| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Hider
Denmark9448 Posts
Ghost changes are bad: speed increase will make them faster than unstimmed bio compositions and thus run ahead of them. Stim would be a much better change because they would mirror the rest of the bio behaviour and it would be easier on the hotkeys and army management. This is my thought proces too. Giving it stim makes the unit 100% more simple to use (which is good). | ||
Teoita
Italy12248 Posts
On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27s Although I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote: Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. How did that argument go? Was it the IP thing? | ||
|
SetGuitarsToKill
Canada28396 Posts
On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote: Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. It's fucking embarrassing that they won't even listen to the pros. Why bother even setting up a Skype chat if your going to ignore everything they say? I get that some pros might be biased, but there's no way that they don't come up with some really good ideas | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
The game looks very good already. Even though we still have largely the units we are used to, the game feels different, if only for the fast game start. I have to almost immediately make my tech choices. The change to real time is a welcome change, thank you JakAtak for pushing for this. | ||
|
AxiomBlurr
786 Posts
Atm LotV is a vomit on a Sydney sidewalk on Sunday morning after a Saturday night over self indulgence. And was I the only one that detected a ' angry defensive tone of voice' in the balance update? "First - there is a common misconception..blah blah" "Blah Blah - what we are saying is..." = " get it through your fucking skulls SC2 Community - we Run this motherfucker - We are not locked in here with you, You are locked in here with us!!!!"As if the outcry from the community regarding the stupidity of LotV is being resented by Blizz? These latest changes are baffling to say the least. I have the invite like many of you but I for one am not playing until they go further back down the chain of mistakes they have made and fix them at their root. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote: Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions. | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12248 Posts
On June 13 2015 20:01 [F_]aths wrote: I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions. Most of them, sure, but something like this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/433944-depth-of-micro ? That's just not justifiable. The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period. Also, there's more to it than just "they dont listen to our suggestions". It is actually impossible to have anything remotely resembling a dialogue with them. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9448 Posts
On June 13 2015 20:01 [F_]aths wrote: I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions. There is a huge difference here in the relevancy of community suggestions since consumers spend hours and hours on the product and has access to the same level of information and should have the same goals (better gameplay/design) as the developers. That's not to say that 99% of suggestions aren't bad, but what about the 1%? | ||
|
Meerel
Germany713 Posts
| ||
|
Ingvar
Russian Federation421 Posts
On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote: Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. Um, what about Individual Overlord Transport Upgrades? | ||
|
ilovegroov
357 Posts
| ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On June 13 2015 20:11 Teoita wrote: Most of them, sure, but something like this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/433944-depth-of-micro ? That's just not justifiable. The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period. Also, there's more to it than just "they dont listen to our suggestions". It is actually impossible to have anything remotely resembling a dialogue with them. "The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period." Do you know that (in a provable sense) or do you just feel so? If I read Lalush's article, I would agree with you; but I am no game developer nor have I years of experience in developing SC2. On June 13 2015 20:14 Hider wrote: There is a huge difference here in the relevancy of community suggestions since consumers spend hours and hours on the product and has access to the same level of information and should have the same goals (better gameplay/design) as the developers. That's not to say that 99% of suggestions aren't bad, but what about the 1%? Our users also spend endless hours on your application. We also get valuable feedback, pointing out the weaknesses of our user interface, allowing us to fix things in future releases. We also implement features based on demand. But we almost never take a suggestion and implement it 1:1. Instead we very carefully consider how to serve our >100.000 users best. Every line code written for one feature is missing on another one. But back to the topic. Blizzard did change things after community feedback, take the unit scan range and the real-time clock. "Better design" is empty without providing a concrete design. That is also what Nathanias' rant was missing. "Just" better design? How to do that without recreating the entire game from the ground-up? | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9448 Posts
Our users also spend endless hours on your application. We also get valuable feedback, pointing out the weaknesses of our user interface, allowing us to fix things in future releases. We also implement features based on demand. But we almost never take a suggestion and implement it 1:1. Instead we very carefully consider how to serve our >100.000 users best. Sure, but this isn't about implementing anything 1:1. But rather take a concept from a community suggestion (like 0 damage point) and find a way to put it into the game. Or at least they could give responses to those who spend a lot of time trying to make indepth/wellthoughtout feedback in order to constructive behavior (and thereby deincentivize rants). Blizzard did change things after community feedback, take the unit scan range and the real-time clock. Honestly, those things barely matter. Instead the below are some more relevant issues they should be expanding on: Why they don't want the epic late game styles from BW to be viable where you through a significant defenders advantage could defend multiple locations at once? What research/analysis/testing have they performed here in order to assess whether this type of gameplay cannot work at all in the Sc2-model? Why they want micro to be about mass spamming abilities instead of unit movement? Why all units must have a 0.16 damage point despite it making micro less rewarded (?) Why do they think the infinitive kiting/hardcounter approach of the Cyclone is good design when almost noone enjoys using the unit? Why do they want protoss to rely on the Msc for mobility (recall) and defenderes advantage (photon overcharge) that everyone hates? Why aren't they experiementing with giving protoss an actual stronger and more reliable core army along with a different defenders advantage? Why did they choose to make the Ultralisk better when amoved instead of making it more microable through a lower model size and faster offcreep movement speed? Why do they enjoy hardcounter interactions so much? (like cyclone owning all ranged ground unts but losing to air units, and Ultralisk > bio) Why is Forcefields still in the game. It's a very unforgiving mechanic to use and thus make it harder for casuals, and competitive players hate it as well. Do they really think the new Ravager ability will make Forcefields fun as zerg? Why isn't the Colossus redesigned instead of nerfed? Why do want the early game to be more coinflippy by reversing ebay-requirement on turret. Do they have any evidence that the target group think this will lead to more fun gameplay? | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12248 Posts
On June 13 2015 20:47 [F_]aths wrote: "The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period." Do you know that (in a provable sense) or do you just feel so? If I read Lalush's article, I would agree with you; but I am no game developer nor have I years of experience in developing SC2. Our users also spend endless hours on your application. We also get valuable feedback, pointing out the weaknesses of our user interface, allowing us to fix things in future releases. We also implement features based on demand. But we almost never take a suggestion and implement it 1:1. Instead we very carefully consider how to serve our >100.000 users best. Every line code written for one feature is missing on another one. But back to the topic. Blizzard did change things after community feedback, take the unit scan range and the real-time clock. "Better design" is empty without providing a concrete design. That is also what Nathanias' rant was missing. "Just" better design? How to do that without recreating the entire game from the ground-up? The only comparison we have (to my knowledge) is BW, which just so happens to be the best game of all time in no small part because of that kind of unit control. It's a really small sample size but yes, i'd say confidently that if basic units were more microable without adding a ton of extra buttons to click for the sake of micro, the game would feel and play better. | ||
|
insitelol
845 Posts
| ||
|
CptMarvel
France236 Posts
I've stopped playing Starcraft (2, of course, BW is still pure awesomeness), I still want LotV to be good but let's face it folks, the team in charge is not only incompetent, it's also stubborn, hardly creative and frankly a little stupid. edit : In fact, having taken another look at LaLuSh's article and having remembered its countless quality peers that have been completely IGNORED by the design team I'm gonna have to add something a tad less diplomatic : piss off Blizzard, you passionless disrespectful money-driven turds. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Cheeseling
Ukraine132 Posts
Ghosts would gain a new ability that spawns a flying drone on an enemy target. That drone would channel a beam at the enemy unit, reducing its Armor by 3. Don't do drugs kids... Apparently "Double Harvest" still too crazy ;P | ||
|
plotspot
800 Posts
| ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
Ravager No Longer Has the Armored Flag Ravager is looking too fragile now, so we wanted to buff its survivability. wtf thats all the Viking would have needed to be good on the ground. >.> thats so unfair | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
OSC
IntoTheTV X SOOP
Reynor vs Solar
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs MaxPax
herO vs Rogue
WardiTV Invitational
IPSL
WorsT vs nOmaD
Dewalt vs andersOn
AI Arena Tournament
IntoTheTV X SOOP
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
