could escape responsibly for honoring warranties by stating they make too many models, don't have enough staff, or that that they make trucks not cars and because those are different genres they don't need to honor the warranty. None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company.
thank you...you have a way with words mate.
|
Russian Federation1612 Posts
I only want to say again that i want to give Blizzard money to make SC2 multiplayer better, somehow, someway. And i believe i'm not only one.
You can call it multiplayer 2.0 or anyway. Just some way to pay the money for Blizzard to make multiplayer better.
|
On June 09 2015 05:55 Jenia6109 wrote:
I only want to say again that i want to give Blizzard money to make SC2 multiplater better, somehow, someway. And i believe i'm not only one.
You can call it multiplayer 2.0 or anyway. Just some way to pay the money for Blizzard to make multiplayer better.
Well fuck yea dude... I'm with you on this.
Well said.
|
I believe in Miracles, but if one doesn't happen, I will just go back to the Miracle I grew up with, Brood War.
|
sort of still off discussion. but the ultra is now a pretty stupid unit. all that armor makes it impossible to soft counter
|
On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company.
when Valve and Riot make a game for the genre that is shrivelling faster than the dot-eating-maze game genre did in the mid 1980s... lemme know.
there is no money in the RTS genre any longer. which is why C&C and AoE are long gone... despite being big money makers in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
relative to what other RTS games are being made today .. SC2 is a good product.
in October of 2013 EA promised to start working on a new C&C game on the heels of shuttering Victory Games.
how's that goin' ?
http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/29/5043244/ea-cancels-free-to-play-command-and-conquer
"We believe that Command & Conquer is a powerful franchise with huge potential and a great history, and we are determined to get the best game made as soon as possible. To that end, we have already begun looking at a number of alternatives to get the game back on track."
lol. what a bunch of liars. say whatever it takes to calm the storm and then fade into nothing.
http://steamcharts.com/app/244160
280 people
http://steamcharts.com/app/290790
60 people
http://steamcharts.com/app/231430
2816 people
http://steamcharts.com/app/214950
5,600 people.
ATVI is a $14 billion dollar company. even adding 1 zero onto all these #s here will not be enough to capture ATVIs future interest.
Currently, the #2 RTS game (not made by Blizzard) measured by active online multiplayer community is RA2. Run on chinese servers sort of equivalent to GameRanger.
Guess who the lead designer of RA2 is?
if your defense is that every RTS game made by every one other than Blizzard is not good enough then you basically do not have a genre if its relying on 1 company. what you have is an anomaly, not a genre.
my prediction is in 5 years that new incarnations of Pacman Championship Edition generate more revenue than every RTS game combined in 2020.
if Blizzard stops making RTS games after LotV I do not blame them one bit. I'll just keep playing the old RTS games as i play NHL '94 hockey.
Relative to all the other guys making RTS games . and relative to the potential revenue an RTS game can produce.. Blizzard is doing a great job giving us really cool stuff to play.
|
On June 09 2015 09:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company. when Valve and Riot make a game for the genre that is shrivelling faster than the dot-eating-maze game genre did in the mid 1980s... lemme know. there is no money in the RTS genre any longer. which is why C&C and AoE are long gone... despite being big money makers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. relative to what other RTS games are being made today .. SC2 is a good product. in October of 2013 EA promised to start working on a new C&C game on the heels of shuttering Victory Games. how's that goin' ? http://www.polygon.com/2013/10/29/5043244/ea-cancels-free-to-play-command-and-conquer" We believe that Command & Conquer is a powerful franchise with huge potential and a great history, and we are determined to get the best game made as soon as possible. To that end, we have already begun looking at a number of alternatives to get the game back on track." lol. what a bunch of liars. say whatever it takes to calm the storm and then fade into nothing. http://steamcharts.com/app/244160280 people http://steamcharts.com/app/29079060 people http://steamcharts.com/app/2314302816 people http://steamcharts.com/app/2149505,600 people. ATVI is a $14 billion dollar company. even adding 1 zero onto all these #s here will not be enough to capture ATVIs future interest. Currently, the #2 RTS game (not made by Blizzard) measured by active online multiplayer community is RA2. Run on chinese servers sort of equivalent to GameRanger. Guess who the lead designer of RA2 is? if your defense is that every RTS game made by every one other than Blizzard is not good enough then you basically do not have a genre if its relying on 1 company. what you have is an anomaly, not a genre. my prediction is in 5 years that new incarnations of Pacman Championship Edition generate more revenue than every RTS game combined in 2020. if Blizzard stops making RTS games after LotV I do not blame them one bit. I'll just keep playing the old RTS games as i play NHL '94 hockey. Relative to all the other guys making RTS games . and relative to the potential revenue an RTS game can produce.. Blizzard is doing a great job giving us really cool stuff to play.
You make a very good point, Blizzard is giving us a sequel to one of their best games they ever made and I will say about the community that I think the way we act some time is pretty fucking sad and horrible, myself included. Just bitching and whining about the majority of things Blizzard is doing wrong, never THANK YOU for this fucking awesome game that you never had to make. At least that is what the majority of TL threads had devolved into, my fucking self included, I've been a major troll at times. So yes, you are making a very valid point and what is probably a good reminder for us all to be grateful there is any sc2 and potentially and amazing 3rd installment.
I even think maybe you should just post this and create another thread to jog peoples memories, that we are entitled to NOTHING.
AND also understand that everyone here is passionate about sc2 becoming something really big and amazing to play and in the esport scene. I imagine 100% of comments are directed toward trying to make that goal happen, and the frustration with whatever else people perceive to be occurring. I imagine you want to the game to be amazing as well. <3
|
On June 09 2015 03:38 SinO[Ob] wrote:
How can you compare a company who has one game to support and the others that have platforms and so much huge games. And in different genres.
Let Riot, the one trick componey, far from Blizzard and Valve plz. (I'm proud of this jk.)
That is just freaking asinine and you don't know what you're talking about. In a large company, software developers, engineers, managers work in separate teams and on different projects. The manpower doesn't matter as long as there's enough and well-organized.
|
If you are seriously going to shit on Blizzard because of the success of companies making bobas... Valve and Riot just took something that was made possible by Blizzard and capitalized on it. At best you can argue that Blizzard lost on marketing and business decisions, not as games developers. I don't think anyone can even argue that Blizzard is to RTS / MMO / ARPG as Valve is to FPS. Blizzard just so happened to pick two genres (RTS and ARPG) with the most upkeep and the least profitable long term business models, I fucking love Warcraft 3 and Broodwar, but that experience would probably be tainted if you shoehorned in the same level of free-to-play micro-transaction pay-to-win optional-aesthetic bull shit that every god damn genre is infested with nowadays. Blizzard's made a bunch of questionable decisions in the last decade but nothing as egregious as what's happening to the gaming industry as a whole.
Also every post complaining about Blizzard is "I played hundreds if not thousands of hours of this game, it sucks, 0/10, irresponsible, worst company ever". If only you could apply the same criticism to other game developers.
|
On June 09 2015 09:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company. when Valve and Riot make a game for the genre that is shrivelling faster than the dot-eating-maze game genre did in the mid 1980s... lemme know. there is no money in the RTS genre any longer. which is why C&C and AoE are long gone... despite being big money makers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. relative to what other RTS games are being made today .. SC2 is a good product. ...if Blizzard stops making RTS games after LotV I do not blame them one bit. I'll just keep playing the old RTS games as i play NHL '94 hockey.
Using relative logic, Empire Total War is both the best and worst game of it's genre, since it is the only game that represents that time period in it's genre.
So what does that tell us? Absolutely nothing. But you can compare games to each other, even if they are in different genres because the point of a game is to have fun. The more fun you have, the more likely you'll play a game. How does SC2 stack up to LoL and CS? Not very well then, according to what games gets played.
SC2 had a chance to re-invigorate the RTS scene and draw people into it. In turn, that would have spawned more games in the genre. Do you remember the MLG events? The excitement and passion? SC2 was #1 and growing, every other game was second fiddle in E-Sports. That was because SC2 was really fun to play at the time.
Yeah it passed us by, but that is because the game started to suck. The beautiful gameplay and asymmetrical balance of Ling/Bling/Muta versus Marine/Tank/Medivac was destroyed by Infestors, and then by Swarm Hosts and Widow Mines. Blizzard had a pot of gold in their lap but they totally mismanaged it. But we should have expected it. 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 Blizzard never really knew exactly how to make SC2 into a great game. And they never wanted to listen to the community. And that's too bad, because community ideas have saved other games, and in this case, spawned the very games that Blizzard is competing with at the top of E-Sports, DOTA (and it's clones) and Counter-Strike.
Blizzard can get better at communicating with the community and designing their games. Simply saying "well no one else is making any other good RTS" isn't an excuse for them not to get better.
The saddest part about this whole argument is that I am the one carrying the positive message here. I'm the one saying that Blizzard could do something great, something amazing, and that an RTS game could be the premier E-Sport that everyone wants to play.
You're saying the genre is dead and no one wants to make an RTS, therefore we should be happy with SC2.
You see what you have, I see what is possible.
|
On June 09 2015 14:18 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 09:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company. when Valve and Riot make a game for the genre that is shrivelling faster than the dot-eating-maze game genre did in the mid 1980s... lemme know. there is no money in the RTS genre any longer. which is why C&C and AoE are long gone... despite being big money makers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. relative to what other RTS games are being made today .. SC2 is a good product. ...if Blizzard stops making RTS games after LotV I do not blame them one bit. I'll just keep playing the old RTS games as i play NHL '94 hockey. You see what you have, I see what is possible.
Unfortunately it seems like (to millions of prospecting game developers, entrepreneurs and gamers) what's possible is a vast expansion of the currently popular gaming genres into even more dominant forces. I would like to see you find anyone who honestly thinks that RTS can beat mobile cow clickers in revenue generation. People never consider that Blizzard could have just pulled the plug on the whole RTS enterprise after seeing the muted responses to Heart of the Swarm, what's possible isn't just all positive sunshine and rainbows you know.
|
I really hope Blizzard continues to ignore the community.
The double harvest tournament showed it was just HotS with slightly empowered cheese. Guess what guys if expanding means you get an advantage, not expanding means you will be at a disadvantage and vice versa! It is actually just a difference in wording.
The reason why the dichotomy feels real to a lot of people is because in the current LotV build lower base play has been weakened relative to HotS. This is a GOOD thing, you shouldn't be able to do two "all ins" off two base and then win from a compositional advantage STILL on two base (see whichever Myungsik game that was on expedition lost).
Also, guess what, if neither player expands nobody becomes disadvantaged (ignoring any racial imbalances). That is still true.
The new units (mostly) feel awesome to control, the 12 worker start is about a million times better. I've tried playing HotS since I got beta and only managed when friends wanted to play team games. I was there for the skype conversation.
|
The double harvest tournament showed it was just HotS with slightly empowered cheese. Guess what guys if expanding means you get an advantage, not expanding means you will be at a disadvantage and vice versa! It is actually just a difference in wording.
The issue with Double Harvest isn't that its a bad economy, but rather that its been "advertised" as the big savior. For some reason people think that its the economy that magically made it possible to split your army around the map while still having lots of actions in BW. In reality though, the main reason was how units and abiliites were designed.
my prediction is in 5 years that new incarnations of Pacman Championship Edition generate more revenue than every RTS game combined in 2020.
I disagree. I think the RTS genere has lots of potential, but developers are just making the complete wrong type of games. For some reason they all think that an RTS either should contain on of two elements:
(1) Lots of base-building/repetitive actions
(2) Very slow-paced (unresponsive units, slow movement).
I believe that when developers realize that there is no target group for that type of design, but that alot of people actually enjoy some of the "high skilled" moments of Sc2 (such as bio vs Muta/bling) that the genre can grow again.
My theory is the majority of the (competetive and casual) target group simply wants to control units and have fun with that. Microing the units should feel simple and should have almost an infinitely high skillcap while containing lots of counterplay. Riot for example does a good job of allowing players to focus on the champion vs champion interactions without having to worry too much about "macro", "timings" or "hardcounters" (at least not if your a "casual player").
Stuff like I didn't look at my army for 2 seconds cus I was building a supply depot and therefore lost my whole army and thus the game should get removed in a future RTS. Also scenarios like I build X 10 seconds to late and therefore instalost to my opponents timing attack/cheese is not a great thing for an esport and is terrible for the casual experience.
In my opinion, the MOBA genre is a lot closer to its "maximum potential" than the RTS genre. The developers working on Riot and Dota (Icefrog I guess) have been more competent than the RTS-developers which has improved the genre faster. I guess that and the F2P-business model which has created a proper incentive structure for developers to make enjoyable multiplayer games (rather than singleplayer games).
Just the fact that Starcraft 2 is by far the best RTS despite all of the obvious flaws should indicate how good a proper RTS game with competent developers could be.
|
On June 09 2015 18:31 Para199x wrote:
I really hope Blizzard continues to ignore the community.
The double harvest tournament showed it was just HotS with slightly empowered cheese. Guess what guys if expanding means you get an advantage, not expanding means you will be at a disadvantage and vice versa! It is actually just a difference in wording.
This is just in. 100 games are enough to both balance a game and let people adjust to it. There are literally 100 games of LOTV or more being played every hour. And sometimes it takes weeks before new strategies are made up and new play styles are adopted.
|
Russian Federation93 Posts
On June 09 2015 19:36 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
The double harvest tournament showed it was just HotS with slightly empowered cheese. Guess what guys if expanding means you get an advantage, not expanding means you will be at a disadvantage and vice versa! It is actually just a difference in wording.
The issue with Double Harvest isn't that its a bad economy, but rather that its been "advertised" as the big savior. For some reason people think that its the economy that magically made it possible to split your army around the map while still having lots of actions in BW. In reality though, the main reason was how units and abiliites were designed. Show nested quote +
my prediction is in 5 years that new incarnations of Pacman Championship Edition generate more revenue than every RTS game combined in 2020.
I disagree. I think the RTS genere has lots of potential, but developers are just making the complete wrong type of games. For some reason they all think that an RTS either should contain on of two elements: (1) Lots of base-building/repetitive actions (2) Very slow-paced (unresponsive units, slow movement). I believe that when developers realize that there is no target group for that type of design, but that alot of people actually enjoy some of the "high skilled" moments of Sc2 (such as bio vs Muta/bling) that the genre can grow again. My theory is the majority of the (competetive and casual) target group simply wants to control units and have fun with that. Microing the units should feel simple and should have almost an infinitely high skillcap while containing lots of counterplay. Riot for example does a good job of allowing players to focus on the champion vs champion interactions without having to worry too much about "macro", "timings" or "hardcounters" (at least not if your a "casual player"). Stuff like I didn't look at my army for 2 seconds cus I was building a supply depot and therefore lost my whole army and thus the game should get removed in a future RTS. Also scenarios like I build X 10 seconds to late and therefore instalost to my opponents timing attack/cheese is not a great thing for an esport and is terrible for the casual experience. In my opinion, the MOBA genre is a lot closer to its "maximum potential" than the RTS genre. The developers working on Riot and Dota (Icefrog I guess) have been more competent than the RTS-developers which has improved the genre faster. I guess that and the F2P-business model which has created a proper incentive structure for developers to make enjoyable multiplayer games (rather than singleplayer games). Just the fact that Starcraft 2 is by far the best RTS despite all of the obvious flaws should indicate how good a proper RTS game with competent developers could be.
Every single word is true. Nothing really matters if the game is fun to play and constantly evolving and supported by developers. This "casual" thing must be bringed into starcraft or we will die as a competitive game due to the lack of casual players who watch streams, visit tournaments and buy some skins from time to time.
Blizzard can do 24 workers start and 5 minerals per base if they want to, noone will care.
But right now it fills like a job. Mutas accidentally flied into 3 Thors while you were injecting for 1,5 seconds -> lose. Bio was stormed while you were queuing new unints for 1 second -> lose. Games must be easier to play and harder to master nowadays. But new Distruptor, Lurker and Liberator design are just saying: "We will fucking destroy your anus if you allow yourself being only 99% concentrated on the game for 0.5 seconds. And you can't do anything after that due to the lack of comeback mechanics! We want you to SUFFER for every single mistake you make!" While DotA is just "Make yourself comfortable in this massage chair while we are serving this cool beer for you"
|
On June 09 2015 14:18 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 09:51 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:
None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company. when Valve and Riot make a game for the genre that is shrivelling faster than the dot-eating-maze game genre did in the mid 1980s... lemme know. there is no money in the RTS genre any longer. which is why C&C and AoE are long gone... despite being big money makers in the late 1990s and early 2000s. relative to what other RTS games are being made today .. SC2 is a good product. ...if Blizzard stops making RTS games after LotV I do not blame them one bit. I'll just keep playing the old RTS games as i play NHL '94 hockey. Using relative logic, Empire Total War is both the best and worst game of it's genre, since it is the only game that represents that time period in it's genre. So what does that tell us? Absolutely nothing. But you can compare games to each other, even if they are in different genres because the point of a game is to have fun. The more fun you have, the more likely you'll play a game. How does SC2 stack up to LoL and CS? Not very well then, according to what games gets played. SC2 had a chance to re-invigorate the RTS scene and draw people into it. In turn, that would have spawned more games in the genre. Do you remember the MLG events? The excitement and passion? SC2 was #1 and growing, every other game was second fiddle in E-Sports. That was because SC2 was really fun to play at the time. Yeah it passed us by, but that is because the game started to suck. The beautiful gameplay and asymmetrical balance of Ling/Bling/Muta versus Marine/Tank/Medivac was destroyed by Infestors, and then by Swarm Hosts and Widow Mines. Blizzard had a pot of gold in their lap but they totally mismanaged it. But we should have expected it. 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 Blizzard never really knew exactly how to make SC2 into a great game. And they never wanted to listen to the community. And that's too bad, because community ideas have saved other games, and in this case, spawned the very games that Blizzard is competing with at the top of E-Sports, DOTA (and it's clones) and Counter-Strike. Blizzard can get better at communicating with the community and designing their games. Simply saying "well no one else is making any other good RTS" isn't an excuse for them not to get better. The saddest part about this whole argument is that I am the one carrying the positive message here. I'm the one saying that Blizzard could do something great, something amazing, and that an RTS game could be the premier E-Sport that everyone wants to play. You're saying the genre is dead and no one wants to make an RTS, therefore we should be happy with SC2. You see what you have, I see what is possible.
Geez, you honestly believe that SC2 is not the top dog in esports industry due to infestors, swarm hosts and widow mines. You need to get out of your room.
|
On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 03:38 SinO[Ob] wrote:
How can you compare a company who has one game to support and the others that have platforms and so much huge games. And in different genres.
Let Riot, the one trick componey, far from Blizzard and Valve plz. (I'm proud of this jk.) Why does that matter? If a company has 10 games and a staff of 100 people, why should we expect less support than a company with 1 game and 10 staff? And if the company with 10 games only has 50 staff, maybe they need more staff if they can't support their games? In the end the company making the game is responsibly solely for supporting the game they make. It doesn't matter how many employees they have, how much money they make, how many games they make and what genre the games they make are in. Companies are responsible for supporting their products and we as consumers should hold them to it, not make excuses for why they can't support their games. Imagine if car companies could escape responsibly for honoring warranties by stating they make too many models, don't have enough staff, or that that they make trucks not cars and because those are different genres they don't need to honor the warranty. None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company.
You misunderstood my point. I can see a comparison between Valve and Blizzard. Because they are actually at the same spot. Dealing with a lot of different games and aspect in gaming community (Platforms / Sell / Games / Even now hardware for valve). But Riot do have one game to deal with.
And of course, if you want to talk about utopia, all companies should have the same interest and investement in every aspect of their market at everytime (And I'm pretty sure they do want to). The fact is, they can't. Blizzard and Valve doesn't have 1 billion people working in their companies. Money is not unlimited. So when you have more franchise it gets harder to have them all always on top. Because market changes, community expect new things in every game, people inside leaving/coming or just changing projects. If you can't understand that there is to much factors to take account of, to run perfectly all those games. Well, you underestimate the amount of work they have to deal with.
I'm not a Blizzard blind fanboy. I'm just tired of seeing people try to compare things that can't be compare. Riot is not a new company anymore. This is a HUGE thing now. So they can easily focus all of the team on THE ONLY ONE project. Easier to coordonate and to make it evolving.
I don't say either that Riot don't have good ideas. Of course, they have. Just stop thinking that everything is at the same level.
Riot 1 game 1000 employees.
Blizzard 6 games 4.700 employees
|
On June 09 2015 22:44 SinO[Ob] wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 09 2015 03:38 SinO[Ob] wrote:
How can you compare a company who has one game to support and the others that have platforms and so much huge games. And in different genres.
Let Riot, the one trick componey, far from Blizzard and Valve plz. (I'm proud of this jk.) Why does that matter? If a company has 10 games and a staff of 100 people, why should we expect less support than a company with 1 game and 10 staff? And if the company with 10 games only has 50 staff, maybe they need more staff if they can't support their games? In the end the company making the game is responsibly solely for supporting the game they make. It doesn't matter how many employees they have, how much money they make, how many games they make and what genre the games they make are in. Companies are responsible for supporting their products and we as consumers should hold them to it, not make excuses for why they can't support their games. Imagine if car companies could escape responsibly for honoring warranties by stating they make too many models, don't have enough staff, or that that they make trucks not cars and because those are different genres they don't need to honor the warranty. None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company. You misunderstood my point. I can see a comparison between Valve and Blizzard. Because they are actually at the same spot. Dealing with a lot of different games and aspect in gaming community (Platforms / Sell / Games / Even now hardware for valve). But Riot do have one game to deal with. And of course, if you want to talk about utopia, all companies should have the same interest and investement in every aspect of their market at everytime (And I'm pretty sure they do want to). The fact is, they can't. Blizzard and Valve doesn't have 1 billion people working in their companies. Money is not unlimited. So when you have more franchise it gets harder to have them all always on top. Because market changes, community expect new things in every game, people inside leaving/coming or just changing projects. If you can't understand that there is to much factors to take account of, to run perfectly all those games. Well, you underestimate the amount of work they have to deal with. I'm not a Blizzard blind fanboy. I'm just tired of seeing people try to compare things that can't be compare. Riot is not a new company anymore. This is a HUGE thing now. So they can easily focus all of the team on THE ONLY ONE project. Easier to coordonate and to make it evolving. I don't say either that Riot don't have good ideas. Of course, they have. Just stop thinking that everything is at the same level. Riot 1 game 1000 employees. Blizzard 6 games 4.700 employees
You've just described a company with bad project management and/or company leadership that don't know what to do to keep themselves relevant.
|
On June 08 2015 13:09 covetousrat wrote:Theyre too busy doing thisIm not joking. This is seriously what I think. Too busy on Hearthstone and Heroes of the storm while spending 10 minutes a day on LOTV. LOTV looks totally disappointing with all those new units and gameplay. I don get any WOW effect except maybe Lurker.
I hope your not serious with this post, tell me you dont even know there are different teams for different projects within blizzard, geez cant believe ppl are this stupid....
|
On June 09 2015 23:30 jotmang-nojem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 22:44 SinO[Ob] wrote:On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 09 2015 03:38 SinO[Ob] wrote:
How can you compare a company who has one game to support and the others that have platforms and so much huge games. And in different genres.
Let Riot, the one trick componey, far from Blizzard and Valve plz. (I'm proud of this jk.) Why does that matter? If a company has 10 games and a staff of 100 people, why should we expect less support than a company with 1 game and 10 staff? And if the company with 10 games only has 50 staff, maybe they need more staff if they can't support their games? In the end the company making the game is responsibly solely for supporting the game they make. It doesn't matter how many employees they have, how much money they make, how many games they make and what genre the games they make are in. Companies are responsible for supporting their products and we as consumers should hold them to it, not make excuses for why they can't support their games. Imagine if car companies could escape responsibly for honoring warranties by stating they make too many models, don't have enough staff, or that that they make trucks not cars and because those are different genres they don't need to honor the warranty. None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company. You misunderstood my point. I can see a comparison between Valve and Blizzard. Because they are actually at the same spot. Dealing with a lot of different games and aspect in gaming community (Platforms / Sell / Games / Even now hardware for valve). But Riot do have one game to deal with. And of course, if you want to talk about utopia, all companies should have the same interest and investement in every aspect of their market at everytime (And I'm pretty sure they do want to). The fact is, they can't. Blizzard and Valve doesn't have 1 billion people working in their companies. Money is not unlimited. So when you have more franchise it gets harder to have them all always on top. Because market changes, community expect new things in every game, people inside leaving/coming or just changing projects. If you can't understand that there is to much factors to take account of, to run perfectly all those games. Well, you underestimate the amount of work they have to deal with. I'm not a Blizzard blind fanboy. I'm just tired of seeing people try to compare things that can't be compare. Riot is not a new company anymore. This is a HUGE thing now. So they can easily focus all of the team on THE ONLY ONE project. Easier to coordonate and to make it evolving. I don't say either that Riot don't have good ideas. Of course, they have. Just stop thinking that everything is at the same level. Riot 1 game 1000 employees. Blizzard 6 games 4.700 employees You've just described a company with bad project management and/or company leadership that don't know what to do to keep themselves relevant.
pretty sure both riot blizzard (and valve) are all relevant and do still bring in some of the best games there are for their respective genre.
|
On June 09 2015 21:21 sh1RoKen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 19:36 Hider wrote:
The double harvest tournament showed it was just HotS with slightly empowered cheese. Guess what guys if expanding means you get an advantage, not expanding means you will be at a disadvantage and vice versa! It is actually just a difference in wording.
The issue with Double Harvest isn't that its a bad economy, but rather that its been "advertised" as the big savior. For some reason people think that its the economy that magically made it possible to split your army around the map while still having lots of actions in BW. In reality though, the main reason was how units and abiliites were designed.
my prediction is in 5 years that new incarnations of Pacman Championship Edition generate more revenue than every RTS game combined in 2020.
I disagree. I think the RTS genere has lots of potential, but developers are just making the complete wrong type of games. For some reason they all think that an RTS either should contain on of two elements: (1) Lots of base-building/repetitive actions (2) Very slow-paced (unresponsive units, slow movement). I believe that when developers realize that there is no target group for that type of design, but that alot of people actually enjoy some of the "high skilled" moments of Sc2 (such as bio vs Muta/bling) that the genre can grow again. My theory is the majority of the (competetive and casual) target group simply wants to control units and have fun with that. Microing the units should feel simple and should have almost an infinitely high skillcap while containing lots of counterplay. Riot for example does a good job of allowing players to focus on the champion vs champion interactions without having to worry too much about "macro", "timings" or "hardcounters" (at least not if your a "casual player"). Stuff like I didn't look at my army for 2 seconds cus I was building a supply depot and therefore lost my whole army and thus the game should get removed in a future RTS. Also scenarios like I build X 10 seconds to late and therefore instalost to my opponents timing attack/cheese is not a great thing for an esport and is terrible for the casual experience. In my opinion, the MOBA genre is a lot closer to its "maximum potential" than the RTS genre. The developers working on Riot and Dota (Icefrog I guess) have been more competent than the RTS-developers which has improved the genre faster. I guess that and the F2P-business model which has created a proper incentive structure for developers to make enjoyable multiplayer games (rather than singleplayer games). Just the fact that Starcraft 2 is by far the best RTS despite all of the obvious flaws should indicate how good a proper RTS game with competent developers could be. Every single word is true. Nothing really matters if the game is fun to play and constantly evolving and supported by developers. This "casual" thing must be bringed into starcraft or we will die as a competitive game due to the lack of casual players who watch streams, visit tournaments and buy some skins from time to time. Blizzard can do 24 workers start and 5 minerals per base if they want to, noone will care. But right now it fills like a job. Mutas accidentally flied into 3 Thors while you were injecting for 1,5 seconds -> lose. Bio was stormed while you were queuing new unints for 1 second -> lose. Games must be easier to play and harder to master nowadays. But new Distruptor, Lurker and Liberator design are just saying: "We will fucking destroy your anus if you allow yourself being only 99% concentrated on the game for 0.5 seconds. And you can't do anything after that due to the lack of comeback mechanics! We want you to SUFFER for every single mistake you make!" While DotA is just "Make yourself comfortable in this massage chair while we are serving this cool beer for you"
Yeh, so I don't actually think there is anything wrong with the "kill a lot of units very quickly"-design in it self.. You do need AOE-based units in an RTS in order to make sure that a small army can beat a larger army size!
Rather the issue is that they can make the game end very quickly. This isn't as much an issue in League for instance due to the fact that your always looking at your champion + the defenders advantage is very high. This means that even if you make a splitsecond error, you only get behind, but if you play well for the rest of the game you can still win it.
In my opinion, future RTS games needs to create a much higher defenders advantage so you don't automatically lose if your opponent has a 20-30% larger army than you while at the same time add an incentive to be out on the map in order to avoid extreme turtling.
|
Riot is thriving due to LoL. Valve has successfully transformed itself into a service provider company. Blizzard? Seems they're living off past glory nowadays.
|
I have played more lotv than most people, I feel. 100 games about. Low masters level.
I personally love it. At first I was skeptical about the cyclone, but I'm starting to enjoy using it. At this point I like all of the new units. The massive buffage to Zerg doesn't make a ton of sense to me, I don't get why quite so many but obviously that will get pulled back a bit.
I feel Protoss is totally fine. And seriously I have over 1500+ wins as a diamond toss in WOL. I love the direction they're taking toss. The colossi nerf is amazing. The disruptor is a little underwhelming, but the adept is cool as fuck.
I really wish they would have added another bio unit, but I really do see a place for bio/tank and bio/liberator in certain matchups and think that's really exciting.
The economy changes are awesome. Game starts immediately and games that feel like 20 minute games in hots are like 9 minute games in lotv. That's badass.
Overall I feel like the game still feels a lot like hots, in that personally I do still play on 3 base a lot til main is drying out and I do still have maxed army fights a lot. But nearly every game I do end up taking a fourth eventually, more so than hots.
As a big sc2 fan this is great. It feels like the same game with new compositions and strats, and just more fast paced.
|
On June 09 2015 23:54 jotmang-nojem wrote:
Riot is thriving due to LoL. Valve has successfully transformed itself into a service provider company. Blizzard? Seems they're living off past glory nowadays.
lol
With Heroes being the exception, each current Blizzard game dominates its own genre.
|
Blizz has a tough job with SC2. Balancing the temptation to make it more 'casual friendly' to appeal to a broader fan-base while at the same time not pissing off the hardcore players. There has to be a middle ground somewhere, but you can't make everyone happy.
|
|
|
On June 10 2015 03:16 ElMeanYo wrote:
Blizz has a tough job with SC2. Balancing the temptation to make it more 'casual friendly' to appeal to a broader fan-base while at the same time not pissing off the hardcore players. There has to be a middle ground somewhere, but you can't make everyone happy.
They aren't neccasarily mutually exclusive. Changes such as "no ebay requirement" on turrets makes the game much more casual friendly and improves the competititve experience as well.
|
On June 09 2015 22:44 SinO[Ob] wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 09 2015 05:22 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 03:38 SinO[Ob] wrote:
How can you compare a company who has one game to support and the others that have platforms and so much huge games. And in different genres.
Let Riot, the one trick componey, far from Blizzard and Valve plz. (I'm proud of this jk.) Why does that matter? If a company has 10 games and a staff of 100 people, why should we expect less support than a company with 1 game and 10 staff? And if the company with 10 games only has 50 staff, maybe they need more staff if they can't support their games? In the end the company making the game is responsibly solely for supporting the game they make. It doesn't matter how many employees they have, how much money they make, how many games they make and what genre the games they make are in. Companies are responsible for supporting their products and we as consumers should hold them to it, not make excuses for why they can't support their games. Imagine if car companies could escape responsibly for honoring warranties by stating they make too many models, don't have enough staff, or that that they make trucks not cars and because those are different genres they don't need to honor the warranty. None of that makes any sense. Blizzard can be compared and should be compared to Valve and Riot regularly. Anyone who says otherwise and uses the above arguments, is just a Blizzard apologist seeking to absolve them of their responsibilities as a company. You misunderstood my point. I can see a comparison between Valve and Blizzard. Because they are actually at the same spot. Dealing with a lot of different games and aspect in gaming community (Platforms / Sell / Games / Even now hardware for valve). But Riot do have one game to deal with. And of course, if you want to talk about utopia, all companies should have the same interest and investement in every aspect of their market at everytime (And I'm pretty sure they do want to). The fact is, they can't. Blizzard and Valve doesn't have 1 billion people working in their companies. Money is not unlimited. So when you have more franchise it gets harder to have them all always on top. Because market changes, community expect new things in every game, people inside leaving/coming or just changing projects. If you can't understand that there is to much factors to take account of, to run perfectly all those games. Well, you underestimate the amount of work they have to deal with. I'm not a Blizzard blind fanboy. I'm just tired of seeing people try to compare things that can't be compare. Riot is not a new company anymore. This is a HUGE thing now. So they can easily focus all of the team on THE ONLY ONE project. Easier to coordonate and to make it evolving. I don't say either that Riot don't have good ideas. Of course, they have. Just stop thinking that everything is at the same level. Riot 1 game 1000 employees. Blizzard 6 games 4.700 employees
This doesn't make sense. You don't need an insane amount of people or money to make a video game and all of the managerial stuff you mentioned is handled by a board of directors in both Riot AND Blizzard, or a sub-board for each game, in Blizzard's case, so your argument doesn't hold much value. Unless one just started working in a company, it is very rare to see one change teams or projects in a software company. In some companies, like Google, one has to be re-interviewed in order to transfer. You don't seem to understand of how separate these teams are or their autonomy on their projects.
|
On June 10 2015 00:35 TronJovolta wrote:
I have played more lotv than most people, I feel. 100 games about. Low masters level.
I personally love it. At first I was skeptical about the cyclone, but I'm starting to enjoy using it......
As a big sc2 fan this is great. It feels like the same game with new compositions and strats, and just more fast paced.
when i'm serious i can get up to top 10 Diamond, but no higher.
so i'm not the same level as you.
my experience is similar to urs...its hella fun and its more fast paced.
it seems like half the RTS team is ex-C&C guys so i'm not surprised the game is taking this turn towards "something fast and fluid with base building that does not feel like a chore"
|
On June 09 2015 19:36 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
The double harvest tournament showed it was just HotS with slightly empowered cheese. Guess what guys if expanding means you get an advantage, not expanding means you will be at a disadvantage and vice versa! It is actually just a difference in wording.
The issue with Double Harvest isn't that its a bad economy, but rather that its been "advertised" as the big savior. For some reason people think that its the economy that magically made it possible to split your army around the map while still having lots of actions in BW. In reality though, the main reason was how units and abiliites were designed. Show nested quote +
my prediction is in 5 years that new incarnations of Pacman Championship Edition generate more revenue than every RTS game combined in 2020.
I disagree. I think the RTS genere has lots of potential, but developers are just making the complete wrong type of games.
good luck getting funding for a AAA level , RTS game.
the free market has spoken... and it did so 10 years ago and the corporate publishing gods have adjusted their outlook accordingly.
The company Day9 works with got 2.5 million in funding. It'll be interesting to see what becomes of it. My heart wants it to be a smash success and Day9 becomes filthy stinkin' stupid rich and keeps making RTS games for the rest of his life off of the momentum of the game becoming a billion dollar franchise.
My head tells me we're basically in the 1985 time period of Dot-Eating-Maze-Game genre.
RTS games had their time in the sun when its fundamental mechanics were novel, new, and thought provoking, even fascinating.
Similar to dot-eating-maze games in 1980.
But, its now over. People are bored with the genre and the fundamental mechanics that make an RTS game what it is. Just like Dot-Eatin-Maze games by 1985.
Even though the best dot eating maze games were being released.. it didn't matter. it was over.. the people had moved on.
Ms Pacman was better than Pacman in every way and made 25% of what Pacman made.
Making a better game does not necessarily mean every one will want to play it.
|
the free market has spoken... and it did so 10 years ago and the corporate publishing gods have adjusted their outlook accordingly.
When Grey Goo can get funding despite having incompetent designers whom doesn't know the difference between macro and micro, it shouldn't be (theoreticaly) impossible for competent designers with a well thought out analysis of the different target groups (their needs, size and how to satisfy them).
But, its now over. People are bored with the genre and the fundamental mechanics that make an RTS game what it is. Just like Dot-Eatin-Maze games by 1985.
No people are bored with how developers have made RTS games. From spending the last couple of years studying the elements that makes Sc2 relatively succesful and LOL very succesful, I believe you can deduct what a proper RTS should contain.
Below is what a succesful RTS should contain in my opinion:
- Easy to learn
- Great business model
- Lots of interesting micro interactions
- Units move relatively fast and are responsive
- The game is focussed around controlling units, and the macro element is minimized/removed.
- The game is forgiving to play due to a signfiicant defenders advantage but still provides incentives for players to be out on the map in order to have action.
It's not impossible - in fact its very likely - that the free market makes errors in the short-to-medium term. But I don't see any logical reason for why a lot of players wouldn't be interested in playing a game that is as easy to learn as a MOBA, but is focussed around controlling multiple units instead of one hero. In fact, as time goes on players will probably get sligtly tired of the "one hero" approach and look for a new experience but in the same genre (ARTS).
|
France9034 Posts
On June 09 2015 23:54 jotmang-nojem wrote:
Riot is thriving due to LoL. Valve has successfully transformed itself into a service provider company. Blizzard? Seems they're living off past glory nowadays.
Yeah, HearthStone and HotS are totally "past glory".
Oh and people are totally not waiting for Overwatch, no........
/irony
Oh and HS especially was reaaaally different in how it came to life.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Bizz fanboy (I don't like, nor wait for any of the games I mentioned), but saying they live on past glory is ridiculous. WoW excepted (and it does not look that good as well), their "past glory" isn't what really work currently:
- Diablo 3: not nearly as popular as its predecessor (though the extension improved that, but that still not on the same level, when you have Path Of Exile dubbed "what should have been Diablo 3" with a really good popularity).
- Starcraft: we're pretty much all okay with the fact it's clearly not a very profitable license.
- World Of Warcraft: the more it ages, the more wee see a pattern, with the game having hit its peak near 2010/2011 IIRC, and now gradually losing players. The release of Warlords of Draenor saw a huge bump in players, that were all gone after a few months, which shows that WoW doesn't retain its players that much anymore.
The only thing you could say they live off which belongs to their "past glory" is their universes. But universes don't create games single-handedly...
|
Diablo 3: not nearly as popular as its predecessor (though the extension improved that, but that still not on the same level, when you have Path Of Exile dubbed "what should have been Diablo 3" with a really good popularity)
Pretty sure that's actually not true. D3 is much more played than PoE. D3 also sold better than D2.
|
Russian Federation1612 Posts
On June 10 2015 17:07 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Diablo 3: not nearly as popular as its predecessor (though the extension improved that, but that still not on the same level, when you have Path Of Exile dubbed "what should have been Diablo 3" with a really good popularity) Pretty sure that's actually not true. D3 is much more played than PoE. D3 also sold better than D2.
Diablo 3 is the 3rd best selling PC game to be correct. And where is Path of Exale?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_games
|
United States4883 Posts
On June 09 2015 19:36 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
The double harvest tournament showed it was just HotS with slightly empowered cheese. Guess what guys if expanding means you get an advantage, not expanding means you will be at a disadvantage and vice versa! It is actually just a difference in wording.
The issue with Double Harvest isn't that its a bad economy, but rather that its been "advertised" as the big savior. For some reason people think that its the economy that magically made it possible to split your army around the map while still having lots of actions in BW. In reality though, the main reason was how units and abiliites were designed.
Just wanted to comment on this and clear any misconceptions up .
DH is simply an alternative economy solution that is designed to allow a player with more expansions to actually gain more money. In other words, you can literally look at the minimap and tell who is winning based on the number of bases they have and how much map control they have. This doesn't mean that colossus deathballs or low-potential units are somehow magically made interesting, it simply means that there is counterplay to 3-base turtling via expansions. That said, it's not a fix-all solution for the problems in SC2, but it's definitely a step in the right direction towards a positionally balanced game ^^.
|
France9034 Posts
On June 10 2015 17:07 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Diablo 3: not nearly as popular as its predecessor (though the extension improved that, but that still not on the same level, when you have Path Of Exile dubbed "what should have been Diablo 3" with a really good popularity) Pretty sure that's actually not true. D3 is much more played than PoE. D3 also sold better than D2.
Oh? Did that change? I remember it being massively played at the release, and then reports that players were quickly bored with it and did not stay much. For PoE, that was indeed an assumption, but its popularity is there. I'll look up if I find some figures about that. Do you have any sources, by any chance?
On June 10 2015 19:15 Jenia6109 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2015 17:07 Hider wrote:Diablo 3: not nearly as popular as its predecessor (though the extension improved that, but that still not on the same level, when you have Path Of Exile dubbed "what should have been Diablo 3" with a really good popularity) Pretty sure that's actually not true. D3 is much more played than PoE. D3 also sold better than D2. Diablo 3 is the 3rd best selling PC game to be correct. And where is Path of Exale? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_games
Yeah, in terms of units sold. But then Starcraft 2 is up there at the 13th place, but I would say it's not the 13th most played game today. So there's that also. And PoE is a Free-To-Play, so not on that list obviously. Just like League Of Legends..
That's why figures about actually playing players would be more relevant here.
EDIT: I realise that in this case, that's actually enough, sales numbers, to talk about profitability (which was the original topic), so my bad...
|
Yeah, in terms of units sold. But then Starcraft 2 is up there at the 13th place, but I would say it's not the 13th most played game today. So there's that also. And PoE is a Free-To-Play, so not on that list obviously. Just like League Of Legends.
I think the twitch viewer-numbers between D3 and POE gives a decent indication of which game is the most played.
|
On June 10 2015 21:02 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Yeah, in terms of units sold. But then Starcraft 2 is up there at the 13th place, but I would say it's not the 13th most played game today. So there's that also. And PoE is a Free-To-Play, so not on that list obviously. Just like League Of Legends. I think the twitch viewer-numbers between D3 and POE gives a decent indication of which game is the most played.
nobody is streaming PoE anyway. And PoE is making money compared to d3 at the moment, which is kinda sad for blizz since a f2p diablo 3 would have been so huge.
|
On June 10 2015 00:35 TronJovolta wrote:
I have played more lotv than most people, I feel. 100 games about. Low masters level.
I personally love it. At first I was skeptical about the cyclone, but I'm starting to enjoy using it. At this point I like all of the new units. The massive buffage to Zerg doesn't make a ton of sense to me, I don't get why quite so many but obviously that will get pulled back a bit.
I feel Protoss is totally fine. And seriously I have over 1500+ wins as a diamond toss in WOL. I love the direction they're taking toss. The colossi nerf is amazing. The disruptor is a little underwhelming, but the adept is cool as fuck.
I really wish they would have added another bio unit, but I really do see a place for bio/tank and bio/liberator in certain matchups and think that's really exciting.
The economy changes are awesome. Game starts immediately and games that feel like 20 minute games in hots are like 9 minute games in lotv. That's badass.
Overall I feel like the game still feels a lot like hots, in that personally I do still play on 3 base a lot til main is drying out and I do still have maxed army fights a lot. But nearly every game I do end up taking a fourth eventually, more so than hots.
As a big sc2 fan this is great. It feels like the same game with new compositions and strats, and just more fast paced.
I feel the same way, LOTV is great and I for one appreciate the work Blizzard is putting in.
|
On June 10 2015 21:47 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2015 21:02 Hider wrote:Yeah, in terms of units sold. But then Starcraft 2 is up there at the 13th place, but I would say it's not the 13th most played game today. So there's that also. And PoE is a Free-To-Play, so not on that list obviously. Just like League Of Legends. I think the twitch viewer-numbers between D3 and POE gives a decent indication of which game is the most played. nobody is streaming PoE anyway.
That's exactly my point.
]And PoE is making money compared to d3 at the moment, which is kinda sad for blizz since a f2p diablo 3 would have been so huge.
Diablo 3 made a ton more money than POE without any reasonable level of doubt.
|
On June 10 2015 22:02 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2015 21:47 sAsImre wrote:On June 10 2015 21:02 Hider wrote:Yeah, in terms of units sold. But then Starcraft 2 is up there at the 13th place, but I would say it's not the 13th most played game today. So there's that also. And PoE is a Free-To-Play, so not on that list obviously. Just like League Of Legends. I think the twitch viewer-numbers between D3 and POE gives a decent indication of which game is the most played. nobody is streaming PoE anyway. And PoE is making money compared to d3 at the moment, which is kinda sad for blizz since a f2p diablo 3 would have been so huge. That's exactly my point. Show nested quote +]And PoE is making money compared to d3 at the moment, which is kinda sad for blizz since a f2p diablo 3 would have been so huge. Diablo 3 made a ton more money than POE without any reasonable level of doubt.
I know, but not sure about it if we compare development cost. Just a shame they didn't dare to go full f2p with d3 and waited HS for it, the game has definitely the potential for it. (and their in game monetization was utter crap, the real money ah ...)
D3 was the archetype of the game you pay once, play a bit and ditch off but it's still a great success for the dev since you get your money and don't spend much maintaining your servers and stuff since your playing community is small.
|
I know, but not sure about it if we compare development cost. Just a shame they didn't dare to go full f2p with d3 and waited HS for it, the game has definitely the potential for it. (and their in game monetization was utter crap, the real money ah ...)
If Diablo sold 20M copies, that's still $1B in revenue. Maybe a F2P skin/larger stash-model could do the same thing, but it would also be more expensive to maintain, and it's still a gamble.
As a general rule, a F2P-model is an advantage for non AAA-companies as it allows them to enter a market where they otherwise wouldn't have the ressources to enter (in terms of brand value, marketing).
FYI, this is a comment from a POE developer:
We probably would be making more income if we were pay-to-win," said lead programmer Jonathan Rogers. "But the game is doing very well. We paid off our development costs, the company is making enough money to expand.
Above doesn't sound like a company that made hundreds of millions of dollars in earnings.
|
You can't compare pacman to Starcraft, that's just ridiculous. Pacman is a shallow novelty game.
I think this is a better comparison: if Hearthstone fails then the online card game genre dies. If Diablo III fails then the action rpg genre nearly collapses. If World of Warcraft fails then the MMORPG genre quickly becomes niche. If Starcraft II fails then the RTS genre suffers.
Currently there are world war II strategy games, simulation games, action-rts games, real-time-tactics games, all with reasonable to high levels of success. &Starcraft II itself has sold a lot of copies. There is a market for strategy games. The main issues are that Starcraft II is not well adapted to the modern environment (difficult to play, expensive, many mistakes made in the development) and that Blizzard's success killed the competition. In some cases quite literally, since Blizzard has many Relic & C&C alumni in its development team, meaning that their competitors partly had their talent siphoned off.
I'll grant that it might be difficult to adapt RTS to the modern world and that it's also true that it has a bad reputation by now. But all it takes is one good, innovative title to turn that around. A lot of studios want to jump onto the next big thing, so they commission more MOBAs to be developed, while RTS lacks the hype. The lack of quality studios with an interest in strategy games becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as all recent RTS games are not that appealing.
Anyone who was involved with BW, WC3 or early SCII knows it has vastly more potential than Pacman.
|
There's no point in all this begging and pleading with Blizzard. Just play BW or Starbow or the arcade. Or hope that some new and better game company takes an interest in the RTS genre.
|
On June 11 2015 01:14 Grumbels wrote:
You can't compare pacman to Starcraft, that's just ridiculous. Pacman is a shallow novelty game.
Anyone who was involved with BW, WC3 or early SCII knows it has vastly more potential than Pacman.
thanks for your reply. i regret to inform you that you are incorrect. as an RTS fan... i wish u were right.
Pacman was the highest grossing arcade game of all time.
Once you factor in price inflation Pacman has brought in more money than all Blizzard RTS games combined and Blizzard has zero chance of surpassing it in the future.
Pacman is a cultural icon and was played competitively and "Pacman hustling" was similar to "Billiards Hustling" in the early 1980s.
Ken Uston , top blackjack player, was probably the most famous "Pacman Hustler" of the early 80s. it was a fascinating time in video game history.
http://www.amazon.ca/Mastering-Pac-Man-Ken-Uston/dp/1626548978
Pacman impacted western culture as much or more than Starcraft has impacted cultures of the eastern hemisphere.
SC2 is life and death to generate $600 million in 2015 dollars.
Pacman had 3.5 Billion in revenue with most of it made in 1980 and 1981.
Blizzard RTS games do not have hte potential to surpass this #.
http://www.usgamer.net/articles/top-10-biggest-grossing-arcade-games-of-all-time
in 1980.. Pacman made video games part of Western culture.. until then video games were sociologically non-existent.
Ms. Pacman is a pretty tough strategy-action game.
Pacman is not as good because u can go from board 5 to board 20 (1st Apple to the 8th Key) with the same pattern
my point was MsPacman is 1000X better of a game than Pacman and yet it didn't even make 25% of the money Pacman made.
a better game does not always mean better sales when the genre is declining.
it does not matter how great or awesome the genre was in the past.
Bobby Kotick is well versed in all this history and will align his billions accordingly when it comes time for ATVI to make a decision on the RTS team once LotV is released.
|
Russian Federation93 Posts
We shouldn't think about StarCraft like it is an ordinary game.
It could be the best game ever made, but with b2p model it will generate sufficient income only for the first 6 month max. It is good for the singleplayer GTA V or The Witcher 3, because they don't have goals to constantly develop the cybersport scene.
They don't need to constantly maintain the game. It is just Made - Sold process. Sometimes it will require a very little development for bugfixes or dedicated servers rent for 2-3 years after the release but it is nothing in compare to what Blizzard must do to keep StarCraft alive as a cybersport.
Every single day StarCraft should become a better game in all aspects and it is impossible without continuous development process which requires money spending. And the only way to afford this is to have p2p or f2p model. And the last one shows itself much more profitable nowadays.
Without continuous growth StarCraft will die as a worldwide cybersport discipline in less than 3 years after the LotV release. Just like WarCraft 3 did but much faster due to the presence of very successful competitors.
|
I don't think most people actually progress past the early stages of pacman. I played a version of it when I was about 8 and neither me nor my brothers had any interest in the game beyond beating the first few levels, because as a genre it gets old really quickly. I'm sure that there is some mathematical complexity to the strategy because at its heart it's a pathfinding problem, but that doesn't translate to being a compelling playing experience. I doubt whether many people really thought of MsPacman as a significant improvement.
Pacman had tremendous rapport, but not all success stories are created equal. I don't think you can separate Pacman's success from its role in being one of the first accessible, reflex-based strategy games that play well in arcades. Starcraft is similar in that it was arguably the first major competitive war game, and you could make a case that other genres have superceded it by offering the same experience in a more accessible framework, but I don't fully buy that.
This is a simple game to play: what if Starcraft II was conceived as a more accessible free-to-play game that was still true to the Starcraft experience? what if the game had been better balanced and bl / infestor, protoss, swarm hosts etc had never been problematic? what if the arcade and social experience had been better designed?
Just arbitrary decisions that imo would have a major impact on the success of the RTS genre, even if Blizzard would still have monopolized it.
|
On June 11 2015 20:39 sh1RoKen wrote:
We shouldn't think about StarCraft like it is an ordinary game.
It could be the best game ever made, but with b2p model it will generate sufficient income only for the first 6 month max. It is good for the singleplayer GTA V or The Witcher 3, because they don't have goals to constantly develop the cybersport scene.
They don't need to constantly maintain the game. It is just Made - Sold process. Sometimes it will require a very little development for bugfixes or dedicated servers rent for 2-3 years after the release but it is nothing in compare to what Blizzard must do to keep StarCraft alive as a cybersport.
Every single day StarCraft should become a better game in all aspects and it is impossible without continuous development process which requires money spending. And the only way to afford this is to have p2p or f2p model. And the last one shows itself much more profitable nowadays.
Without continuous growth StarCraft will die as a worldwide cybersport discipline in less than 3 years after the LotV release. Just like WarCraft 3 did but much faster due to the presence of very successful competitors.
you make great points. i think it will be 5 years and not 3 though. Let me explain why.
5 years ago Frank Pierce stated they view SC2 as a 10 year esports experiment.
Therefore, i think a WCS backed by Blizzard will be around for the next 5 years to fulfill this promise.
After that, all bets are off.
A big crossroads comes upon us after LotV is released. Will another RTS game get made so that it can be released in 5 years from now and essentially "replace" SC2 as Blizzard's showcase RTS game... similar to how SC2 replaced WC3 for that designation.
After LotV is released and as Blizzard supports SC2 for the next 5 years will Blizzard make another RTS game?
|
Russian Federation93 Posts
On June 11 2015 22:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2015 20:39 sh1RoKen wrote:
We shouldn't think about StarCraft like it is an ordinary game.
It could be the best game ever made, but with b2p model it will generate sufficient income only for the first 6 month max. It is good for the singleplayer GTA V or The Witcher 3, because they don't have goals to constantly develop the cybersport scene.
They don't need to constantly maintain the game. It is just Made - Sold process. Sometimes it will require a very little development for bugfixes or dedicated servers rent for 2-3 years after the release but it is nothing in compare to what Blizzard must do to keep StarCraft alive as a cybersport.
Every single day StarCraft should become a better game in all aspects and it is impossible without continuous development process which requires money spending. And the only way to afford this is to have p2p or f2p model. And the last one shows itself much more profitable nowadays.
Without continuous growth StarCraft will die as a worldwide cybersport discipline in less than 3 years after the LotV release. Just like WarCraft 3 did but much faster due to the presence of very successful competitors. you make great points. i think it will be 5 years and not 3 though. Let me explain why. 5 years ago Frank Pierce stated they view SC2 as a 10 year esports experiment. Therefore, i think a WCS backed by Blizzard will be around for the next 5 years to fulfill this promise. After that, all bets are off. A big crossroads comes upon us after LotV is released. Will another RTS game get made so that it can be released in 5 years from now and essentially "replace" SC2 as Blizzard's showcase RTS game... similar to how SC2 replaced WC3 for that designation. After LotV is released and as Blizzard supports SC2 for the next 5 years will Blizzard make another RTS game?
You are right. I just have a different understanding of "death". Blizzard will support SC2 for more than 3 years for sure. But I don't think it will be enough.
We need viewers to attract sponsors to give money to organize tournaments to attract progamers to play better. If there is no viewers -> no sponsors -> no money -> no tournaments -> no progamers -> no cybersport -> no live Starcraft.
And who are these viewers? Progamers? People who are able to split their BIO from distruptor attack? No!
81% of current global sc2 players are Plat or lower. Let's be honest - they don't know how to play Starcraft at all. 90% of all DotA players are 3200 solo mmr or lower. Sponsors need THOSE people. Sponsors need an auditory who suck so much that they think that the problem is in their mouse or chair. These are the potential customers for sponsors.
DotA, LoL and CS:GO viewers use the same devices. They are the exact same people for sponsors. And they have much more user-friendly content for those who play bad. And they grow in geometric progression -> StarCraft rate of dying is increasing faster.
In 3 years there will be "WCS only" StarCraft with probable transition to a new game in 2 years. And DotA will be on the TV with $ billions invested every year. And that is death from my point of view.
Even if StarCraft will grow in all directions on 20% from today. DotA will grow on 800% and overall proportions will change from 25/75 to 1/99.
|
I agree with OP. I've been playing tons of Starbow and have been having a lot of fun.
|
+1. Blizzard just seem really lost. They are making these half baked units that are the worst of brood war and worst of new units.
So they are giving us this weird mix that is really terrible. The new economy is also really boring because its ultimately hollow, while it forces you to expand faster, it doesn't reward you for example having more than 3 bases, having 4 or 5 bases at once it meaningless once again.
Finally they should get rid of the smart cast for reals and just make the game more hard!
|
Hi@ all,
this is my first post on TeamLiquid. Im 34 years old. I played BW and switched to SC 2. Im in Diamond. I played SC2 since the beginning. I think BW had his time, but you all have to realize that SC2 is not BW 2.0. The way Blizzard took was the right one! You cant just copy BW and say cool we have a new great RTS. It makes me really sad how the most people on TL think about SC 2 and especially about LotV.
1. The economy
I have a beta key and play Lotv all the time. The economy change is great! We dont need double harvesting. I know that you are forced to expand and this is the only way to play the game (except for rushes or all ins). You have to realize that this is the best way to play this game. You have more fights all over the map. Ist pure fun. You cry there is not so much diversity because we are getting punished when we not keep expanding. Diversity comes from the style how you play the game with the pressure to expand! This is the best way to play the game! It is fast and the deversity comes from the battles all over the map and how you react to it. The game itself doesnt get better, when you get more options to play the game. This is an Illusion. In LotV we now have a great economy war and multiple battles. If we sacrefice therefore a few defensive playstyles ist absolutly ok.
2. The Units
Terran: The cyclone is fun to play. Ist an innovative unit and makes mech more viable (i played mech in most SC 2 games). Im not sure about the Liberator. I need to test this unit more.
Zerg: Both Units are well designed. I dont understand why People complain about it.
Protoss: The idea of the Adept is nice, he needs some tweaking but ist a cool unit and fun to play. I dont like the distrupter so much because it overlaps with banelings a little bit. I think it would be better to get the reaver back from BW.
I like most of the unit design in SC 2 and especially in Lotv. In broodwar are many units that you wont use at all in multiplayer battles( Scout...Queens.....) but no one talks about that.
Also SC 2 is not dying. Ist smaller yes. But this has to do with our next generation. The most young people want to play easier games like Mobas. Dont blame SC2 as game for it. Playing Starcraft (BW or SC 2) is very hard and stressfull (i love it). But many People dont like it to have so much stress when they play games. It has nothing to do with SC2. It would be the same in BW (they are both Korean dominated). We have an E-Sport Scene. The Scene is small but the scene is constant and will grow when SC2 Lotv gets released. But it will not reach the level of Mobas. But this is not bad. SC2 will stay as competitive E-Sport title (but it will be Korean dominated as it was in BW, for me thats not such a big Problem because i like to play the game).
SC2 will stay very long after LotV is released until there will be the next competitive RTS (if there will ever be an another one). And i tell you one thing. The only good competitive RTS games are from Blizzard (BW, WC3,SC2). There was AoE 3 and supreme commander but they could not compete with the Blizzard titles especially not in E-Sport!!!!
Ist ridicoules how you talk about SC2 here. Since the game was released the most people on TL were shitstorming about it. Oh we have unlimited unit and building selection this destroys the game (hello we are not in the 90s anymore), gameplay in BW was better....The gameplay in SC 2 is different from BW and thats good. I like the style to play SC 2 more than BW. Most People here were shitstorming about the game because they expected BW 2.0. Im very happy that this was not the case. SC 2 is still fresh and new and the best RTS on the market.
All you can do here is complaining and whinig about LotV. You have no clue about good game design. Also Rotterdam Kevin van der Koy (SC 2 Caster) said that he hates how people talk about Blizzard when they try something new in LotV. The game is fun. Pro Gamers like the changes in LotV. Blizzard communicates with them and i hope that they will never intoduce double harvesting (this would destroy the good gameplay in LotV).
The most People here on TL will never be happy with SC2 because the only thing they want is BW. The community here makes me sad and angry. You never gave SC 2 a real chance. When i talk to People that play LotV in game i always hear that they like LotV.
I thank Dustin Browder and David Kim for this awesome game and their great work for Starcraft!!!
|
On June 12 2015 22:07 AlphaAeffchen wrote:
I thank Dustin Browder and David Kim for this awesome game and their great work for Starcraft!!!
Not worth a read then. Bowder gave us failed aspects as "high-speed battles" or "tactically splitting being a skill" (autoclumping) stating superior design.
|
@JCoto
Unit splitting in battle is skill... Also happend in BW against Lurkers and so on. And dont blame me for my opinion on the developpers of SC 2 pls read my post first.
|
On June 12 2015 22:19 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2015 22:07 AlphaAeffchen wrote:
I thank Dustin Browder and David Kim for this awesome game and their great work for Starcraft!!!
Not worth a read then. Bowder gave us failed aspects as "high-speed battles" or "tactically splitting being a skill" (autoclumping) stating superior design.
in terms of long term success as a competitive RTS ... the #1 non-Blizzard RTS game was made by Browder.
the guy is good.
you do not get hired as a Game Designer of 1 game...
and after 5 years get promoted to Vice President of Blizzard by being a lousy game designer.
Blizzard knows how to make games and they know how to hire people who are good game designers.. and they also know who to promote to Vice President.
sry guy, i'll take Mike Morhaime's judgement over your judgement every day and twice on sundays...
you want to take shots at a Vice President of Blizzard then expect return fire.
|
On June 12 2015 22:07 AlphaAeffchen wrote:
When i talk to People that play LotV in game i always hear that they like LotV
Clearly you havent talked to me. Also care to explain why dh would destroy the game when all indications points the opposite direction? I give LoTV 5 years (at most kept alive by constant patching) until either another RTS hits the market or the RTS scene dies for some time. If sc2 wouldnt have been called Starcraft it would have never been so big. It only lives by the name of its predecessor imo.
|
On June 12 2015 22:58 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
in terms of long term success as a competitive RTS ... the #1 non-Blizzard RTS game was made by Browder.
the guy is good.
you do not get hired as a Game Designer of 1 game...
and after 5 years get promoted to Vice President of Blizzard by being a lousy game designer.
Blizzard knows how to make games and they know how to hire people who are good game designers.. and they also know who to promote to Vice President.
sry guy, i'll take Mike Morhaime's judgement over your judgement every day and twice on sundays...
you want to take shots at a Vice President of Blizzard then expect return fire.
If they're so damn good, why do LOTV and SC2HOTS just plain suck? Why is Casualstone an unholy mess of RNG and P2W? Why is World of Warcraft a mindless, pointless grind of level treadmilling and looting? They have good business models, but as esports they are a joke. Sorry "guy," Activision Blizzard is good at making money but the only well-designed, competitive esport game they ever made was Brood War. Then in the quest for more money, they created SC2. They got our money, but do I see myself playing SC2 10 years later like I do with Brood War and Counter-Strike? Not likely.
|
the previous post with the guy polemicizing about WoW has taken this "discussion" into reductio ad absurdum territory and i've proven my point.
on another note,
On June 08 2015 10:48 captainwaffles wrote:
Secondly- In addition to more radical changes being tested we really need to strengthen the communication between the developers and the community, Psione- you're awesome mate but ultimately you're a middle man relaying messages. Blizzard please just talk to us and let us know whats going on as to why you're doing or not doing things. For example skins, design decisions etc. which brings me to my third point...
.....I'm making this post to convey what I know a lot of people in the community are feeling and to hopefully get blizzards attention.
here is the response to that
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/18132606976#1
if we're being promised smaller more frequent communication bursts then picking apart some Blizz employee for using a double negative in his comments is just polemics.
with less formal communication expect more grammar errors. i can easily tolerate a few grammar errors when the benefit is more frequent communication.
Blizzard's expansion packs are flat-out, end-of-story, no-doubt the best in the industry precisely because their feedback loop with its players is fantastic.
|
On June 12 2015 22:07 AlphaAeffchen wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Hi@ all,
this is my first post on TeamLiquid. Im 34 years old. I played BW and switched to SC 2. Im in Diamond. I played SC2 since the beginning. I think BW had his time, but you all have to realize that SC2 is not BW 2.0. The way Blizzard took was the right one! You cant just copy BW and say cool we have a new great RTS. It makes me really sad how the most people on TL think about SC 2 and especially about LotV.
1. The economy
I have a beta key and play Lotv all the time. The economy change is great! We dont need double harvesting. I know that you are forced to expand and this is the only way to play the game (except for rushes or all ins). You have to realize that this is the best way to play this game. You have more fights all over the map. Ist pure fun. You cry there is not so much diversity because we are getting punished when we not keep expanding. Diversity comes from the style how you play the game with the pressure to expand! This is the best way to play the game! It is fast and the deversity comes from the battles all over the map and how you react to it. The game itself doesnt get better, when you get more options to play the game. This is an Illusion. In LotV we now have a great economy war and multiple battles. If we sacrefice therefore a few defensive playstyles ist absolutly ok.
2. The Units
Terran: The cyclone is fun to play. Ist an innovative unit and makes mech more viable (i played mech in most SC 2 games). Im not sure about the Liberator. I need to test this unit more.
Zerg: Both Units are well designed. I dont understand why People complain about it.
Protoss: The idea of the Adept is nice, he needs some tweaking but ist a cool unit and fun to play. I dont like the distrupter so much because it overlaps with banelings a little bit. I think it would be better to get the reaver back from BW.
I like most of the unit design in SC 2 and especially in Lotv. In broodwar are many units that you wont use at all in multiplayer battles( Scout...Queens.....) but no one talks about that.
Also SC 2 is not dying. Ist smaller yes. But this has to do with our next generation. The most young people want to play easier games like Mobas. Dont blame SC2 as game for it. Playing Starcraft (BW or SC 2) is very hard and stressfull (i love it). But many People dont like it to have so much stress when they play games. It has nothing to do with SC2. It would be the same in BW (they are both Korean dominated). We have an E-Sport Scene. The Scene is small but the scene is constant and will grow when SC2 Lotv gets released. But it will not reach the level of Mobas. But this is not bad. SC2 will stay as competitive E-Sport title (but it will be Korean dominated as it was in BW, for me thats not such a big Problem because i like to play the game).
SC2 will stay very long after LotV is released until there will be the next competitive RTS (if there will ever be an another one). And i tell you one thing. The only good competitive RTS games are from Blizzard (BW, WC3,SC2). There was AoE 3 and supreme commander but they could not compete with the Blizzard titles especially not in E-Sport!!!!
Ist ridicoules how you talk about SC2 here. Since the game was released the most people on TL were shitstorming about it. Oh we have unlimited unit and building selection this destroys the game (hello we are not in the 90s anymore), gameplay in BW was better....The gameplay in SC 2 is different from BW and thats good. I like the style to play SC 2 more than BW. Most People here were shitstorming about the game because they expected BW 2.0. Im very happy that this was not the case. SC 2 is still fresh and new and the best RTS on the market.
All you can do here is complaining and whinig about LotV. You have no clue about good game design. Also Rotterdam Kevin van der Koy (SC 2 Caster) said that he hates how people talk about Blizzard when they try something new in LotV. The game is fun. Pro Gamers like the changes in LotV. Blizzard communicates with them and i hope that they will never intoduce double harvesting (this would destroy the good gameplay in LotV).
The most People here on TL will never be happy with SC2 because the only thing they want is BW. The community here makes me sad and angry. You never gave SC 2 a real chance. When i talk to People that play LotV in game i always hear that they like LotV.
I thank Dustin Browder and David Kim for this awesome game and their great work for Starcraft!!!
I agree with a lot of what you said... because they are good points, not just because I'm also 34 and played BW
Hopefully the new commitment from Blizzard to communicate better will help morale around here. I especially agree that it's important to recognize that although the devs aren't perfect, they are putting in a lot of effort on our behalf.
Welcome to TL!
|
I haven't had beta for a long time, but so far LoTV is super fun, to the point that I have arguments with my wife who wants me to play 2v2 HoTS (teamgames not available in LoTV beta yet) but I would rather play LoTV. Also the rest of SC2 has been absolutely marvelous for me for the last couple of years, it's really one of the greatest things in my life.
Honesly, the only thing I dislike about SC2 and it's developement is that those big changes are so few and far between, I would gladly pay $60 every year to get a new expansion with slightly different something because it's just so much fun to try new things. Buy I guess that everyone would just start whining about how expensive that is ...
And one more thing - I have said it several times and stand by it: I am glad that Blizzard "is not listening to the community enough". For one, there is no one "community", everynoe lives in his own bubble and what people on TL want is very different from what people want on B.net. Yes, you guys would mostly like them to listen to TL community, but that's absolutely not what I would like, I don't want the game to take any one single step towards more mechanical difficulty.
|
mini expansions, skins, adding new missions to single player every now and then and a better and more social interface would all be nice. but i don't think any of that is going to happen
|
On June 08 2015 13:09 covetousrat wrote:Theyre too busy doing thisIm not joking. This is seriously what I think. Too busy on Hearthstone and Heroes of the storm while spending 10 minutes a day on LOTV. LOTV looks totally disappointing with all those new units and gameplay. I don get any WOW effect except maybe Lurker.
Blizzard has a different team per game. Hearthstone is team 5 (which was created for that purpose.) I believe SC2 is developed by team 1.
|
On June 23 2015 10:08 EleanorRIgby wrote:mini expansions, skins, adding new missions to single player every now and then and a better and more social interface would all be nice. but i don't think any of that is going to happen
Skins don't add to the gameplay. Mini expansions look like paid DLC, do we really want that? How to add new missions which stand up to the epic campaign experience? The social interface is already different in Lotv (comparable to Heroes of the Storm.)
All those things you mention rather look like promises of a company who is not used to ship complete games. A complete game does not need new missions added later, because the story has already been told in the game.
|
On June 08 2015 10:48 captainwaffles wrote:
First- More drastic changes need to be tested especially for a prolonged beta. Like most everyone else I was estatic about the new economy changes they unveiled at blizzcon, 12 workers to skip the boring first 3 mins of a game? Bases that mined out faster? Awesome! But upon further digging the econ changes were pretty hollow, its just less resources per base so you mine out faster. the "3 base cap" is still a thing.
Which is perhaps intended to keep the game accessible.
What the DH solution proposes is something closer to something many players already know. I perceive this as a general issue of community feedback: Users usually want the things which they already know.
If I would be an SC2 developer, I would aim to create something which is a bit different.
I mostly share your opinion regarding the new units, but I have friends which are eager to play with the new units in question. Possibly this is a strength of SC2, providing different toys so anyone can find its favourite unit and dislike others with a passion.
I don't really see a reason why Blizzard should be so much more open to the community. The map editor allows the community to take matters in their own hands.
|
On June 23 2015 18:27 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 10:08 EleanorRIgby wrote:mini expansions, skins, adding new missions to single player every now and then and a better and more social interface would all be nice. but i don't think any of that is going to happen Skins don't add to the gameplay. Mini expansions look like paid DLC, do we really want that? How to add new missions which stand up to the epic campaign experience? The social interface is already different in Lotv (comparable to Heroes of the Storm.) All those things you mention rather look like promises of a company who is not used to ship complete games. A complete game does not need new missions added later, because the story has already been told in the game.
yea but those things will get more casuals playing and will help the declining playerbase of sc2
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
