|
On August 22 2015 04:16 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 04:14 Charoisaur wrote:On August 22 2015 03:42 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On August 22 2015 03:41 The_Templar wrote:I liked all these changes until I reached the end. Introducing auto-build on units Eeeeeek. No thanks. You realize they said they're not planning to use that change? We’ve been discussing and playtesting the following two areas internally, and have decided that both are not fit for beta testing. the fact they even considered this change shows the direction they want to take sc2 in. No it shows they care and try to be creative instead of going backwards forever just because some BW-fans that don't even play the game for the most part like to theorycraft about skill ceilings.
Not everyone who likes the importance of mechanics has to be a BW fan. I personally never played BW.
But if I want a game where all the macro is done by the AI and I only have to control units I play a MOBA.
Mechanics are a fundamental part of RTS games and shouldn't be removed.
|
Going to StarBow, oh StarBow people said "We depend on the success (not) of LotV to get more players"
I think they are going to enjoy this new patches lol
1 month playing with this until next patch where they are going to keep the Mother Core and even Pylon Push me on early game with Adepts as well? LOLOLOL
Also, instead re-designing the Collosi, they keep it as it is? Seriously? I mean... "Oh well, you have a DeathBall... throwing lasers and such, we tried to remove it but meh, it is fun, so we are keeping the old DeathBall as well a new unit who throw... more energy balls!!!!!!"
I am done with this game, this will be the last weekend I try it, watching streams and learning what I can. If I still feel it is absurd, I will move again to StarBow, period.
|
On August 22 2015 04:21 Sogetsu wrote:
Going to StarBow, oh StarBow people said "We depend on the success (not) of LotV to get more players"
I think they are going to enjoy this new patches lol
1 month playing with this until next patch where they are going to keep the Mother Core and even Pylon Push me on early game with Adepts as well? LOLOLOL
Also, instead re-designing the Collosi, they keep it as it is? Seriously? I mean... "Oh well, you have a DeathBall... throwing lasers and such, we tried to remove it but meh, it is fun, so we are keeping the old DeathBall as well a new unit who throw... more energy balls!!!!!!"
I am done with this game, this will be the last weekend I try it, watching streams and learning what I can. If I still feel it is absurd, I will move again to StarBow, period.
I will still wait for the final version of LotV until I decide if I play it or not but the current direction is very worrisome.
|
there is no way the SH change will be the way they are testing it. SH will be way too strong in ZvP if zerg can get away with hatch first 2 base lair.
|
On August 22 2015 04:19 Aocowns wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 04:16 Big J wrote:On August 22 2015 04:14 Charoisaur wrote:On August 22 2015 03:42 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On August 22 2015 03:41 The_Templar wrote:I liked all these changes until I reached the end. Introducing auto-build on units Eeeeeek. No thanks. You realize they said they're not planning to use that change? We’ve been discussing and playtesting the following two areas internally, and have decided that both are not fit for beta testing. the fact they even considered this change shows the direction they want to take sc2 in. No it shows they care and try to be creative instead of going backwards forever just because some BW-fans that don't even play the game for the most part like to theorycraft about skill ceilings. just to make sure, you do think automated unit building is a horrible idea, right?
I do believe an RTS game with automated unit building has to be designed around it, both in terms of production setups as well as UI/control features (just think about the horror of managing marine/marauder production with turning autocast on and off over and over again). You cannot convert SC2 into that. It's a horrible idea for pretty much the exact reasons David Kim gives.
|
On August 22 2015 04:25 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 04:19 Aocowns wrote:On August 22 2015 04:16 Big J wrote:On August 22 2015 04:14 Charoisaur wrote:On August 22 2015 03:42 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On August 22 2015 03:41 The_Templar wrote:I liked all these changes until I reached the end. Introducing auto-build on units Eeeeeek. No thanks. You realize they said they're not planning to use that change? We’ve been discussing and playtesting the following two areas internally, and have decided that both are not fit for beta testing. the fact they even considered this change shows the direction they want to take sc2 in. No it shows they care and try to be creative instead of going backwards forever just because some BW-fans that don't even play the game for the most part like to theorycraft about skill ceilings. just to make sure, you do think automated unit building is a horrible idea, right? I do believe an RTS game with automated unit building has to be designed around it, both in terms of production setups as well as UI/control features (just think about the horror of managing marine/marauder production with turning autocast on and off over and over again). You cannot convert SC2 into that. It's a horrible idea for pretty much the exact reasons David Kim gives.
An idea that was apparently more worthy of test time than double harvest tells a lot about their intentions for legacy
|
We need a poll 
Poll: With the recent LotV changes and direction do you intend toEnjoy it, it is fresh and new. (51) 51% Stay on HotS for as long as possible. (22) 22% Switch to another game completely. (9) 9% Put up with it, it is still the best RTS despite the flaws. (9) 9% Switch to Starbow. (7) 7% Stop playing, just watch. (2) 2% 100 total votes Your vote: With the recent LotV changes and direction do you intend to (Vote): Enjoy it, it is fresh and new.
(Vote): Stay on HotS for as long as possible.
(Vote): Switch to Starbow.
(Vote): Switch to another game completely.
(Vote): Stop playing, just watch.
(Vote): Put up with it, it is still the best RTS despite the flaws.
|
Lol buffing the colossus that's a disappointment remove that terrible unit and buff toss elsewhere.
|
On August 22 2015 04:27 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 04:25 Big J wrote:On August 22 2015 04:19 Aocowns wrote:On August 22 2015 04:16 Big J wrote:On August 22 2015 04:14 Charoisaur wrote:On August 22 2015 03:42 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On August 22 2015 03:41 The_Templar wrote:I liked all these changes until I reached the end. Introducing auto-build on units Eeeeeek. No thanks. You realize they said they're not planning to use that change? We’ve been discussing and playtesting the following two areas internally, and have decided that both are not fit for beta testing. the fact they even considered this change shows the direction they want to take sc2 in. No it shows they care and try to be creative instead of going backwards forever just because some BW-fans that don't even play the game for the most part like to theorycraft about skill ceilings. just to make sure, you do think automated unit building is a horrible idea, right? I do believe an RTS game with automated unit building has to be designed around it, both in terms of production setups as well as UI/control features (just think about the horror of managing marine/marauder production with turning autocast on and off over and over again). You cannot convert SC2 into that. It's a horrible idea for pretty much the exact reasons David Kim gives. An idea that was apparently more worthy of test time than double harvest tells a lot about their intentions for legacy
This is literally right above the section on automated unit building.
When trying out this change, we determined that reducing the workers needed per base isn’t good for the game because many of the coolest moments in StarCraft II come from worker harassment. With fewer workers, it was just too easy to rebuild after taking economic damage, making these moments less meaningful.
We also looked into feedback suggesting we reduce the efficiency of workers when more than 1 is mining at a single mineral patch. This was aimed at making expanding result in a higher income more often than not, even when on an equal worker count. What we found is that expanding quickly and often already feels like a big advantage in Void, so this change does not feel all that different in terms of when you want to expand. Also, when you do expand faster and have your workers more spread out, it’s easier to replenish workers that you’ve lost to harassment. As we stated above, this is the opposite of what we’re looking to accomplish with the economy changes.
Reduced efficiency for every worker after the first. That is literally what double harvest aims at. Say what you want about their reasoning and whether or not they have "considered it enough", but there is the feedback you are looking for.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On August 22 2015 04:29 blade55555 wrote:
Lol buffing the colossus that's a disappointment remove that terrible unit and buff toss elsewhere.
Whole heartedly agree. Let us shuttle micro the new dusruptor plz
|
Their feedback on economy is just terrible though.
Sure, worker harass is nice to watch, but this
With fewer workers, it was just too easy to rebuild after taking economic damage, making these moments less meaningful.
It only means that the game doesn't snowball as hard, which is a good thing and not a bad one.
What we found is that expanding quickly and often already feels like a big advantage in Void
Wow expanding faster is better than not (if you can defend it)? The same is true for HOTS as well. The point is that you don't get more income, in the end the whole game is balanced around ressource efficiency which is bad cause it leads to less engagements, less styles of play and more snowbally gameplay.
As we stated above, this is the opposite of what we’re looking to accomplish with the economy changes.
So they want more volatile gameplay, ok. I don't like it
|
On August 22 2015 02:55 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:- Introducing auto-build on units
This changed up the game to such a great degree that the game didn’t feel like StarCraft II anymore. It also wasn’t as simple as it sounds. New issues kept popping up, including difficulties expanding or saving up resources, since float was automatically being spent.
Now I don't really post anymore on tl and mainly just lurk around nowadays and play the beta, but this made me spill my drink. Who the hell was suggesting that? I already hate auto anything that is in the game, but completely removing macro by adding this would dumb this game down beyond any redemption. I get that moba's are the hot shit nowadays, but not every game has to be pure micro. They should honestly just give people their beloved warcraft 4 so they can have their micro based rts, for all I care even with auto-build, but just leave starcraft be. It has always been a mix of macro/micro and should stay that way.
As for the rest: Yay on the carrier thing, though they should remove the ability they added. The interceptors even stay in that area when the carrier dies, which is so counter-intuitive. Beating carriers should always be about target firing the carriers, not having the protoss force you to deal with the interceptors and you getting punished for focusing the carriers. I'd say giving them the same microability as bw + the reduction in build time should be enough to make them viable.
I also really hope that they don't add autocast to the immortal ability, as it now adds more ways for a better player to differentiate himself from a lesser player. Immortals already don't offer many micro possibilities besides kiting, target firing and moving weakened once back, so I felt like this ability added some much needed depth to the unit. Also just remove colossi, they limit air design, turn late-game pvp into war of the worlds and force your opponent to build counters that are only good vs colossi. Disrupters fill a similar role and with their new redesign offer interesting micro and counter-micro options for both players. No need for colossi to be in this game.
And for the love of god just remove inject from the game and adjust hatcheries accordingly, auto-cast inject is absolutely pointless.
Photon overcharge change sounds nice, though why not bring mana back to the nexus and allow you to cast it on pylons close to the nexus, that way it won't be abused for allins and you can remove the mothership core from the game, this is not a game of hero units and protoss shouldn't be the only race that has one. You could also add recall to nexi for 100 mana. Timewarp could replace forcefields (though obviously change it to the size of a forcefield).
|
Yeah no thank you, the problem of the photon overcharge is that it requires no execution, this changes NOTHING.
The problem is that it prevents both harass and timing attacks with no counterplay. As a terran player I couldn't care less about how difficult it is for the protoss player to execute something. I just want to be able to attack/harass the opponent in some type of way and Photon Overcharge often prevents that (though you can kinda circumvent it with overpowered harass options too an extent).
|
On August 22 2015 04:44 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Yeah no thank you, the problem of the photon overcharge is that it requires no execution, this changes NOTHING. The problem is that it prevents both harass and timing attacks with no counterplay. As a terran player I couldn't care less about how difficult it is for the protoss player to execute something. I just want to be able to attack/harass the opponent in some type of way and Photon Overcharge often prevents that (though you can kinda circumvent it with overpowered harass options too an extent).
Well both. If you actually have to execute your defence with actual unit micro there is potential to outplay the enemy with superior micro.
The photon overcharge doesn't allow this, a platinum photon overcharge defence looks pretty much the same as a gm photon overcharge defence, which is bad.
The rest is just balance which can be adjusted.
|
just when i begin to get hope they finally fix my beloved sc2 i hear that they are wasting their time trying out auto-building units internally 
|
with the new photon overcharge, early "pylon cannon" pushes might even be an option. sounds like a cool thing to me if balanced right.
having been very sceptical at the beginning of these community updates, i'm more and more impressed with blizzard. they're actually trying out stuff and risking something. people should appreciate this more, hey even i can do it.
|
Even though we won’t be testing either of these changes in the beta, we wanted to get our results out to you for better communication.
Reading the comments in this thread... that didn't go as planned.
Really enjoying those updates, even if I regularily disagree with certain stuff. Please keep the door open!
|
Swarm host change : who cares, HotS is gone in three months and it's fun to see Korean Zergs trying to find ways to beat mech. And any sentence including "swarm host" and "helping Zerg in a fun way" doesn't sound right to me.
"Gimmicks" : if you want players to feel less frustrated because of things they could have countered if they had seen it but wish to have a lot of agressive options, you'll have to improve scouting tools. It's already done for Terrans who can now use a lot of scans early game to figure out what's going on in conjuction with their reapers, but we need improved overlord speed and 75 energy hallucinations too. Worker scout only gets you that far. Oh, and 4 players maps with more than 2 possible spawns for the opponent NEED TO GO. At last. Good riddance. Same for random ; the race you get should be displayed on the loading screen for both players, it's long overdue.
Colossi : a step in the right direction. Colossi need not be removed from the game, just to play a less important role. I still think keeping both nerfs but reducing the price was a better move.
Mothership Core change : no thanks, this change is totally silly.
Too powerful adepts : at least you're not blind... I'm unsure about the solution you give. Twilight requirement would do a far better job IMO.
Carrier behavior : remove the release interceptors retardedness and we can begin to talk.
Immortal ability autocast : you know, why not make it... a passive ability ? Just like it was before ? First hit taken launches the reinforced shield. Don't make everything autocast, you're going to offer us auto split on marines if we're not keeping you tame.
Ravager upgrade : why not.
And while I'm at it : your warp-in change is stupid, split energy and warp-in power please.
|
Econ, probably the biggest issue thats making a lot of people not willing to play the game, still dont adress it... (sigh)
Very sad in my opinion
|
I am liking most of the suggested unit changes here. I still feel that they are not really getting why we are asking for mining revamps, but honestly at this point I don't care anymore.
Also, regarding the disruptor...Maybe they could add something where you have to spend a few minerals before you can discharge one of those little damaging ball things. And then, since it is too difficult to control in combat, make it seek out targets on its own. Maybe allow it to store a few charges over time or something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
