|
On June 18 2015 19:52 gkts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 17:18 HomeWorld wrote:On June 18 2015 16:50 gkts wrote:On June 18 2015 03:24 Charoisaur wrote:We split mech upgrades based on feedback that “Terran can almost never go bio in Void.” I've never heard so much stupidity. So the solution to encourage players to go bio is making mech even worse so nothing else than bio is viable. brilliant! What the fuck is wrong with you? Finally the community gets a response and the first reply in the thread on TL is an insult. So is the third. No wonder Blizz replies only on reddit and their own forums if they just get bullshitted on TL. Wait , what? Pointing out something that really doesn't make any sense at all, is now an insult? You can say that without insults, you know? Manners and such? It's also somewhere written on this site that you are supposed to act politely.
When you've been saying the same things for literally five years (I bolded this so you would take a moment to contemplate how long a time five years is), politeness can become a prized and rare commodity.
Here's my Blizzard impression, let me know how accurate it is:
"What?! "The Colossus is a terrible unit"?! My good God, why didn't anyone say something sooner?! Why, this whole time, we thought you guys loved those things! We always thought they were awful. Boy, is this awkward..."
On a more constructive note:
On June 18 2015 19:42 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 19:17 ShambhalaWar wrote:On June 18 2015 17:18 HomeWorld wrote:On June 18 2015 16:50 gkts wrote:On June 18 2015 03:24 Charoisaur wrote:We split mech upgrades based on feedback that “Terran can almost never go bio in Void.” I've never heard so much stupidity. So the solution to encourage players to go bio is making mech even worse so nothing else than bio is viable. brilliant! What the fuck is wrong with you? Finally the community gets a response and the first reply in the thread on TL is an insult. So is the third. No wonder Blizz replies only on reddit and their own forums if they just get bullshitted on TL. Wait , what? Pointing out something that really doesn't make any sense at all, is now an insult? The think he means calling the dev team stupid and leveling sarcasm at them. I would agree that the response from blizzard in this thread is a positive response and really something that the community wants (more open clear communication between all parties), and I find it kind of disgusting that many people respond with the same negative rhetoric that has plagued every balance thread as of late.Thank goodness people are speaking out against it and in support of Blizzard. As a community we really do need to check ourselves, especially in the general attitude toward the game and updates. I've had my share of trolling, and probably some bm, but the shit that's been going on is over the top. * It does NOTHING to help make LOTV a better game. If anything it discourages communication and becomes a droning mantra of tantrum. We are entitled to NOTHING. If you really want someone to listen to you, speak with some reasoning and calm. Constructive criticism and conversation are much more effective. I get the argument that we have to yell so they will hear us, we have to make them listen, etc... It just hasn't been working, so maybe we should try a different approach. The best diplomatic approach I have seen so far was TL's articles on DH model, and submitting those to Blizzard. All the effort and dedication to explaining that idea to blizzard on behalf of TL I applaud. I had really hoped they would consider that model more, and even run a test of it in the beta. I think that model did plenty! Watching a zerg play against a turtle mech, the zerg gained quite the advantage from over expanding during the turtle period, which then puts a timer on turtle play (which is great in my opinion, there should be a down side to it, it forces expansion from both players and rewards it at the same time. The current model just forces expansion if I understand it correctly). The second best suggestion I have seen is my own submission to blizzard for different model of the Liberator. This model does away with the current clunky design, and I think most will agree it brings out the true spirit of the unit. + Show Spoiler + I know you are joking, but I think it points to a big part of the problem, which is that everyone think they have great ideas that will instantly solve sc2, making it the BEST. GAME. EVER. Blizzard doesn't take up on any of those ideas (or very few), so everyone agrees that Blizzard is stupid and doesn't listen to the community, while the only thing the community actually agree on are things that don't work, very rarely what should actually be done. The few constructive suggestions that do get backed by a large fraction of the community are in general considered by Blizzard I think. They definitely thought about double harvest for example, and I don't think we can ask for more than that. And maybe we should give a bit more credit to the professional game developers that work full time on this, than to a bunch of posters that read a suggestion during 10 minutes and make up their mind about how great and flawless this idea is. Ten thousand ants can't be wrong right? So the ideas that get backed by the community are mostly ideas that sound good at a first glance, or ideas that are just presented well, or even presented by popular community entities, not necessarily the more subtle ideas that will actually work out in practice.
It's not about "doing the one thing the entire community wants." (Maybe it is in the case of making siege mech viable, and reworking Protoss, but that's about it.) It's about proving to us that they genuinely give a shit, and are doing everything in their power to make this expansion as fun as possible. It's about using the beta to experiment and try different things in the hope that some of them will resonate with the community and turn out to be great ideas.
Why haven't they tried to experiment with any late-game upgrades for Reapers, to make them useful past the scouting stage of the game? Why haven't they tried to experiment with fun new abilities on the Ghost to make it viable in TvT and TvZ, and more than a one-trick pony in TvP? Why haven't they experimented with new abilities on the Raven, for instance to have it function as the mech-Medivac equivalent, an air support caster for a specific playstyle?
Why haven't they tried to rework the MSC to make defending a Protoss base more interesting and challenging than clicking two buttons? Why haven't they experimented with decreasing Protoss's reliance on Forcefields? Why haven't they experimented with different implementations of Warp-In? I could go on, and on, and on, and on.
Experimenting behind closed doors during a beta is dumb, because Blizzard has proven time and again that they do NOT always understand what is best for the game (Colossus, Shredder, Replicator, Warhound, MSC, Swarm Hosts), and that the community really can play a useful role in piecing the design puzzle together over time. We don't know which things they've legitimately tried to experiment with or which ones they couldn't be arsed to even try. We don't know if we would agree with them that the experiment was a failure and was correctly never brought into the beta. We don't know how much effort they're putting into experimenting to make LOTV as good, and deep, and exciting a game as it can be.
All we have is DK saying "don't worry we're doing everything we can, and we're splitting mech and air upgrades so that Bio is used more against Ultralisks which we buffed to make Bio not work in TvZ." It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
|
"What we're shocked to hear you don't like the game now". well this is awkward.
|
Italy12246 Posts
The way Blizzard has handled this beta has been such a major disappointment 
|
I was all hype reading the part about the pro player chat until they said it didn't work because there wasn't enough devs in the chat -_-
|
On June 18 2015 22:41 ZackAttack wrote:
I was all hype reading the part about the pro player chat until they said it didn't work because there wasn't enough devs in the chat -_-
And did you stop reading before the part where they said they're going to do precisely that, putting actual devs in direct contact with the pros?
|
The community is infuriatingly obnoxious. I think they're handling the feedback pretty well, considering it has mostly been of abysmal quality. If I find it bad even on TL, I shudder at the thought of what's going on over there on the official Battle.net forums...
|
On June 18 2015 22:41 ZackAttack wrote:
I was all hype reading the part about the pro player chat until they said it didn't work because there wasn't enough devs in the chat -_-
I read it that way too the first time, but after re-reading, I think they meant:
"Since we're talking about the chat system: some players want to be able to message devs when they have issues with the game. Alas, if we were to implement this system, we'd be paying our devs to chat for a part of their time instead of coding, Therefore development would slow down and it will be more expensive."
|
Experimenting behind closed doors during a beta is dumb, because Blizzard has proven time and again that they do NOT always understand what is best for the game
I think this is an important quote. Gainining the benefit of the doubt isn't something that comes to free. You need to have a concistent trackrecord of being right before we can trust that Blizzard knows better than the community. But Blizzard has prooved over and over that they have a huge tendency to implement huge design errors.
|
On June 18 2015 20:09 pure.Wasted wrote:
Experimenting behind closed doors during a beta is dumb, because Blizzard has proven time and again that they do NOT always understand what is best for the game (Colossus, Shredder, Replicator, Warhound, MSC, Swarm Hosts), and that the community really can play a useful role in piecing the design puzzle together over time.
Rob Pardo fundamentally disagrees with this. He believes in getting the community to test at much later stages of development. Check his resume out some time. We do not know why Blizzard is abandoning Pardo's philosophy. One thing is for damn sure: it works.
as far as crucifying Blizzard for its past mistakes, i fundamentally disagree with this. the creative process requires room for error. I judge them on their final product relative to what other companies can make. its all that matters. i'm happy with Blizzard's RTS games. All of them.
On June 18 2015 20:09 pure.Wasted wrote:
We don't know which things they've legitimately tried to experiment with or which ones they couldn't be arsed to even try. We don't know if we would agree with them that the experiment was a failure and was correctly never brought into the beta. We don't know how much effort they're putting into experimenting to make LOTV as good, and deep, and exciting a game as it can be.
the community is a group of consumers and not a group of game designers.
the anonymous "we" can be used to as an excuse for being right about everything a year later on every issue. whatever the question was there are a bunch of people on both sides of the argument.
the level of effort Blizzard puts into a single RTS title is higher than any major dev studio by at least 1 order of magnitude. However, if it is not good enough for you the ultimate weapon is not your posts on TL.Net. Your ultimate weapon is the money in your wallet.
|
On June 18 2015 23:09 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
Experimenting behind closed doors during a beta is dumb, because Blizzard has proven time and again that they do NOT always understand what is best for the game
I think this is an important quote. Gainining the benefit of the doubt isn't something that comes to free. You need to have a concistent trackrecord of being right before we can trust that Blizzard knows better than the community. But Blizzard has prooved over and over that they have a huge tendency to implement huge design errors.
I think this is the important part. We want more detailed explanations about their actions, with goals, reasons, pros and cons, etc, because we simply don't trust them to make the right decisions, nor their vision. Things like "we listen" or "fun gameplay" mean nothing at this point with so many bad decisions in their history.
As an example i think of the mech debacle in HOTS where the words were right, make mech viable, but the implementation was disastrous with the Warhound. Why did this happen? Because their vision of what mech should be was completely different to what the players wanted. Had they said from the start that they wanted mobile blob of "mechanical" units instead of positional play, we would have stopped them early, before they wasted resources on terrible unit design and implementation. Looking at how the Cyclone shapes up i fear they still haven't understood this. And this is just one example.
All in all the "we listen" phrase can not be taken to seriously when you see that things that took almost 100% hate since WOL BETA, like Colossus, FF, free units, to short fights, unresponsive units and to many active abilities are still well within the game. The most they could do was nerf some units hoping they won't see to much play (Colossus) or give some counter options (FF breaking).
So no Blizzard, you are not actually listening, you never have in SC2. Or you do listen but are to proud to admit you are wrong and continue to force unwanted things on the players.
|
All these blizzard apologizers are worse than the so called toxic community. Blizzard is a company at the end of the day, if they want to listen and keep good sales, they will do that. If they consider listening to the community a greater expense with little to no benefit, they will NOT listen.
But all of that doesn't mean jack shit. We as the players and potential buyers of this game can give as much feedback as we damn well please.
|
On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
We’d like to continue to find ways we can collect formal feedback from pros, but with more dev interaction. So we’d like to iterate on the idea and fix some of the issues that were recognized using the group chat format. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs.
LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this.
|
On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
We’d like to continue to find ways we can collect formal feedback from pros, but with more dev interaction. So we’d like to iterate on the idea and fix some of the issues that were recognized using the group chat format. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this.
i prefer the LotV harvesting model as well.
its clear in the blog post Blizzard investigated the DH model... and the blog post makes it clear they are reading the TL.Net Legacy of the Void section within the Starcraft 2 area.
if you go through the Blizzard RTS Team roster their experience with resource gathering models has both breadth and depth.
i say, let 'em do their thing.
|
To give some credit i'll say that David Kim is doing a much better job then Browder.
|
damn more passive aggressive BS from the sc2 dev team, starbow > sc2 in nearly every aspect.. SB's dev team at least gives a fuck about the opinion of the community.. I've had one on one conversations with SB devs where i've been able to actually see and feel their passion for making SB a great game.. the only vibe i have ever gotten from SC2's dev team is "we don't care what you think and we don't care about the legacy of starcraft," be it in early kespa relationship 'cultivation' or these recent posts..
|
On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
We’d like to continue to find ways we can collect formal feedback from pros, but with more dev interaction. So we’d like to iterate on the idea and fix some of the issues that were recognized using the group chat format. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this.
This +1
Community especially the ones that are playing the beta currently are scrubs, like awful, like no Koreans, as in nobody good enough to even consider their opinion relevant to design or balance (Before Kyo chimes in with "wait guys I'm not bad" thank you in advance for your higher level analysis Kyo it's good to have a GM's opinion in the beta right now)
I've had and posted my complaints about unit design (Cyclone I despise you) I really don't understand what people want, Blizzard (for all of their failings) have spent waay more time on SC2 then any other company has spent on an RTS that's even remotely close in terms of skill ceiling and fun.
Too many aggressive backseat developers in these threads, while I don't agree with every balance change or patch change, the DH craze is a prime example that the community kinda just doesn't understand the implications of half of the things they ask for and that if the balance team wants a good game they should NOT listen to 99% of what is posted on these forums.
Bring on the flames, "Waah Blizzard didn't live up to my expectations" then go play another damn game, Heroes is actually decently fun on that note lol
|
On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
We’d like to continue to find ways we can collect formal feedback from pros, but with more dev interaction. So we’d like to iterate on the idea and fix some of the issues that were recognized using the group chat format. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this.
On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
We’d like to continue to find ways we can collect formal feedback from pros, but with more dev interaction. So we’d like to iterate on the idea and fix some of the issues that were recognized using the group chat format. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. This +1
Why?
Please educate me.
+ Show Spoiler +Logically the LOTV harvesting model is inferior because it reduces the amount of choices a player can make, because he can't stay on X number of bases for as long, he is forced to pump more minerals into expansions at a faster rate to maintain the same economy compared to the WOL/HOTS economies. This makes aggressive all-ins even more risky, and that playstyle has been dying for a long time.
DH does a better job because it rewards people for expanding more, but doesn't punish people for not expanding faster than they currently do in HOTS. There is a difference between expanding more and expanding faster. The whole idea is to break the 3 base economy, so players that take map control can exploit the advantage. With the LOTV model, you also gain an advantage with map control that can be exploited, but players who choose not to try and gain map control are also punished. That punishment restricts choices more than a reward alone. Strategy games are about choices.
Restricting choices without underlying reasoning in general, is bad, though games are great because of what you can't do, not what you can do. Therefore, there must be some great explanation of why the LOTV harvesting model is better.
On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Too many aggressive backseat developers in these threads, while I don't agree with every balance change or patch change, the DH craze is a prime example that the community kinda just doesn't understand the implications of half of the things they ask for and that if the balance team wants a good game they should NOT listen to 99% of what is posted on these forums.
I think your one of the people they shouldn't listen to, because you've provided absolutely no evidence for what you're saying.
This thread is filling up with people with like 20 posts who probably created there account right around the same time Blizzard increased their "community interaction." And oddly all those people are supportive of what Blizzard is doing.
Strange coincidence.
|
On June 19 2015 00:26 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
We’d like to continue to find ways we can collect formal feedback from pros, but with more dev interaction. So we’d like to iterate on the idea and fix some of the issues that were recognized using the group chat format. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
We’d like to continue to find ways we can collect formal feedback from pros, but with more dev interaction. So we’d like to iterate on the idea and fix some of the issues that were recognized using the group chat format. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. This +1 Why? Please educate me. + Show Spoiler +Logically the LOTV harvesting model is inferior because it reduces the amount of choices a player can make, because he can't stay on X number of bases for as long, he is forced to pump more minerals into expansions at a faster rate to maintain the same economy compared to the WOL/HOTS economies. This makes aggressive all-ins even more risky, and that playstyle has been dying for a long time.
DH does a better job because it rewards people for expanding more, but doesn't punish people for not expanding faster than they currently do in HOTS. There is a difference between expanding more and expanding faster. The whole idea is to break the 3 base economy, so players that take map control can exploit the advantage. With the LOTV model, you also gain an advantage with map control that can be exploited, but players who choose not to try and gain map control are also punished. That punishment restricts choices more than a reward alone. Strategy games are about choices.
Restricting choices without underlying reasoning in general, is bad, though games are great because of what you can't do, not what you can do. Therefore, there must be some great explanation of why the LOTV harvesting model is better. Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Too many aggressive backseat developers in these threads, while I don't agree with every balance change or patch change, the DH craze is a prime example that the community kinda just doesn't understand the implications of half of the things they ask for and that if the balance team wants a good game they should NOT listen to 99% of what is posted on these forums.
I think your one of the people they shouldn't listen to, because you've provided no evidence for what you're saying.
I don't think he actually understand what DH does. Probably just a troll.
|
On June 19 2015 00:26 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
We’d like to continue to find ways we can collect formal feedback from pros, but with more dev interaction. So we’d like to iterate on the idea and fix some of the issues that were recognized using the group chat format. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
We’d like to continue to find ways we can collect formal feedback from pros, but with more dev interaction. So we’d like to iterate on the idea and fix some of the issues that were recognized using the group chat format. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. This +1 Why? Please educate me.
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)?
|
On June 19 2015 00:50 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2015 00:26 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
We’d like to continue to find ways we can collect formal feedback from pros, but with more dev interaction. So we’d like to iterate on the idea and fix some of the issues that were recognized using the group chat format. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. On June 19 2015 00:14 Beelzebub1 wrote:On June 18 2015 23:54 TronJovolta wrote:On June 18 2015 04:11 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 18 2015 02:50 massivez wrote:
We’d like to continue to find ways we can collect formal feedback from pros, but with more dev interaction. So we’d like to iterate on the idea and fix some of the issues that were recognized using the group chat format. We’ll be creating a new way for pro players to provide feedback directly to the devs and get responses on their feedback. We think this format will provide better results for both sides. This will probably ultimately result in the best form of feedback and changes for the future. I think many in this forum are underrating the value in Blizzard listening more closely to pro feedback and not so much from the rest of us scrubs. LOTV harvesting model is better than DH, period. Every willing to admit they were wrong realize this. This +1 Why? Please educate me. it's "nice" for the expanding player to expand, not vital
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of DH -I'm pretty OK with HotS model. But I think any model that makes agressively expanding vital is just fundamentally wrong because it limits the variety of gameplay you can use. Defensive playstyles based on tech should be possible (the tech/eco/army trifecta, where currently tech is rather fucked).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/bpLYdip.jpg)
