EPTForget about what the opponent is doing. I can barely control my units and macro now the economy is also accelerated.
Of course, I'm a terrible player but still HotS is a lot more enjoyable for me.
Canata`s commentary on LotV - Page 8
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
c0ldfusion
United States8293 Posts
Forget about what the opponent is doing. I can barely control my units and macro now the economy is also accelerated. Of course, I'm a terrible player but still HotS is a lot more enjoyable for me. | ||
|
c0ldfusion
United States8293 Posts
On July 10 2015 23:01 phfantunes wrote: I'm just a platinum player (so really bad) and I agree with him. At first I was mad hype when I got LotV beta, but I much prefer HotS' pace. Exactly Canata worded it perfectly, the raised skill requirement takes away from strategy at every level of play. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24239 Posts
| ||
|
mishimaBeef
Canada2259 Posts
| ||
|
c0ldfusion
United States8293 Posts
| ||
|
sparklyresidue
United States5524 Posts
On July 11 2015 02:48 RoomOfMush wrote: That really depends on the nature of the active skills. Skills like Siege Mode, Cloaking and Stimpacks are fine in my opinion. They are not quite active skills and more like additional behavior / alternate forms of the unit. But active skills that are "actually active", with that I mean skills where you have to think whether you should use them or not and if yes then on what target, these should be limited to 2 - 3 spellcasters per race. I'm always wary of cooldown spells. What's great about the skills you mentioned is that they are a strategic choice that changes the unit, but isn't a "free bonus damage attack every 15 seconds" or whatever. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 15 2015 22:19 sparklyresidue wrote: I'm always wary of cooldown spells. What's great about the skills you mentioned is that they are a strategic choice that changes the unit, but isn't a "free bonus damage attack every 15 seconds" or whatever. I think those sorts of skills should require less/different management. If you have a cooldown spell that is really that spammy that it is just being played as bonus damage, than why not just make it bonus damage on every X-th attack? Add some small animation on the unit to see if the unit is currently "loaded" with the bonus damage and then people can micro to hit just right with the bonus. + Show Spoiler + One could design cool kiting and damage point variations with that (actually an example when damage point can be very interesting on a unit). For example a unit that does triple damage on every 3rd attack but long damage point may be best used to run around a lot and only hit those 3rd attacks, but let the other 2pass to not fall into the trap of damage point in small scale micro situations. | ||
|
Everlong
Czech Republic1973 Posts
Also, this community is also not that easy to read, there are so many opinions and directions everyone wants LotV go. | ||
|
c0ldfusion
United States8293 Posts
Purely on the basis of gameplay feel though, after a lot of games since early beta I think LotV is too mechanically demanding right now. It is insanely more difficult to play, to just do things with your units and macro than HotS. This isn't a question of balance. This might not even be a huge factor to me as a spectator of the pro scene. The biggest problem with an increased skill barrier is that the accessibility of the game is further reduced. This is not going to help make starcraft more popular and we all know we badly need new players. | ||
|
c0ldfusion
United States8293 Posts
On July 09 2015 09:18 BisuDagger wrote: I'm terrible at brood war. The game is incredibly frustrating. Those damn protoss never do what I want. (Looking at you dragoons!) I don't storm well, execute drop play, keep scouting workers alive, recall effectively. Still, I love the hell out of the game. And I respect your opinion. But that mentality is clearly in the minority among gamers, even competitive gamers. I don't play BW. I love the game but I can't play it because the skill barrier eliminates my ability to enjoy the game. When SC1 / BW first came out it didn't have much competition and frankly the fact that it was a genre defining title also helped its popularity. I want to see LotV succeed beyond the scope of the current SC2 scene. Also, I don't think making it easier mechanically makes it any less competitive. The skill barrier in HotS right now arguably exceeds any other popular competitive game in the market and we're left with a tiny scene (relative to those other titles). | ||
|
Highways
Australia6124 Posts
SC2 needs more micro, as a spectator it is super boring watching attack move armies that melt everything like collosus. Casual players aren't interested in 1v1. They are into 2v2, 3v3, fastest, big game hunters etc.. | ||
|
Footler
United States560 Posts
On July 16 2015 08:12 Highways wrote: I disagree with canata. SC2 needs more micro, as a spectator it is super boring watching attack move armies that melt everything like collosus. Casual players aren't interested in 1v1. They are into 2v2, 3v3, fastest, big game hunters etc.. The thing is SC2 does have a lot of micro but some of it just isn't that interesting to watch partially due to all of the activated abilities. I do agree there needs to be more micro but as many people keep saying it shouldn't necessarily be done through more activated abilities. I know this will sound dumb but Blizzard needs to give players the ability to do more 'cheeky' maneuvers that can actually pay off. Properly executed drop micro is always fun to watch, marine splitting and bane focus firing is very interesting, blink micro in certain situations can be really impressive. Dropping a PDD or landing fungals aren't really that exciting from a spectator POV. Blizzard is in a weird spot because you're right, the average player isn't interested in playing 1v1 but people are interested in watching it. So they have to make 1v1 more exciting to watch while also attracting the casual to actually play the game. Maybe Archon Mode will be the magic bullet as TB put it. | ||
|
c0ldfusion
United States8293 Posts
| ||
|
fmod
Cayman Islands330 Posts
| ||
|
c0ldfusion
United States8293 Posts
On July 16 2015 08:12 Highways wrote: I disagree with canata. SC2 needs more micro, as a spectator it is super boring watching attack move armies that melt everything like collosus. Casual players aren't interested in 1v1. They are into 2v2, 3v3, fastest, big game hunters etc.. Let's step back for a second and think about this logically. I agree that colossus is a problem unit. We can address it and other problem units without dramatically raising the skill barrier like what's currently being set in LotV beta. We can solve these issues without resorting to making the game materially more frustrating to play. Also, team games would not have different units or different economy than 1v1. These formats wouldn't be any more fun (mechanically) to play than 1v1. Therefore these players can't be considered "casual" like the way you would refer to casual participation in other competitive games. At a more general level, I don't think Canata is against the idea of micro where I also agree with you, can make the game more exciting to spectate. One or two difficult to micro units won't impact the skill barrier by themselves. It's a combination of everything - the faster start, the shallower mineral patches, a slew of new micro heavy units, etc. | ||
|
frostalgia
United States178 Posts
I like that Blizzard and the invitees have some time to discuss what is working and what isn't. It's great to know that a lot of things are being tried internally. I commend Blizzard for keeping in mind that what's popular isn't always right. As for the economy, I think it's fair to say that most of us are happy it got more exciting. From most of the feedback I've seen, 12 workers still does feel a little extreme for an opening.. although it's been fun to see in effect, it's causing cheese to become irrelevant instead of slightly nerfed. That makes all early games look mostly the same. I'm hoping they have some tricks up their sleeves that might help. I've been in the minority that recommended 9 workers (and a 150 mineral start) to shake up some early strategy, but I also pushed for 6-patches-per-base mostly on my own.. even got a thread locked here for trying to discuss it. The reason I, and many others, have been asking for some reconsideration here is that it looks a lot like the intentions might not match the outcome as much as it could. The pace of the game has always been very important in StarCraft. All I hope for is that when all is said and done, this game spreads out the battlefield, promotes faster expanding without forcing it, and provides a freedom to make decisions all game long.. without confusing the previous formula too much. Best of luck to Blizz in making this game as great as we know it can be.. may the Khala be their guide! | ||
|
virpi
Germany3599 Posts
| ||
|
papaz
Sweden4149 Posts
On July 09 2015 23:48 summerloud wrote: the easiest way to make the game easier to control is to enable the use of more different skills while units are grouped together in one control group at the same time, this would make the game more fun for casuals, who right now cant, for example, force-field and psi storm at the same time This is an excellent idea that I have also thought about. The battles for casuals like myself is nothing but A-move. There are so much active abilities that I can't tab through the control groups and use the abilities. Having a faster econ plus all the active abilities have made the game much harder to play. | ||
|
i)awn
United States189 Posts
| ||
|
Fall.182
United States126 Posts
On July 08 2015 16:21 mrjpark wrote: Casual gamers aren't the market for 1v1 ranked ladder is the thing. Blizzard is not -- and should not -- design 1v1 ladder around the casual gamer. The 1v1 ladder is for the competitive folk. For casual gamers, there's archon mode and the arcade (which I hope gets revamped). This pretty much. | ||
| ||
