EPTAlso the ignorance and lack of understanding among this community... You guys want Blizzard to be more involved and communicate with us. They let us know they do that, they even try the silly things you guys consider to be good for the game and then u get angry at them for telling you atleast they were nice enough to take their time to internally test it.
Community Feedback Update - August 21 - Page 9
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
whoopsome
Norway41 Posts
Also the ignorance and lack of understanding among this community... You guys want Blizzard to be more involved and communicate with us. They let us know they do that, they even try the silly things you guys consider to be good for the game and then u get angry at them for telling you atleast they were nice enough to take their time to internally test it. | ||
|
weikor
Austria580 Posts
I play protoss and i enjoyed defending against these things. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On August 22 2015 18:37 weikor wrote: im exicted for the MSC change, its a step in the right direction. Pylons are snipeable and dont hardcounter certain pushes like 1-1-1 anymore, at the same time it opens a lot of possibilities. I play protoss and i enjoyed defending against these things. I think zerg and terran drops as well as things like oracles will wreck protoss pretty hard unless the tradeoff for less range is even more power. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful. | ||
|
whoopsome
Norway41 Posts
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is. Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful. I think that if you want Stacraft 2 to stay in this kinda "elite group of players state" cuz casuals think the game is to demanding then yes. But actually myself quit playing the game bcuz of inject larva, when you find yourself in a game and you have kept up with resource expanding, unit maneuvering, unit production (and even larvja inject for ~ 15 min) you have the resources and vital positioning on the map and all of a sudden you just lack the larva to continue your strategy. For me that is to detrimental for my enjoyment of the game and it feels like ive just wasted the time only to get to a point where not having enough larva broke everything i had going in the game. Very harsh... | ||
|
whoopsome
Norway41 Posts
| ||
|
adwodon
United Kingdom592 Posts
I guess this could present other issues but a lot of other games have systems where constructing units drains resources during construction so if you have 0 resources you stop building until some more is added, which progresses things a bit. It's quite a big change though and is probably a bit late in the game to introduce without compromising the integrity of the engine. Shame though as I'd like ways to have less focus on macro in the later game, I like the initial base building and sim citying but I'm not Flash so when it hits the mid-late game I'd rather focus on attacking, defending and harassing. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12499 Posts
| ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On August 22 2015 19:13 whoopsome wrote: I think that if you want Stacraft 2 to stay in this kinda "elite group of players state" cuz casuals think the game is to demanding then yes. But actually myself quit playing the game bcuz of inject larva, when you find yourself in a game and you have kept up with resource expanding, unit maneuvering, unit production (and even larvja inject for ~ 15 min) you have the resources and vital positioning on the map and all of a sudden you just lack the larva to continue your strategy. For me that is to detrimental for my enjoyment of the game and it feels like ive just wasted the time only to get to a point where not having enough larva broke everything i had going in the game. Very harsh... Well I guess the game should be neutered at a level where the people who are going to keep playing it play, so the people who play a tiny amount with no real desire to improve are able to make some pathetic excuse as to why they lost. On August 22 2015 19:21 adwodon wrote: Auto-build is a bad idea but how about queueing not costing until building begins? I guess this could present other issues but a lot of other games have systems where constructing units drains resources during construction so if you have 0 resources you stop building until some more is added, which progresses things a bit. It's quite a big change though and is probably a bit late in the game to introduce without compromising the integrity of the engine. Shame though as I'd like ways to have less focus on macro in the later game, I like the initial base building and sim citying but I'm not Flash so when it hits the mid-late game I'd rather focus on attacking, defending and harassing. Like in broodwar where building doesn't cost something until you start building it (bases I mean). On August 22 2015 19:22 Nebuchad wrote: I'd like to do a linguistics study on what percentage of users on this forum uses the word "community" to mean "the people who share my opinion", and ultimately, basically, "me". I'd like to do a linguistics study on which people who proclaim themselves to be a part of the "community" have played in any tournaments, play online, play at all, or just post on team liquid/reddit. | ||
|
Quineotio
Australia128 Posts
On August 22 2015 18:58 bo1b wrote: I absolutely hate auto inject. Like I can't even begin to express how shit a change I think it is. Also this new super casual attitude of removing all skill barriers is stupid as shit, it doesn't work, there will always be methods of differentiating players, all it ever achieves is removing options of play. Tl:dr new macro mechanic changes are woeful. I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone. The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play". | ||
|
matthy
66 Posts
On August 22 2015 03:03 Lunareste wrote: Please just delete the fucking Colossus already. this please! | ||
|
threnickelsandadime
18 Posts
On August 22 2015 03:03 Lunareste wrote: Please just delete the fucking Colossus already. Amen brother. | ||
JackONeill
861 Posts
| ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On August 22 2015 19:55 Quineotio wrote: I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone. The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play". What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well? | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20343 Posts
Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well? David Kim calls an emergency meeting to discuss internal testing with supply removed | ||
|
xtorn
4066 Posts
If this change will pass the testing phase it will have some benefits, but will kill some of the charm of playing zerg. I will then probably switch to playing terran which is more micro intensive to get that multitasking feeling again | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On August 22 2015 21:53 bo1b wrote: What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well? I don't think that this has "only recently" become a bad thing. Here is a nice line about game design: A meaningful choice requires tradeoffs. If it's a no-brainer, it's not interesting. If nobody understands the consequences of their decision, it's not engaging. If there's a better choice rather than a different choice, players become followers rather than pioneers. We support new strategies by ensuring that tradeoffs exist for the game as a whole. Any game will always feature "things to be done". But those things can still offer meaningful choices. Injects hardly achieve that at all and mules only to a very small degree. For the supply buildings, their main function is always the same and you have to build them without a real choice, but let's not forget what overlords do for zerg in terms of scouting and spotting and dropping. Let's not forget the huge choice of where and when and if to wall as Terran with depots. I think the power of pylon placement is more than obvious as well. So yeah, the supply feature in itself is mainly interesting as a "flat tax" for game design and not for the player, but the way you can use that payment for that "flat tax" offers quite some interesting choices. In particular because blizzard has designed those supply buildings/units so well. | ||
|
Quineotio
Australia128 Posts
On August 22 2015 21:53 bo1b wrote: What is bad exactly about "things needing to be done"? Every super successful game features "things needing to be done", yet only recently has this suddenly become a bad thing. Building pylons is also something that needs to be done, in pretty much the same manner as zerg injecting hatcheries, should we just remove intermittent supply caps now as well? Please don't paraphrase me in quotation marks so you can attack a straw man argument. I agree with Big J's response to you. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
| ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
On August 22 2015 22:22 Big J wrote: I don't think that this has "only recently" become a bad thing. Here is a nice line about game design: A meaningful choice requires tradeoffs. If it's a no-brainer, it's not interesting. If nobody understands the consequences of their decision, it's not engaging. If there's a better choice rather than a different choice, players become followers rather than pioneers. We support new strategies by ensuring that tradeoffs exist for the game as a whole. Any game will always feature "things to be done". But those things can still offer meaningful choices. Injects hardly achieve that at all and mules only to a very small degree. For the supply buildings, their main function is always the same and you have to build them without a real choice, but let's not forget what overlords do for zerg in terms of scouting and spotting and dropping. Let's not forget the huge choice of where and when and if to wall as Terran with depots. I think the power of pylon placement is more than obvious as well. So yeah, the supply feature in itself is mainly interesting as a "flat tax" for game design and not for the player, but the way you can use that payment for that "flat tax" offers quite some interesting choices. In particular because blizzard has designed those supply buildings/units so well. But not everything has to have a meaningful choice. Theres never a situation where it's bad to build units in broodwar, theres never a situation where it's bad to miss an l-cancel in melee, there's never a situation where it's bad to last hit in dota etc. I think you're reaching when you list the decisions behind pylon and supply depot placement. They are almost always placed in the same location's on the various maps. Same with overlords. Really the recent trend that things have to have meaningful choices is posited with literally no evidence supporting it. There is not a single game that comes to mind where lowering the skill floor hasn't lowered the quality of the game. Not one. On the other hand so many of the classics are difficult, and are still more played and watched then the shit that gets easier with every expansion. On August 22 2015 22:40 Quineotio wrote: Please don't paraphrase me in quotation marks so you can attack a straw man argument. I agree with Big J's response to you. I don't think the argument against macro mechanics is a "new super casual attitude". The macro mechanics have been talked about since the beginning, and have been one of my major gripes since release. Yes, the removal of macro mechanics is a good thing for casual players (i.e. the majority of players), but I also think it's good for everyone. The reason why the macro mechanics are a good target for removal is precisely because they don't add a lot of "options of play". Inject in particular represents a menial task that has to be done (i.e. there is no option not to do it) in every game. So by removing the macro mechanics you give the player more time to do actions that are an "option of play". Not only was it not a strawman, but macro mechanics are an extremely good method of adding options of play. The only time they're not is when everyone is able to do them. By making something difficult enough to differentiate players you open avenues of play for people to play around there skill level. Flash is notable in broodwar for having the best macro at his time of play. If the macro mechanics were removed in broodwar (lets say they added mbs, infinite unit selection, auto build units, auto rally etc) that would suddenly not be an option of play, it would just become standard. In fact I'd go as far as to say that by making everything more difficult there will be more options of play, not less. And theres the benefit of tasteless not talking out his ass when he talks about how difficult it is to mass produce marines. | ||
| ||
