|
On August 09 2015 07:01 TheWinks wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 06:32 Roblin wrote:
perhaps some theorycrafting was involved too but their reasons for not going with community eco models were certainly not just theorycrafting. HotS and LotV are different games and the importance of those models weren't the specific models, but rather the general idea behind them. They justified not giving something like it a try on beta because of their internal testing. Here, they are admitting that their internal testing is inadequate for a change of this magnitude.
I feel like this post is missing a paragraph.
so what if they admit internal playtesting is insufficient here?
that doesn't mean internal playtesting is inadequate for other things.
|
glad to see David Kim moving forward with more big changes.
i'd like to see Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void become radically different styles of games. This gives consumers a greater range of choice in what has become a barren RTS landscape.
|
On August 09 2015 07:29 GGzerG wrote:
I will be the happiest man alive if they cut all macro mechanics.
SC2BW Here we come.
This should have been done 5 years ago, everyone who is mad get over it please....and all Oldschool bw players rejoice for this great change!
I'm all for cutting macro mechanics but it's not going to be BW, I do think it will improve the game though but your comment just seems a little silly, it's still going to be SC2 (as it should).
Really looking forward to the change though :D
|
will try and see how it works 
|
On August 09 2015 08:07 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote:will try and see how it works
that's the spirit!
|
On August 09 2015 07:31 Roblin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2015 07:01 TheWinks wrote:On August 09 2015 06:32 Roblin wrote:
perhaps some theorycrafting was involved too but their reasons for not going with community eco models were certainly not just theorycrafting. HotS and LotV are different games and the importance of those models weren't the specific models, but rather the general idea behind them. They justified not giving something like it a try on beta because of their internal testing. Here, they are admitting that their internal testing is inadequate for a change of this magnitude. I feel like this post is missing a paragraph. so what if they admit internal playtesting is insufficient here? that doesn't mean internal playtesting is inadequate for other things.
They watched a handful of showmatches and maybe did some internal testing to determine that community-suggested harvesting modifications were "too similar to hots." Their goal is to get players to take more bases. There has been little to no acknowledgement that the economy is an important balance consideration, and no mention of changes they are considering as a consequence of the new economy.
What they are not doing is incentivizing aggressive expansion outside of "hope you expand enough or you die!" and they are refusing to consider any economic changes to Legacy, including changes to harvesting speed and changes to the starting number of workers. Instead, they're going to jettison a huge swath of the game which they have openly said was a part of their racial balancing.
It is completely mindboggling how they refuse to consider (at worst) or communicate (at best) changes or implications of different economic models (i.e., Swarm standard, Swarm DH, Legacy standard, etc.), but have seemingly randomly just decided to alter a huge component of their game!
I have no idea why Blizzard isn't testing more things in this beta, and, even more confusingly, I have no idea at all why Blizzard isn't soliciting tester feedback on these changes over and above what they can determine from gameplay. The data they have collected from players ingame is accurate, I'm sure, but the context in which these player behaviors were made is seemingly unaccounted for.
|
Starcraft 2 is a STRATEGY game. It means the major impact on the game should have strategy meanwhile currently it all comes to mechanics (maby not 100% but player with better strategy but worse mechanics gonna lose match most probably) it is not fun to watch if Gm r1 loses to korean beceuse of mechanics difference: gm should be the place where mechanics does not change a lot beceuse most people will do it well, but where these little strategy things start to profit, better postioning, mindgames, micro (its mechanical part but its fun to watach). I believe that decreasing or cutting these macro parts is good idea (if balanced properly). The Warpgate change also is great, however I'd rather change it to nexus with range of nexus overcharge. It is not a high cost to put a gateway near proxy pylon to get 14 seconds faster waro time and turn this defensive mechanic into offense, meanwhile I don't feel like anyone would like to put there nexus.
|
On August 11 2015 17:42 Irathil wrote:
Starcraft 2 is a STRATEGY game. It means the major impact on the game should have strategy meanwhile currently it all comes to mechanics (maby not 100% but player with better strategy but worse mechanics gonna lose match most probably) it is not fun to watch if Gm r1 loses to korean beceuse of mechanics difference: gm should be the place where mechanics does not change a lot beceuse most people will do it well, but where these little strategy things start to profit, better postioning, mindgames, micro (its mechanical part but its fun to watach). I believe that decreasing or cutting these macro parts is good idea (if balanced properly). The Warpgate change also is great, however I'd rather change it to nexus with range of nexus overcharge. It is not a high cost to put a gateway near proxy pylon to get 14 seconds faster waro time and turn this defensive mechanic into offense, meanwhile I don't feel like anyone would like to put there nexus.
I not specifically against or pro macro mechanics, removal should be tried out too. But, Starcraft 2 is a "Real-time" Strategy game. The term "Real-time" adds a lot more into the equation. Say that "mechanics" "speed" "good control" etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
