| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Ketch
Netherlands7285 Posts
On June 18 2015 06:24 purakushi wrote: DK: http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/3a6lcy/what_if_siege_tanks_can_get_picked_up_by_medivacs/cs9yd56 Psione: http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/3a7jfm/psione_offers_some_feedback_on_the_lotv_chat/ This is great! | ||
|
fruity.
England1711 Posts
Yeah. Thanks for highlighting this. | ||
|
Survivor61316
United States470 Posts
On June 18 2015 05:18 Pseudorandom wrote: I'm outraged! I really don't expect Blizzard to do much that will bring me back to SC2. Been playing Starbow for a few days, and am amazing. So far I feel like I have much more unit control, and that my position is important. Goodbye Blizzard, hello arcade devs. This. I hope starbow takes over soon, its a much better game imo. The economy is leagues ahead of LotV or HotS | ||
|
Survivor61316
United States470 Posts
On June 18 2015 05:18 Grumbels wrote: All these recent apologetic Blizzard posts put me in mind of the old "evil or incompetent?" game you can play with virtually any politician. I can never tell with Blizzard, but my guess is that David Kim at least is a true believer. So just a suggestion to him: if you've created a new unit that you're not really sure about and then you publish it anyway and ask for community feedback, later revisiting the unit based on feedback that rings true to you, -- that's not the same as "listening to the community" and you don't deserve any accolades for this very basic act of utilizing resources which are available to you. It's not comparable to the nearly complete dismissal of the DH and depth of micro articles or the protoss redesign requests. Also this. Re-tweaking a unit that one one really wants, just so that it is a bad unit instead of completely trash, is not listening to the community. Listening to the community should come before design changes are made, not after to gather feedback from those changes. | ||
|
Survivor61316
United States470 Posts
On June 18 2015 06:06 ObamaToss wrote: Jesus the sense of entitlement among some of the SC2 community is unbelievable. Compare LOTV's development to many other games. A publically traded company is delaying the release of the game for a year+ while letting players play for free(I realize the open beta is a ways off, but still). They're being incredibly transparent about their thought process and taking a ton of feedback into account. I don't have beta but LotV already looks like a great, fun, exciting game to watch and play. 90% of other companies would have released a half baked game after a 1 month beta with a day 0 patch plus withhold 25% of the content for a paid DLC pack. I for one really appreciate the way bliz handling LotV. They are not delaying the release at all, the beta was always planned, and thus the actual planned release date of the game has not moved at all. I don't know where you get the idea of them being transparent at; after months of the community wondering if they even took a look at the DH method, they finally give us a few sentences saying "oh yeah we tried that internally, we didn't like it, we're not going to use it," doesn't strike me as being very transparent. Simple market place economics seem to disagree with you on the game looking fun and being exciting to watch.. As of writing this there are 0 streamers streaming the game right now on the featured streams, and it is the 54th most watched game on twitch. HoTs is the 7th. And this is hardly a unique case, I hardly ever see the game pulling in large audiences, which is very different from when the HoTs beta went live a few years ago. And 90% of other companies could get away with that, which is why they do it. Blizzard will have a hard enough time earning the same amount of money off this game as the last two; there is no way any type of DLC would be viable, especially given the current climate in gaming being vocally anti-DLC (though rts games aren't really conducive to DLC anyways; but the economic point is still valid). | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On June 19 2015 00:50 ZenithM wrote: There are 2 main things that LotV's system does and that DH does not: 1) it inherently creates conflict 2) it shifts the locations of interest on the map at a fast pace My first point is more of a matter of taste: I'd like something that forces me to always hunger for my next base and forces me to fight over it all over the map at a quick pace. DH doesn't do that. In the end, it's "nice" for the expanding player to expand, not vital, and as the turtling player, it's "alright" that the other player has more bases, not fatal. It's half-assed. I believe my second point is very strong. Starcaft 2's combat is not so interesting that you can just rely on the same battles being played out the same way on the same locations of the same maps constantly. It becomes very stale after a while, and most of the map remains unused as far as combat goes, with only a handful of "crazy games" running long enough that you indeed fight over rare expands. DH is a smart model that scales nicely and all, should probably be considered when paired with the LotV minerals, but in the end it's just too much like HotS in that it's too stable: race X will take the same 3 bases, race Y will take the same 5 (or 6-7, doesn't change anything) bases, and there you have it, the game will play out from there for 30 minutes, with Y trying to attack X's second base because it's the obviously easier spot to attack. It's only logical, if bases don't deplete, the same one will always be targeted, so you'll always see the same combat situations. Why would you attack anywhere else than the best spot to attack (which doesn't change, because the base remains there for a long time)? Thanks for the response. 1) Well winning the game requires conflict, so any game in which you compete against someone else creates conflict. So the question is does the game require more conflict? And if so what is the best way to create it without forcing it? Because it could be a choice that is reinforced, not a punishment. Let's go back to the days where there was conflict, a lot of conflict. What was the difference in WOL in 2011 to HOTS today? Well, Protoss didn't have the MSC with the press F and click on Nexus to hold timings and scout. Protoss also could warp in units on the high ground. Terran didn't have Widow Mines and early game Reapers (prior to Tech Lab). Zerg couldn't built Spores without an Evo Chamber... ect... Also maps were a lot smaller. So conflict came naturally, less defensive abilities and smaller maps made for that. You could choose to play macro or all-in back then. Both styles were equally valid, though macro styles had a slight edge. That strategic variety raises the skill ceiling. And while there were some overpowered all-ins, in general if you lost early because you didn't build units it was because you were greedy. But Blizzard overnerfed early game aggression for a number of bad reason, and now they just want to try and skip the early game because they made it boring since attacking is pointless. And to create conflict and reduce the defenders advantage later in the game, they've made expanding sooner a requirement. And that is what the LOTV economy does. But we've already seen the better system, back in 2011. 2) In order to shift locations of interest, positional play needs to be restored. That is the natural way to shift locations of interest. It might be fast, or it might be slow. There is variety again raising the skill ceiling and keeping the game interesting, rather than the forced shift that is repetitive. Take PvT. Bio is so much more mobile that anything Protoss can field that is viable that either Protoss is moving across the map to engage the Terran sitting in Bunkers, or Terran is dropping. It is difficult for Terran to take fight in the field versus late game Protoss, and difficult for Protoss to move out until they are totally secure. So as you rightly point out the locations of interest are limited to bases. But if Siege Tanks were stronger, that would change. The positional game could be played. Just think of a game of TvT with Tank vs Tank that you watched. Think about how the locations of interest naturally changed. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9362 Posts
In order to shift locations of interest, positional play needs to be restored. T I think that LOTV economy doesn't in itself remove positional play. But rather its important to understand that unit design and balance must be based around the economy. I think the combination of the 3 following elements could make work an awesome experience: (1) Strong positional units (2) "Interesting" tools to break a defensive turtling player over time (3) A spread out economy LOTV does the latter well, but especially lacks the former. It seems as if David Kim and his team thinks that postional units always will result in stale/lame gameplay while in reality it can be interesting if the enemy has tools to slowly break a defensive player as was the case in BW TvZ. | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
On June 21 2015 21:36 Hider wrote: I think that LOTV economy doesn't in itself remove positional play. But rather its important to understand that unit design and balance must be based around the economy. I think the combination of the 3 following elements could make work an awesome experience: (1) Strong positional units (2) "Interesting" tools to break a defensive turtling player over time (3) A spread out economy LOTV does the latter well, but especially lacks the former. It seems as if David Kim and his team thinks that postional units always will result in stale/lame gameplay while in reality it can be interesting if the enemy has tools to slowly break a defensive player as was the case in BW TvZ. In fairness to David Kim--when they buffed the infestor and queen to increase defensive capabilities Broodfestor happened and there's probably a small sign in his office telling him that he is never allowed to make that happen again. I'd be gun shy too. But your list is sound--I think that's the same things all games needs (SFIV was a massive improvement to the older Street Fighter games because they followed those rules for example) | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On June 21 2015 21:36 Hider wrote: I think that LOTV economy doesn't in itself remove positional play. But rather its important to understand that unit design and balance must be based around the economy. I think the combination of the 3 following elements could make work an awesome experience: (1) Strong positional units (2) "Interesting" tools to break a defensive turtling player over time (3) A spread out economy LOTV does the latter well, but especially lacks the former. It seems as if David Kim and his team thinks that postional units always will result in stale/lame gameplay while in reality it can be interesting if the enemy has tools to slowly break a defensive player as was the case in BW TvZ. Well I wasn't saying that LOTV removes positional play. But playstyle has always been second to the mobile harass and deathball styles of SC2 since release pretty much, in every matchup by TvT, with one exception: Swarm Hosts. But just like you can design a poorly thought out mobile unit (the Warhound) or harassment unit (the Oracle with it's mineral shield) you can design a poorly though out positional unit, and that is just what the Swarm Host was. Locusts had such long range that options for counter play were limited, and a good player could mitigate the damage they did significantly, leading to attrition fests. | ||
|
BartCraft
Netherlands45 Posts
Now in every thread about lotv we have this discussion. In my opinion it brings a lot of negativity in every thread because the most comments are in the line of eco lotv sucks do it my way etc... This thread goes about the feedback blizzard gave about 6 topics, ONE topic was about eco and here we have 9 pages about the eco :O, Please!! | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On June 23 2015 11:20 BartCraft wrote: I'm getting so bored about the eco discussion, would it be possible to have this discussion in one thread? Now in every thread about lotv we have this discussion. In my opinion it brings a lot of negativity in every thread because the most comments are in the line of eco lotv sucks do it my way etc... This thread goes about the feedback blizzard gave about 6 topics, ONE topic was about eco and here we have 9 pages about the eco :O, Please!! You're right, but complaining about everyone taking about economy is in a way also talking about economy and not really helping.  What do you think of the other five topics? | ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
On June 23 2015 11:20 BartCraft wrote: I'm getting so bored about the eco discussion, would it be possible to have this discussion in one thread? Now in every thread about lotv we have this discussion. In my opinion it brings a lot of negativity in every thread because the most comments are in the line of eco lotv sucks do it my way etc... This thread goes about the feedback blizzard gave about 6 topics, ONE topic was about eco and here we have 9 pages about the eco :O, Please!! It couldn't possibly be because the economy is the most important aspect of an economy based RTS... | ||
|
BartCraft
Netherlands45 Posts
Cascade Australia. June 23 2015 05:24. Posts 3339 Gift TL+ PM Profile Blog Quote # You're right, but complaining about everyone taking about economy is in a way also talking about economy and not really helping. What do you think of the other five topics? I'm really happy that blizzard finally gave some decent feedback on a lot of topics instead of the normal 'we are taking all the suggestions serious and are discussing it internally.' These couple of day blizzard gave some real feedback on why they decide things and how they are approaching the game. I think that is a really positive direction. Especially about the pro chat. I think the pro's are really capable of giving useful feedback. Hopefully Blizzard does it right this time. KrazyTrumpet United States. June 23 2015 06:53. Posts 2451 Gift TL+ PM Profile Quote # It couldn't possibly be because the economy is the most important aspect of an economy based RTS... I'm not complaining about the importance of the eco in a rts. I'm complaining about the fact that the eco discussion is being held in every thread about lotv over and over again by mostly the same people. I think it would be better to hold the eco discussion as much as possible in one thread. | ||
|
whetherbye
6 Posts
On June 18 2015 07:54 Umpteen wrote: Yep, I'm done. TL introduced me to esports back when SC2 was announced, and I've loved it ever since. I wouldn't presume to call it home, more like the home of friends made late in life, where I felt privileged to be welcome. I've witnessed amazing moments of individual brilliance on this screen, always with TL in the background. I've cursed imbalance, and cheered it. I've waxed... well, mostly just waxed, on various topics, ideas and suggestions. Sorry about that. I no longer feel I belong. Or maybe I no longer feel there's something to belong to. I come here every day and every day it's just more shit being poured on the people trying to keep - no, treat this game like it's something worth caring about. And every olive branch Blizzard offers is just so much toilet roll. Fuck you if you think SC2 has been a catalogue of design errors. I didn't stay up 'till 3am on work nights to watch design errors. I didn't go to bars and go apeshit over design errors, I went apeshit because Bomber didn't disappoint, or because Life found a way. The game is fucking amazing. It's like Rachmaninoff was handed a machine gun instead of a piano. So, Mr(s) Moderator: a permanent ban, if you would be so kind, boss. It's been a pleasure. I sincerely wish you the best of luck. User was banned for this post. There are so many people spewing poison on anything SC related without saying those magic 'F' words, and the person who stands out against that gets banned. That's the problem with society these days. I've seen this so many places - person A does something wrong quietly, person B stands up against it vocally, society blames person B, because they don't want to deal with the fact that people, like person A, do bad things. Of course, saying this will probably get a ban too. I remember now why I stopped visiting this site, not that it matters. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On June 24 2015 21:56 whetherbye wrote: There are so many people spewing poison on anything SC related without saying those magic 'F' words, and the person who stands out against that gets banned. That's the problem with society these days. I've seen this so many places - person A does something wrong quietly, person B stands up against it vocally, society blames person B, because they don't want to deal with the fact that people, like person A, do bad things. Of course, saying this will probably get a ban too. I remember now why I stopped visiting this site, not that it matters. This is hilarious. :D if you had read the post to the end, you'd see he asked for a ban. They certainly don't ban for a swear. Coincidentally, they also have a no-martyr policy, meaning that if you say "I'll probably get banned for this" they'll ban you, no matter what you say otherwise. So well. If you do a fast edit, you may be spared. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On June 24 2015 22:05 Cascade wrote: This is hilarious. :D if you had read the post to the end, you'd see he asked for a ban. They certainly don't ban for a swear. Coincidentally, they also have a no-martyr policy, meaning that if you say "I'll probably get banned for this" they'll ban you, no matter what you say otherwise. So well. If you do a fast edit, you may be spared. It's a stupid rule in my opinion. martyr |ˈmärtər| noun a person who is killed because of their religious or other beliefs: saints, martyrs, and witnesses to the faith. • a person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration: she wanted to play the martyr. • (martyr to) a constant sufferer from (an ailment): I'm a martyr to migraines! One could make a case for many of the whiners in any given forum, that they are also martyrs. In general it's too subjective for a ban, in my opinion. PS. you guys should check this out. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/488506-mod-economy-hot-mineral-harvesting | ||
|
sCuMBaG
United Kingdom1144 Posts
I was genuinely hoping something was going to happen to get not only my interest back, but also of my teammates (with whom I've been playing ever since SC:BW). It hasn't happened. One of the problems was, that (and this is not Blizzard related) there were no teamleagues or clanwars that I know of (except maybe some ESL stuff). The whole community seemed to have been centered around playing only 1v1 tournaments. Everyone just got bored. The whole game was just about 1v1 laddering -.- A big blizzard problem is imo that they haven't implemented anything of the above into the engine. I mean come on guys. WC3 had an in-built tournament system and you are unable to do this for SC2 after releasing 2 games. Also there is a half-assed Clansystem, which doesn't really allow you to play other teams either. what's the point then? Just my 2 cents. Back to Dota now. | ||
|
TMagpie
265 Posts
And for the most part, websites like Teamliquid simply made them feel like awful people. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Road to EWC
Replay Cast
SC Evo League
Road to EWC
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Soulkey
Road to EWC
Wardi Open
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
