|
On June 21 2015 14:08 Lexender wrote:
I wonder why they say the majority of people didn't want battles that last longer, in the poll that only had 45%, the other ones had less because it was divided by the ways to make battle last longer, but if you watch the absolute numbers, only 45% didn't wanted battles to last longer and 55% (hence the majority) DID wanted battles to last longer (at least within the poll).
Well said, I also noticed this. That statement actually had me lose more trust in Blizzard.
It strikes me as a manipulation of words, and deceptive. I can't imagine DK not understanding what the majority vote was in that poll.
|
On June 21 2015 14:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 23:15 Whitewing wrote:
Note the careful wording: they don't want to encourage more expanding, necessarily. They want to encourage FASTER expanding.
Everything seems like it's aimed at making games develop faster and play out sooner.
This is the opposite of what I'd like, as it really hurts a lot of the strategic depth and has some pretty unfortunate side effects on tech and tech based strategies and play, but it is what it is.
Any econ system proposed to replace the current LOTV model (which I despise personally) is going to have to address the fact that they want to encourage people to expand very quickly.
*sigh* to me .. t hey are steering game play towards a very C&C style type of game.
you can't really ramp up to a "monster economy" in C&C at the 8 minute mark without some really amazing micro defending your base in minutes 4, 5, and 6 as you prepare to do you "monster economy" build...sure you can be an expansion-God in C&C but u damn better have the defending skills very early in the game or u will get rolled. as far as wanting faster games... this seems to be a company wide thing... i suspect Browder and the Heroes of the Storm guys and their "focus groups" have shown that the average PC gamer has 9.31231 minutes ( or some other specific small #) to get in a game. so all their titles are being steered in that direction... Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm, and Starcraft... probably Overwatch as well. i wouldn't be surprised to find out that Blizz is pushing all 4 of these games to have the same average game time. don't look for Blizz to ever reveal what that # is though.
Yeah, and I don't want to play Command & Conquer. I want to play Starcraft.
|
On June 21 2015 14:08 Lexender wrote:
I wonder why they say the majority of people didn't want battles that last longer, in the poll that only had 45%, the other ones had less because it was divided by the ways to make battle last longer, but if you watch the absolute numbers, only 45% didn't wanted battles to last longer and 55% (hence the majority) DID wanted battles to last longer (at least within the poll).
Why? Well, because Blizzard doesn't want battles to last longer, so they say players want that too. Unsurprising.
|
On June 21 2015 16:41 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 14:08 Lexender wrote:
I wonder why they say the majority of people didn't want battles that last longer, in the poll that only had 45%, the other ones had less because it was divided by the ways to make battle last longer, but if you watch the absolute numbers, only 45% didn't wanted battles to last longer and 55% (hence the majority) DID wanted battles to last longer (at least within the poll). Well said, I also noticed this. That statement actually had me lose more trust in Blizzard. It strikes me as a manipulation of words, and deceptive. I can't imagine DK not understanding what the majority vote was in that poll.
This is what he does all the time. He manipulates examples in all of his posts. E.g. I want damage point on air units because it increases the skillcap. Let me use an example of a specific ground unit with a damage point of 0.25 as a proof of why a damage point of 0.167 on Vikings, Oracles and Phoenixes are needed.
He always just looks for that little argument to support him not changing something, and then wrongly interprets the argument. Its incredibly annoying.
Never does he say something like this most people find this type of design enjoyable and therefore we have removed unit Z and added unit Y to replace it. Nono, it's always like this XXX increases the skillcap and therefore its good..
David Kim - besides all of the various subconcepts of gamedesign he doesn't understand - doesn't understand his main goal either. That is to make the game fun to play. If everyone hates Oracles and Cyclones, it doesn't matter what type of argument you use to attempt to convince the reader that its good becasue it has a high skillcap. Your job is to make a fun game!!!
|
On June 21 2015 16:38 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 15:02 Foxxan wrote:
@shamba
But you are forced to have more than 3base mining at some point since some minerals on each base will draw out.
Thats how i understand it. Unless different mineral patches are mining out at different times, they should all be mining out at once right? Even if they mine out in a stagger way, you still really only ever have 3 bases mining. Even if that is the case would that offer any kind of mineral benefit? If all but two patches in my main mine out (they won't last much longer anyway) and then I move the majority of my workers to a fourth base, in the LOTV economy I would just be getting the same mineral income I had before when all my workers were still on my main, right? I feel like I am failing to see your point here. If my minerals mine out in my main and I transfer to a fourth, that is still just 3 base eco with 8 gas. Same as in HOTS.
Yes still the same income as in hots but more bases mining. Saying 3base cap feels wrong in that sense.
|
wouldnt the easiest way simply be having 4 normal and 4 gold mineral patches at 1500 each?
blizzard is happy because gold mines faster and forces expansions, tl is happy because its like dh, u make mass expansions mining only gold with same amount of workers (instead of 3 bases, caps at 6, more than enough). it even has the benefit of not having to reduce total amount of minerals per base like lotv eco forces which tl hates and speeds up game because of faster mining of gold which blizzard loves (compared to hots). its also incredibly easy to implement, just edit maps. we could even go further and make gasses like that too, one normal and one gold gas. at least its what i imagine coudl be a good solution to eco for both sides.
|
please increase supply limit to 250 at least, that would also make late game have more fights
right now all blizz is doing is decreasing the time it takes to reach supply limit even lower, making it feel even more limiting
or make workers only take 1/2 supply
|
After I have tested lotv a little bit more i think the lower minerals per base might really improve the game but I still heavily despise the 12 worker start. cheeses aren't really possible anymore which makes the early game very repetetive and removes the intensive micro wars..
It just feels wrong that all the timings that got refined and perfected throughout 5 years of sc2 all get changed.
Please change it back to 6 workers but keep the lower mineral distribution.
|
On June 21 2015 20:17 Charoisaur wrote:
After I have tested lotv a little bit more i think the lower minerals per base might really improve the game but I still heavily despise the 12 worker start. cheeses aren't really possible anymore which makes the early game very repetetive and removes the intensive micro wars..
It just feels wrong that all the timings that got refined and perfected throughout 5 years of sc2 all get changed.
Please change it back to 6 workers but keep the lower mineral distribution.
cheese is still here, it just comes in a different time
|
Netherlands45 Posts
Yeah i love the update from blizzard! I don't understand why people are so offensive against the lotv eco system. Do you people read the second paragraph, I really liked that approach. Instead of jerking around that this idea is the best, and this moddel is the best and why doesn't blizz hand over power to ME!
The DH moddel doesn't solve the problems in the current state. Maybe we can improve it but that takes a lot of time. The Lotv system seems to work fine. I liked the response from blizzard to focus on other areas of the game like dmg point and separation radius.
Thanks Blizzard!!
|
On June 21 2015 20:25 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 20:17 Charoisaur wrote:
After I have tested lotv a little bit more i think the lower minerals per base might really improve the game but I still heavily despise the 12 worker start. cheeses aren't really possible anymore which makes the early game very repetetive and removes the intensive micro wars..
It just feels wrong that all the timings that got refined and perfected throughout 5 years of sc2 all get changed.
Please change it back to 6 workers but keep the lower mineral distribution. cheese is still here, it just comes in a different time
not sure about this. The faster economic growth compared to the completion of proxy buildings make them considerably weaker. for example by the time a proxy rax build hits vs zerg the pool from a hatch first build is already done
|
Disruptor being too all-or-nothing[list][*]We agree with you guys here. The optimal case looks too strong, and when you miss with a hit it seems like the Disruptor is killed too easily at such a high cost investment. - We’ve been trying various things in this area for a while now, but this is where we’re at right now:
- Much lower radius (this is the biggest change + Disruptors look too underpowered right now in our testing)
- Lower cost
- Faster speed when activated
- Less delay before firing
maybe instead of making them faster it would be better to make them much tankier without the nova so they don't get picked of as easily.
|
On June 21 2015 19:58 summerloud wrote:
please increase supply limit to 250 at least, that would also make late game have more fights
Wrong. Due to terrible design in 200/200 fights, we see too much one sided fights in late games. I prefer a lower income per minute, I just hate to see/make 60supply per minute. It lookes more a wave to next wave, which is pretty boring for me.
From most 150 or 100 supply fights have been super entertaining.
|
Sigh.. I'll give it to you Blizzard, your clearly are trying harder, but you still seem out of touch to me. Players have mastered micro?? Hellion micro is a joke, and super easy. By not reducing the damage point you keep the skill ceiling with the unit artificially low. Same with most units. All micro entails on most units is moving them as a big glob, and hitting the "s" key when their attack cooldown has expired, its not very difficult. Is it any surprise that arguably the most microable unit in the game is the marine, which has one of the lowest damage point? Or that another of the most microable units, blink stalkers, are most effective when blinked individually? Sure you can blink them in small groups and still increase their damage potential, but there is almost always room for improvement with them by more quickly blinking smaller numbers of them at a time.
And sure you have to set up a concave in order to achieve maximum unit effectiveness with most units, but that does not require micro. That involves pre-fight setup, or boxclicking a bunch of units during a fight and moving them to the side, hardly something that is difficult to do. So by using the lackluster excuse that you don't want to change the damage points because people have already "mastered" micro in the game is disheartening at best. Especially when you change other things that people have also mastered so drastically, such as the economy. Hadn't people mastered builds and timings based off the old economy as well? Something that was by far more difficult to learn than Sc2 micro imo. And this type of decision making is hardly limited to micro or the economy, which is why I absolutely cannot see myself buying LotV when it comes out, or watching pro tournaments for that matter, which is unfortunate, because I have devoted a lot of time to learning and loving this game, but I just can't get behind it anymore 
|
Nice. More and more confident about LotV overall.
|
On June 21 2015 18:40 KrazyTrumpet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 14:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 20 2015 23:15 Whitewing wrote:
Note the careful wording: they don't want to encourage more expanding, necessarily. They want to encourage FASTER expanding.
Everything seems like it's aimed at making games develop faster and play out sooner.
This is the opposite of what I'd like, as it really hurts a lot of the strategic depth and has some pretty unfortunate side effects on tech and tech based strategies and play, but it is what it is.
Any econ system proposed to replace the current LOTV model (which I despise personally) is going to have to address the fact that they want to encourage people to expand very quickly.
*sigh* to me .. t hey are steering game play towards a very C&C style type of game.
you can't really ramp up to a "monster economy" in C&C at the 8 minute mark without some really amazing micro defending your base in minutes 4, 5, and 6 as you prepare to do you "monster economy" build...sure you can be an expansion-God in C&C but u damn better have the defending skills very early in the game or u will get rolled. as far as wanting faster games... this seems to be a company wide thing... i suspect Browder and the Heroes of the Storm guys and their "focus groups" have shown that the average PC gamer has 9.31231 minutes ( or some other specific small #) to get in a game. so all their titles are being steered in that direction... Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm, and Starcraft... probably Overwatch as well. i wouldn't be surprised to find out that Blizz is pushing all 4 of these games to have the same average game time. don't look for Blizz to ever reveal what that # is though. Yeah, and I don't want to play Command & Conquer. I want to play Starcraft.
they tried pacing in a way that had some semblance of Brood War. and they've given up on pleasing the hard core Brood War community... they've decided to go back to Brood War any how.
now they've done their "focus groups" and discovered that the general PC game player likes shorter games.
combine this with all the ex-C&C guys on the SC2 team.. and this is what you get.
i got no problems at all with an action packed.. crazy ass.. topsy turvy 7 minutes of frenetic decision making with the game ending in 7 minutes... clearly the "average game time" will be higher than 7 minutes...
i think action packed 7 minute games will happen on a more than occasional basis.
look for SC2, Heroes , Hearthstone, and Overwatch to all have similar game times because of research Blizzard has done regardingg game time lengths that the typical PC Gamer prefers.
this is a lot of speculation on my part.. but this is what i think is going on.
On June 22 2015 01:34 Survivor61316 wrote:
Sigh.. I'll give it to you Blizzard, your clearly are trying harder, but you still seem out of touch to me.
Blizz is only communicating more. That's it.
Blizzard has always tried hard. Play any other RTS not made by Blizzard and its super clear Blizzard puts far more effort into their games than Relic, EA, Creative Assemby, etc etc.
|
On June 21 2015 20:43 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote + Disruptor being too all-or-nothing[list][*]We agree with you guys here. The optimal case looks too strong, and when you miss with a hit it seems like the Disruptor is killed too easily at such a high cost investment. - We’ve been trying various things in this area for a while now, but this is where we’re at right now:
- Much lower radius (this is the biggest change + Disruptors look too underpowered right now in our testing)
- Lower cost
- Faster speed when activated
- Less delay before firing
maybe instead of making them faster it would be better to make them much tankier without the nova so they don't get picked of as easily.
Something interesting (but no idea if it would be balanced or not) would be to give them like 200 shields and 50 health, and have them lose 20 shields for every victim. So that if they miss they can retreat quite easily but if they wreak havoc they're likely to die instantly after.
|
Siege Tank /Immortal turret tracking
This sounds like a very minor change that probably won’t have a huge impact. However, because many players believe this will be of great help, so we’ll test it fairly quickly internally, then put the change in also in the beta. So you can expect this change to go into the beta soon.
nevermind~ found it.
|
On June 21 2015 14:08 Lexender wrote:
I wonder why they say the majority of people didn't want battles that last longer, in the poll that only had 45%, the other ones had less because it was divided by the ways to make battle last longer, but if you watch the absolute numbers, only 45% didn't wanted battles to last longer and 55% (hence the majority) DID wanted battles to last longer (at least within the poll).
That's true. But the "Something else" category with 7% seems like it would make the poll biased toward longer battles. I doubt all those people posted good ideas in the thread like that option recommends, either.
That's very much a "I don't know what I want, I just don't want Blizzard!" option, kinda like a protest vote.
And even then, 54%-46% doesn't even seem like a good enough split to be the sole basis for a complete gameplay overhaul, especially when the poll concerns only Teamliquid. It's one of those votes where if you don't get an overwhelming majority (which 54% isn't), everyone will ignore the poll :D.
|
On June 22 2015 05:57 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2015 14:08 Lexender wrote:
I wonder why they say the majority of people didn't want battles that last longer, in the poll that only had 45%, the other ones had less because it was divided by the ways to make battle last longer, but if you watch the absolute numbers, only 45% didn't wanted battles to last longer and 55% (hence the majority) DID wanted battles to last longer (at least within the poll). That's true. But the "Something else" category with 7% seems like it would make the poll biased toward longer battles. I doubt all those people posted good ideas in the thread like that option recommends, either. That's very much a "I don't know what I want, I just don't want Blizzard!" option, kinda like a protest vote. And even then, 54%-46% doesn't even seem like a good enough split to be the sole basis for a complete gameplay overhaul, especially when the poll concerns only Teamliquid. It's one of those votes where if you don't get an overwhelming majority (which 54% isn't), everyone will ignore the poll :D.
Thats why I said withing the poll, obviously its just a small poll withing a small part of the community but still, the fact that they simply lie about it (or they don't know simple math) just to fit their view doesn't really looks good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
