| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Aocowns
Norway6070 Posts
On August 29 2015 05:19 ohmylanta1003 wrote: Lol. Cause the feedback people are giving back in this thread is so constructive, right? Give me a break. Let people advertise for the game they want dude | ||
|
Little-Chimp
Canada948 Posts
On August 29 2015 05:19 TheDougler wrote: How's this for an idea: If mule is autocast with no energy (only cooldown), then why not also give it to the planetary fortress? I know that sounds like a pretty huge buff to planetary, but as it stands now, the choice will be between getting mules, and your choice of scans or supply drops, and also the ability to lift versus a large, expensive cannon. If PF has mule, there's still plenty of choice there, especially since you're going to want to have a few orbitals in order to lift them in the late game and move them towards resources. Plus, orbitals don't require gas. Wow that sounds absolutely terrible to play against. | ||
|
Linear
60 Posts
On August 29 2015 04:57 Eternal Dalek wrote: I gained a lot of respect for the Korean pros for this. I mean, I already put them on a pedestal like the rest of us have, but it's quite commendable that they actually acknowledge the problems in this game, when they could've just continued their dominance if the status quo remained. I don't think they have, they've fobbed us off with a statement from the general korean community from when they first started the beta rather than something they've said about this change, as I said earlier I've spoken to some Koreans and they have said to me the higher levels of their community disagree with these macro changes and that the lower leagues are in agreement which is similar to the situation we have here. (Don't take that for a certain since It's second hand information though) | ||
|
Pirfiktshon
United States1072 Posts
Edit: In the end I know it was my fault for purchasing it and trusting DK would pull through but... disappointed... truly disappointed..... | ||
|
AgamemnonSC2
Canada254 Posts
I would have REALLY preferred that the next patch be an initial attempt at balancing the game (for Terran mostly), around the Removal of Macro Boosters. I mean, we didn't even get to see what the game COULD be like. I feel this switch to Auto Boosters is rushed, and that we did not get to flush out gameplay with the Removal option. I hope this Auto stuff doesn't happen. | ||
|
ohmylanta1003
United States128 Posts
On August 29 2015 05:21 Aocowns wrote: Let people advertise for the game they want dude It's impossible for Blizzard to please everyone. You know this, I know this, we all know it. People in this thread aren't advertising for the game they want. They're bitching about what has been given to them. That's all they ever do. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3413 Posts
Mule should just be energy, why remove the decision element in choosing between Mule/SupplyDrop/Scan and instead make Mule a no decision mechanic... So nerf Mule so that it's on equal terms with Scan&Supply Drop, Chrono becomes this and Queen Inject becomes like the new Chrono, but for Larvae. They do so many small scale micro changes that they sometimes forget the big picture and it can make the game ugly. | ||
|
Aocowns
Norway6070 Posts
On August 29 2015 05:30 ohmylanta1003 wrote: It's impossible for Blizzard to please everyone. You know this, I know this, we all know it. People in this thread aren't advertising for the game they want. They're bitching about what has been given to them. That's all they ever do. oh shit it's almost as if they're giving feedback about what they want instead of all supporting one thing | ||
|
Lunareste
United States3596 Posts
Also most of the macro changes suck. | ||
|
xtorn
4060 Posts
We’re not saying all these things will make it into the beta for certain, but these are some examples of things we’re currently testing right now. We’ll provide an additional update next week that clearly outlines the changes coming to the beta, but we wanted to give you this information as early as possible. Thanks for your continued testing and feedback in helping us develop the best Legacy of the Void possible. So this update is basically a fine-tuning and adjustment after the first results of the macro change; next week they do another update on the macro subject, and this is basically the game, in this state. It doesn't seem like they are willing to experiment with new units anymore. I was kinda hoping that they would spice the game up with some other interesting new units but it seems that's it. Oh well, the game seems alright. It's not as groundbreaking as i hoped, but it's decent I guess. | ||
|
Gfire
United States1699 Posts
On August 29 2015 05:04 Big J wrote: I don't understand the hate for the automatization in itself as a mechanic. Something automated is something you don't have to control in the game, it is literally the same thing as not having it to begin with controlwise. I understand the argument about making macro hard (even though I don't support it), but I can't understand the stance that abilities must not be automated ever. That just doesn't make sense. Yeah it seems like people just find it "icky" for some reason. Really their solution seems to hit all the points they want it to. I understand if you disagree with those points, but if you agree with the goals this seems like a fine way to achieve them. I guess it's a little bit of the lazy solution as some of the reason for it is fixing the balance concerns with completely removing the boosters. I just thought they'd re-balance the game. Autocast doesn't change things up too much so everything should be closer to how it was. If you're someone who was excited about slowing down macro in general or getting rid of cheesier chrono builds or more common PFs or some other side-effect this might not have the advantages of cutting the boosters, in any case. I think people care way too much about "elegance" in game design when it doesn't even effect the way the game plays. It's only a bit of a burden for new players to learn what mules and chrono are. Other than the "complication" of their very existence, they don't really make the game clunkier or anything. Cutting them altogether would make the end product simpler but the process to balance the game around that would be much more work. An argument could also be made that a race's abilities are features in a game and it's kinda lame to cut features in an expansion. That's more from a traditional average consumer's point of view, and obviously more abilities doesn't mean more quality gameplay or anything, but it's still the what I would have expected from an expansion before I really tried much competitive play in RTS games. | ||
|
Jenia6109
Russian Federation1612 Posts
 | ||
|
Sogetsu
514 Posts
There is no way I could regret spending time on playing SB instead SC2 at this point | ||
|
Little-Chimp
Canada948 Posts
On August 29 2015 05:39 Gfire wrote: Yeah it seems like people just find it "icky" for some reason. Really their solution seems to hit all the points they want it to. I understand if you disagree with those points, but if you agree with the goals this seems like a fine way to achieve them. I guess it's a little bit of the lazy solution as some of the reason for it is fixing the balance concerns with completely removing the boosters. I just thought they'd re-balance the game. Autocast doesn't change things up too much so everything should be closer to how it was. If you're someone who was excited about slowing down macro in general or getting rid of cheesier chrono builds or more common PFs or some other side-effect this might not have the advantages of cutting the boosters, in any case. I think people care way too much about "elegance" in game design when it doesn't even effect the way the game plays. It's only a bit of a burden for new players to learn what mules and chrono are. Other than the "complication" of their very existence, they don't really make the game clunkier or anything. Cutting them altogether would make the end product simpler but the process to balance the game around that would be much more work. An argument could also be made that a race's abilities are features in a game and it's kinda lame to cut features in an expansion. That's more from a traditional average consumer's point of view, and obviously more abilities doesn't mean more quality gameplay or anything, but it's still the what I would have expected from an expansion before I really tried much competitive play in RTS games. It's pretty much a giant dirty nasty band aid of all band aids instead of balancing the game around no macro mechanics. Some people enjoyed the macro mechanics, some people hated them. I'm pretty sure no one wanted them to just exist in the background except for some terrans last week who got nailed hard by the last patch. That issue could have been fixed a million other ways than automating old mechanics. It's a bit like the HOTS spore crawlers doing a million damage to mutas only but for macro. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
Many people in this thread are pretty stupid about how to say it and just flame ahead as if this was a reddit thread, but they have a point: Instead of fixing the core problems of the game, Kim has to come up with bandaid fixes to make the game more appealing to casual players as well as more fun and an overall better experience for higher level players(i.e. everyone not playing once a month). Things like "engine flaws/technical flaws" that Blizzard doesn't see as flaws(overkill protection screwing with Terran mech/tanks comes to mind, or damage point and other things, referring to Lalush's posts mainly about unit control) exist next to a not-optimized and outdated economic growth model that always leads to the same number of optimal bases/workers and some archaic unit concepts such as the colossus, roach or marauder and many others that are either boring or completely hard-countering certain playstyles. I don't know if it's Blizzard telling Kim to not do it, or Kim not being confident enough. But these changes are so well thought out that I firmly believe that given the proper amount of time, Kim and his team can do a proper redesign of some core-aspects of the game so that they can stop the bandaid fixing and concentrate on whats important: Making all elements of the game more fun - instead of increasing the already existing fun elements while completely having to ignore the frustrating, non-fun elements of the game. It seems like it's too late for that now and we're past a point where this is the biggest change we will see in Beta. | ||
|
ohmylanta1003
United States128 Posts
On August 29 2015 05:34 Aocowns wrote: oh shit it's almost as if they're giving feedback about what they want instead of all supporting one thing You should be a little more sarcastic. It might help Blizzard make this game the best it can be. I'm not saying everyone should support one thing. But this community is so divided on EVERY FUCKING ISSUE that it's impossible for Blizzard to make this game without a chunk of people saying "guess I won't be purchasing LOTV". Great comment. 10/10. Just shut your fucking mouth, honestly, if that's all you have to say. | ||
|
Sogetsu
514 Posts
| ||
|
ohmylanta1003
United States128 Posts
On August 29 2015 05:46 KeksX wrote: While I really appreciate that they're trying out so much stuff, it also feels like they're completely crippling themselves by not going into the fundamentals more. Many people in this thread are pretty stupid about how to say it and just flame ahead as if this was a reddit thread, but they have a point: Instead of fixing the core problems of the game, Kim has to come up with bandaid fixes to make the game more appealing to casual players as well as more fun and an overall better experience for higher level players(i.e. everyone not playing once a month). Things like "engine flaws/technical flaws" that Blizzard doesn't see as flaws(overkill protection comes to mind, or damage point and other things, referring to Lalush's posts) exist next to a not-optimized and outdated economic growth model and archaic unit concepts such as the colossus, roach or marauder. I don't know if it's Blizzard telling Kim to not do it, or Kim not being confident enough. But these changes are so well thought out that I firmly believe that given the proper amount of time, Kim and his team can do a proper redesign of some core-aspects of the game so that they can stop the bandaid fixing and concentrate on whats important: Making all elements of the game more fun - instead of increasing the already existing fun elements while completely having to ignore the frustrating, non-fun elements of the game. It seems like it's too late for that now and we're past a point where this is the biggest change we will see in Beta. The funniest part is that the Reddit thread is more constructive and less hostile than this Team Liquid one. And David Kim even is responding in the Reddit thread. I wouldn't come to this forum if I was him either. | ||
|
Aron Times
United States312 Posts
On August 29 2015 05:08 Charoisaur wrote: you didn't answer my question at all. My point is, in every multiplayer game the difficulty is determined by your opponent not by the game. Making macro mechanics easier doesn't make the game easier it only shifts the things you have to be good at from macro to micro. If you think casual players generally like micro more than macro then you may have a point but as long as you always lose 50% of your games the game will stay as frustrating as it is. I won't speak for most of us peasants, but yes, I prefer micro over macro. I much prefer micro over macro, though not to the extent of removing macro altogether. However, the type of micro I like is army micro, not those fancy stutter-stepping, muta-stacking micro tricks. I like having army #1 in the middle, with army #2 and army #3 in other positions on the map. If the enemy moves forward, I can either surround them with my split forces, or even send one of my forces to backstab the enemy base. This wasn't really possible in Heart of the Swarm or even Wings of Liberty because at my level, macro wins games by itself. It doesn't matter how much fancy micro I can bring to bear if I can simply spam clicks and keypresses to rebuild faster than my enemy can damage me. The thing about micro is that it's in your face and it's obvious when you screw up, whereas with macro, it's not at all clear if you're outmacroing your opponent or if he has perfect macro and will crush you with a bigger deathball. The key here is that you don't get immediate feedback if you're doing something wrong. When you're harassing and counter-harassing an enemy, you can tell for certain if you screwed up or not, whereas with macro, you have to hope that he's really bad at keeping up constant production as well as managing macro boosters; there's no real way to tell right now in HotS until you get smashed by a much larger army. My main RTS right now is DotA 2. In the beginning, I didn't like the complete lack of base building and resource gathering and other forms of macro, as well as the almost complete lack of army micro. However, DotA 2 is a much more accessible game. It's F2P, and it offers a wide range of heroes to choose from. Some heroes, like Huskar or Ursa, dominate in pubs but are all but unseen in high-level games (they're hard countered by actual teamwork). Other heroes like Chen or Io are scarce in pubs but are mainstays in high-level games due to their complicated mechanics.Most importantly, I can play DotA 2 with my friends. This is the #1 reason why I quit SC2. None of my friends and family play it, making laddering a very lonely experience, and the sheer power of macro means that none of my fancy micro from my C&C days matters. My most played hero is Chen, a hero whose shtick is that he is a micro hero who has some aspect of macro. Micro comes in the form of controlling Chen and his four dominated creeps, as well as keeping tabs on your allies' HP so you can send them home or heal them from across the map (Chen's ultimate is a global heal that's very useful for saving allies). He also has the duty of warding, dewarding, and stacking, the equivalent of macro busywork in Starcraft 2. There's also the fact that when he loses his creeps, he has to go around the map recruiting replacements, which is analogous to rebuilding your army in traditional RTS games. The global win rate for Chen is 42.51%. My win rate with him is 55.88%. How can a mere 2.5k mmr scrub have such a high solo win rate with one of the hardest heroes in the game? Simple. I come from a micro background, i.e. C&C and the early days of SC. Is it as fulfilling as playing a real RTS like Starcraft? If you asked me this question a few years ago, I'd say no, it's not even close. Today, I enjoy it much more because I can talk to my friends about DotA 2 and they can actually appreciate my 1337 micro and macro skills with this hero. The social aspect of video games matters. I would much prefer to play and get better at "real" RTS games like Starcraft, but the fact that I find its current (HotS) gameplay a bit unsatisfying, combined with my friends' complete lack of interest in it, killed all of my desire to play the game until very, very recently. | ||
|
TheDougler
Canada8304 Posts
On August 29 2015 05:23 Little-Chimp wrote: Wow that sounds absolutely terrible to play against. How so? Wouldn't cause any more planetaries than we see currently (since the mules were removed that is), and I don't see most people complaining about planetaries being a problem. Unless I'm missing something? I've been mostly playing zerg the last few weeks. | ||
| ||
|
|
RSL Revival
Reynor vs Cure
TBD vs Zoun
OSC
BSL Open LAN 2025 - War…
RSL Revival
Classic vs TBD
WardiTV Invitational
Online Event
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
LiuLi Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
