| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Ansibled
United Kingdom9872 Posts
On September 29 2015 04:03 Ozmodeus wrote: never would have pre ordered if i knew macro would be so shit and automated. GG Probably never would have complained about it if they didn't change it either. | ||
|
raZieL1
1 Post
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
On September 28 2015 18:49 Ketch wrote: Oh and also less abilities on each units, and maybe even less units also The unit abilities is what takes Blizzard RTS games and puts them heads and shoulders above all the other RTS games out there. It gives the games personality and is much more fun. I feel so strange sometimes enjoying the hell out of abilities on units in Starcraft 2, BW, and Warcraft 2. Am I seriously in the minority here, or is it just the need to vent? Marines without stim, siegetanks without siegemode, lurkers without burrow, stalkers without blink, high templar without storm... I mean hold up. Those are the things that make the game interesting. If you don't have that, you really just mostly have identical units on each race's side with slightly skewed numbers so you can say they are different. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
On September 29 2015 04:46 Blacklizard wrote: The unit abilities is what takes Blizzard RTS games and puts them heads and shoulders above all the other RTS games out there. It gives the games personality and is much more fun. I feel so strange sometimes enjoying the hell out of abilities on units in Starcraft 2, BW, and Warcraft 2. Am I seriously in the minority here, or is it just the need to vent? Marines without stim, siegetanks without siegemode, lurkers without burrow, stalkers without blink, high templar without storm... I mean hold up. Those are the things that make the game interesting. If you don't have that, you really just mostly have identical units on each race's side with slightly skewed numbers so you can say they are different. The question is how many units need abilities. SC2 has always had non-ability units as core units, with ability units sprinkled in (Zealot, Roach, Colossus, and I would argue Stim bio (1 stim button once every 6 seconds is not much APM). Ability units are sprinkled in to show skill and do disproportionate damage when employed correctly (Siege tanks, Templar, OG Infestors). The problem with LOTV is that abilities are being added that have low impact and on core units that compete with specialist units (Reaper grenade, Liberator is huge APM sink to use right, Ravager, Adept). These additional, low impact, high APM abilities on core units takes away from the skillful employment of high impact ability usage. The worst offender in my mind is the new Protoss orb unit. Each attack has to be cast and microed, but then there is this whole other protoss army of Adepts, Templar, and Sentries, whose abilities will go simply unused as the Reaver balls are controlled. Only an AI has enough APM to actually case all those abilities optimally. Or consider a Terran bio force of Ghosts, Medivacs, Bio, and Liberators. The ghosts have all kinds of active abilities, of which only EMP is going to be used. The bio needs to be stimmed. The liberators need to be leap frogged. The medivacs should be boosted around and lifting units over force fields and walls. There are way too many abilities there and even top Korean pros are only going to use a few of those abilities (EMP, Stim, and perhaps preplaced liberators). | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20282 Posts
Reaper grenade, Liberator is huge APM sink to use right, Ravager, Adept disruptor and immortal too with removed colossus The worst offender in my mind is the new Protoss orb unit yes :D ideal army used to be in many cases, zealot/colossus/immortal/sentry (with only the sentry having any ability) and stalker support. You could put the first group on one hotkey and stalkers on another and never have to tab between abilities. Now it's like zealot/disruptor/adept/sentry/immortal and stalkers or phoenix for AA support disruptor only attacks with ability which needs to be controlled carefully to avoid wasting them and counter the counter-micro adept shade is quite important to use sometimes sentry abilities are important immortal shield needs to be carefully micro'd to avoid them being focused down, if you put it on autocast they're not nearly as good because people take a marine/stalker and shoot every immortal once to trigger it phoenix/stalker needs to move and blink/lift It's actually very demanding even for a pair of masters players even when you ignore macromanagement - it's the same on terran side with marine marauder medivac liberator ghost. People do it but nowhere near optimally Only an AI has enough APM to actually case all those abilities optimally. It's largely a problem of multiple simultaneous control. I fire a few reaver balls and then while they are in the air, the most important thing in the game to do is make sure that they hit well. Deselecting the balls mid-flight to do any kind of complex other commands would be silly (given the lack of time to do so, difficulty reselecting etc). That does mean that you spend about 2 to 3 seconds controlling only 5% of your army units, though - and when you're done that, you probably spend 2-3 seconds more controlling the next 5% of your army while everything else is amoved | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24192 Posts
| ||
|
QCD
Suriname81 Posts
| ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On September 28 2015 23:55 TimeSpiral wrote: This seems like an odd statement. Surely you know he is on the team for Atlas, an RTS in development right now. Or are you just saying that because they haven't unveiled the game yet--beyond their NDA-protected internal testers--that he hasn't done anything? Just a weird statement. Someone above me mentioned an important element of the changing industry: the PC is going away. And by "going away" I mean, "going away for the general public." Essentially, it has already been replaced by mobile devices (i.e., phones, tablets, etc ...). The PC will never truly go away, but will be relegated to the hobbyist and enthusiast crowds. The PC has been proclaimed dead so many times now, it's never going to happen. Mobile devices are an addition, not a replacement. Also, yes, for the general public, Day9 has exactly 0 Game Design credibility. Talking and analysing a game is not the same as designing one.This will only change once we can actually see his work. Which might turn out to be the best RTS ever made, but unless we can actually see it it's naive to believe Day9 is a good Game Designer just because he is a smart and talented RTS player/analyst. On September 29 2015 07:20 [PkF] Wire wrote: I hope the next patch is HUGE because if the released version is anywhere close to what we have atm, I don't see it going very well for SC2 at all. It's not going to be huge. There aren't going to be huge patches anymore. It's balancing phase now. | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On September 29 2015 23:44 KeksX wrote: The PC has been proclaimed dead so many times now, it's never going to happen. Mobile devices are an addition, not a replacement. Also, yes, for the general public, Day9 has exactly 0 Game Design credibility. Talking and analysing a game is not the same as designing one.This will only change once we can actually see his work. Which might turn out to be the best RTS ever made, but unless we can actually see it it's naive to believe Day9 is a good Game Designer just because he is a smart and talented RTS player/analyst. It's not going to be huge. There aren't going to be huge patches anymore. It's balancing phase now. Didn't say the PC was dead, nor do I agree with those who say the PC is dead. I was very specific. It's still a robust and profitable industry, of course, and will be for some time. The demographic is demonstrably changing. I'm a marketing professional by trade, and this has been an area of great interest to me. Mobile devices (still PCs, technically. The correct term is "Desktop computer", but that's besides the point) are absolutely a replacement for the Desktop PC for a growing percentage of the general population. For some they are supplementary devices, but for an important and growing demographic segment, they are the primary device. As for the Day9 bit: just weird to see such a cynical, borderline negative positions. It's my opinion that he's a clear choice to have on the team, if you're designing a competitive RTS. I mean, why wouldn't the community at large have confidence in his contributions? | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On September 30 2015 01:07 TimeSpiral wrote: Didn't say the PC was dead, nor do I agree with those who say the PC is dead. I was very specific. It's still a robust and profitable industry, of course, and will be for some time. The demographic is demonstrably changing. I'm a marketing professional by trade, and this has been an area of great interest to me. Mobile devices (still PCs, technically. The correct term is "Desktop computer", but that's besides the point) are absolutely a replacement for the Desktop PC for a growing percentage of the general population. For some they are supplementary devices, but for an important and growing demographic segment, they are the primary device. As for the Day9 bit: just weird to see such a cynical, borderline negative positions. It's my opinion that he's a clear choice to have on the team, if you're designing a competitive RTS. I mean, why wouldn't the community at large have confidence in his contributions? By your logic, progamers should make great game designers, right? The one thing Day9 has got going for him is his knowledge of the game + the ability to communicate his thoughts decently. That doesn't mean that his original thoughts are qualified to make good game design, though. Game Design is a craft, a craft he neither has learned nor has any prior experience with (or did he develop any games prior to this?). However that is assuming he even is a game designer. I for one think he has more of a QA role where the team develops stuff and he is at charge of judging whether it is good or not. The other topic is too off-topic for this thread though. Let's just agree to disagree on this for the sake of this thread. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9362 Posts
Also, yes, for the general public, Day9 has exactly 0 Game Design credibility. Talking and analysing a game is not the same as designing one.This will only change once we can actually see his work. Which might turn out to be the best RTS ever made, but unless we can actually see it it's naive to believe Day9 is a good Game Designer just because he is a smart and talented RTS player/analyst. There are a lot of things to like about him though: - He has tons of experience with games. Both on a more casual level and competittive level. Most "competetitive games" often time falls into the trap of elitism. Day9 isn't one of them. - He is very analytical. Unlike David Kim whom clearly lacks analytical skills (I can go back through his track-record to expand upon this claim if anyone disagrees with this statement). - He has a ton of experience with the specific genre he is working on. He is not just a former FPS player who is going to work on an RTS game. Thus out of all the famous community members, I actually think Day9 is the most likely guy to do a good job. That, however, doesn't mean that Atlas will be a great job since there are alot of other variables in place. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
If you applied to any game company stating that you "play a lot of games and have an analytical mindset" you'd be laughed at and sent away. Day9 has a lot of things going for him and I can see why the guys from Atlas trust him, but you're clearly showing fan-bias here. Especially your comment about David Kim. | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On September 30 2015 01:19 KeksX wrote: By your logic, progamers should make great game designers, right? The one thing Day9 has got going for him is his knowledge of the game + the ability to communicate his thoughts decently. That doesn't mean that his original thoughts are qualified to make good game design, though. Game Design is a craft, a craft he neither has learned nor has any prior experience with (or did he develop any games prior to this?). However that is assuming he even is a game designer. I for one think he has more of a QA role where the team develops stuff and he is at charge of judging whether it is good or not. The other topic is too off-topic for this thread though. Let's just agree to disagree on this for the sake of this thread. I bet the Desktop / Mobile debate would be fun and interesting! I bet we would end up agreeing on most of it though, and yeah, doesn't belong in this thread. Good call. The Day9 bit. For a moment, I was confused. Thought, "wait, who is praising his game design?! I'm not ..." Then I looked through the nested quotes, and yeah. I'm with you on this. Stating that Day9 is a better game designer than David Kim is clearly just a ridiculous position to take. So many here at TL and Bnet like to shit on Kim and I think it's largely unfair. No matter what, he is the game designer for Starcraft 2 right now, and that is a pretty fucking high accolade on your CV (resume). Per the team credits on Atlas' website, Day9 is one of three game designers for Atlas, and there is one associate game designer (four designers total). My whole drive is that, while we can't judge him as a game designer yet, we can certainly bestow a deserved amount of confidence in him. I'm confident. I would want him on my team, and I'm sure Atlas is thrilled to have him on theirs. I sensed what felt like undue negativity, but if you're specifically talking about the Day9 vs. Kim thing, yeah. I'm with you. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On September 30 2015 02:45 TimeSpiral wrote: I bet the Desktop / Mobile debate would be fun and interesting! I bet we would end up agreeing on most of it though, and yeah, doesn't belong in this thread. Good call. The Day9 bit. For a moment, I was confused. Thought, "wait, who is praising his game design?! I'm not ..." Then I looked through the nested quotes, and yeah. I'm with you on this. Stating that Day9 is a better game designer than David Kim is clearly just a ridiculous position to take. So many here at TL and Bnet like to shit on Kim and I think it's largely unfair. No matter what, he is the game designer for Starcraft 2 right now, and that is a pretty fucking high accolade on your CV (resume). Per the team credits on Atlas' website, Day9 is one of three game designers for Atlas, and there is one associate game designer (four designers total). My whole drive is that, while we can't judge him as a game designer yet, we can certainly bestow a deserved amount of confidence in him. I'm confident. I would want him on my team, and I'm sure Atlas is thrilled to have him on theirs. I sensed what felt like undue negativity, but if you're specifically talking about the Day9 vs. Kim thing, yeah. I'm with you. You know, for a very long time I gave DK the benefit of the doubt. But during this last month or so, I can honestly see for myself why people are upset. Yes, since he hs a designer on SC2 that DOES mean something.,, But what should the primary job of the game designer be? To give us the best damn game design he is capable of! This is where he shoots himself in the foot. He admit to giving us inferior design because of the perceptions of some people in the community. We can talk about his accolades for being a designer on SC2 all we want. But when it comes down to it, according to his own admission, the game DESIGNER, is not giving us the best DESIGN he is capable of. I wrote up about this earlier in this same topic we are in now.. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/495458-community-feedback-update-september-25?page=2#21 This is besides the fact that every single time they make a choice AGAINST what the community wants, he blames the reason for the changes on the community with the same old "as many of you have pointed out"... If you are asking for community input, then doing the opposite of what the community feedback states (example: 80% AGAINST the current patch), it is a slap in the face to then blame the community. Another example: First of all, we would like to point out that we saw the poll and posts relating to macro mechanics this week, and we'd like to thank you for the discussions. We don't agree with the idea that macro mechanics should be completely removed. When we tried this, and many of you pointed this out, each of the three races lost a bit of their identity and uniqueness. Yeah sure... Right after saying "We don't agree", blame the community for not making the changes. Even though the polls show overwhelmingly that the community wants the mechanics removed... It has all been a facade. He is dishonest with us. He blames us for his own & his teams decisions. He admits to not giving us the best design because of community perception (when the people in that community were the minority). Then when the community overwhelmingly is in favor of something, goes against that. How can anyone claim that is not a complete fail for a game designer? | ||
|
TimeSpiral
United States1010 Posts
On September 30 2015 03:22 Spyridon wrote: You know, for a very long time I gave DK the benefit of the doubt. But during this last month or so, I can honestly see for myself why people are upset. Yes, since he hs a designer on SC2 that DOES mean something.,, But what should the primary job of the game designer be? To give us the best damn game design he is capable of! This is where he shoots himself in the foot. He admit to giving us inferior design because of the perceptions of some people in the community. We can talk about his accolades for being a designer on SC2 all we want. But when it comes down to it, according to his own admission, the game DESIGNER, is not giving us the best DESIGN he is capable of. I wrote up about this earlier in this same topic we are in now.. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/495458-community-feedback-update-september-25?page=2#21 This is besides the fact that every single time they make a choice AGAINST what the community wants, he blames the reason for the changes on the community with the same old "as many of you have pointed out"... If you are asking for community input, then doing the opposite of what the community feedback states (example: 80% AGAINST the current patch), it is a slap in the face to then blame the community. Another example: Yeah sure... Right after saying "We don't agree", blame the community for not making the changes. Even though the polls show overwhelmingly that the community wants the mechanics removed... It has all been a facade. He is dishonest with us. He blames us for his own & his teams decisions. He admits to not giving us the best design because of community perception (when the people in that community were the minority). Then when the community overwhelmingly is in favor of something, goes against that. How can anyone claim that is not a complete fail for a game designer? Whoa. Firstly, I appreciate your passion. You clearly care a great deal. I think many of us here at TL have a visceral connection to the success of Starcraft 2. With that said, your position is rather hyperbolic and perhaps more than a little bit unfair. I'll touch on a few of the points. TL is not the Starcraft 2 community I love it here. It's a very popular team and website, and clearly a premier destination for the elite Starcraft 2 community aficionado. But, any poll done here is completely selective, unscientific, and might be interesting to look at, but should be taken with a huge grain of salt. It would be a lapse in judgement to make the leap that a TL poll is somehow representative of the SC2 community at large, including the progamers. So I'd caution against claiming to know the heartbeat of the SC2 community. I'm sure Blizzard has given him a job description You're quick to assume what his roles and responsibilities are, but lets be careful here. We all answer to someone. As an artist myself, and professional--as many of us here probably are--no art is every truly finished, only abandoned (DiVinci). In other words: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Misunderstanding I do not think he blames the community for their design decisions. I think he knows he's walking on eggshells with a community known to be--how to say this nicely?--rather intense with their feedback; so he guards his positions carefully. I'd argue that in doing so he loses some of the authority of his position, and some of the potential eloquence in his delivery is lost. He was straight up: we saw some polls. We disagree. He then peppered in with the "as some of you noted" bit, and agreed. That's definitely not blame, lol. It's just not very eloquent either. I'd argue he'd be better off just saying, "We saw your polls. Thanks. We disagree." The more you explain, the more you open yourself up to vehement and detailed opposition. Accusations You have accused David Kim of being a liar, and intentionally misleading the community he is designing for. That's hardcore, man. Why go to that extreme? Anyway ... I see people saying they won't buy the game because of three abilities. Three abilities that have been core to gameplay since Wings of Liberty. Core to every tournament since that has been amazing, and epic ... it all just feels so dramatic and unnecessary. My two cents. | ||
|
Kyrth
United States101 Posts
I got over it back in WoL. Putting so much of my heart into something I had no control over was just kind of destructive. If David Kim wants a mule hammer centric game, that's what he gets to make. If he wants certain unit compositions to be unbeatable so the game rerolves around all-ining before enough time passes, that's what he gets to make. I can't control any of it. So I have to accept it. It's stupid, and bad design, and etc. etc. But it's out of my control. The truth is the game will be what they make it to be, not what I want it to be. Anything else is just false expectation that lets me down. So my choice is to not play, or try to have fun despite the flaws. Right now I'm having fun, and despite its flaws, it's a welcome diversion. I don't expect it to last for too long, and then I'll not play again. That's the problem with e-sports as opposed to regular sports. In basketball, for instance, you have only yourself to look to to train and improve. If the rules are modified, its the same for everyone. In a video game, one team will get wings and the other team will get speed shoes. Or maybe have to spray down the court with slime or something. Things are uneven and awkward and always changing. It might be more interesting, but it's less of a sport to compete in. An even playing field is the prerequisite to sport. Hence the phrase "sporting chance". | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24192 Posts
On September 29 2015 07:20 [PkF] Wire wrote: I hope the next patch is HUGE because if the released version is anywhere close to what we have atm, I don't see it going very well for SC2 at all. It's not going to be huge. There aren't going to be huge patches anymore. It's balancing phase now.[/QUOTE] I meant huge balance wise. Balance is just totally off atm, and with one patch every two weeks until the 10th of november the end product will barely be playable. I know they said they would be pretty active with balancing and monitoring after release, but I can't help thinking that this is not good for SC2 (after all, this is the final chance) and that all of those problems could have been avoided with 1) less "let's try to appeal to the community" changes like the warpgate change, which in the end probably creates more problems than it solves issues.+ Show Spoiler + (unlike splitting warp-in and energy power) 2) making the macro mechanics change right at the beginning instead of messing up the last months of the beta. The removal could have been great, and I think it would have been if the first version of the beta had it and the game had been balanced around that. 3) and better overall direction and game design philosophy, but we can't ask for too much. So yeah, hoping the next patch aim at solving issues in simple ways, not convoluted ones. Elegance and logic, at last. | ||
|
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On September 30 2015 03:52 TimeSpiral wrote: Whoa. Firstly, I appreciate your passion. You clearly care a great deal. I think many of us here at TL have a visceral connection to the success of Starcraft 2. With that said, your position is rather hyperbolic and perhaps more than a little bit unfair. I'll touch on a few of the points. TL is not the Starcraft 2 community I love it here. It's a very popular team and website, and clearly a premier destination for the elite Starcraft 2 community aficionado. But, any poll done here is completely selective, unscientific, and might be interesting to look at, but should be taken with a huge grain of salt. It would be a lapse in judgement to make the leap that a TL poll is somehow representative of the SC2 community at large, including the progamers. So I'd caution against claiming to know the heartbeat of the SC2 community. I'm sure Blizzard has given him a job description You're quick to assume what his roles and responsibilities are, but lets be careful here. We all answer to someone. As an artist myself, and professional--as many of us here probably are--no art is every truly finished, only abandoned (DiVinci). In other words: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Misunderstanding I do not think he blames the community for their design decisions. I think he knows he's walking on eggshells with a community known to be--how to say this nicely?--rather intense with their feedback; so he guards his positions carefully. I'd argue that in doing so he loses some of the authority of his position, and some of the potential eloquence in his delivery is lost. He was straight up: we saw some polls. We disagree. He then peppered in with the "as some of you noted" bit, and agreed. That's definitely not blame, lol. It's just not very eloquent either. I'd argue he'd be better off just saying, "We saw your polls. Thanks. We disagree." The more you explain, the more you open yourself up to vehement and detailed opposition. Accusations You have accused David Kim of being a liar, and intentionally misleading the community he is designing for. That's hardcore, man. Why go to that extreme? Anyway ... I see people saying they won't buy the game because of three abilities. Three abilities that have been core to gameplay since Wings of Liberty. Core to every tournament since that has been amazing, and epic ... it all just feels so dramatic and unnecessary. My two cents. I know the TL poll is not everyone playing SC2, but the comments DK made were regarding those polls. The official forums were the same deal. And it's not like Blizzard has a survey going around for people in the beta. That's where they get the feedback from. It's more than the poll as well, if you read my older post. It's about the fact that they claimed they were HAPPY with the direction of mechanics, followed by a release date announcement that was surprisingly soon, followed by week later folding to "negative perception". A complete switch. That leaves the community feeling misdirected. Is that a surprise? Did they not direct us towards one thing for a couple months, tell us they were happy, then suddenly abandon it??? And his "as you have pointed out" comments are more than just pointing out things. It's PR speak. And every time he talks about the community "pointing things out" that is a harsh conflict with what was REALLY happening at the time. When people removed the macro mechanics, the word going around was "I like it, but the game should have been rebalanced before this!". Very few people were complaining about the races "losing their essence". That was straight PR speak to cover up the real reasons for not doing it, which by the common denominator of all the recent happenings lately being the release date in a month and a half. Lets also not forget about him claiming that all the pros were behind the removal of macro mechanics... When he got called out for stating that and being misleading by the pros themselves. He wants to remove macro mechanics, blames the pros, then when he decides to revert, acts like it is "listening to the community" when the community was overwhelmingly asking for the opposite... This is besides the fact of shady situations that whole time. For example, patching the macro mechancis back in with a message of "no community update this week". Then a few days later, "DK managed to write us up some feedback updates from overseas!". But then in this feedback update it is talking about "doing this in the next update" as if the changes were not implemented before then??? That does not add up. Obviously the post was written BEFORE the update, and blizzard chose to not release it at first, then somehow it appears out of nowhere after all the negative responses. When it comes to responsibilities, it went from balance designer to lead designer. So yes I'm sure he has more of a specialized role. But he is also the lead designer in charge of working with the community. And I completely stand by my belief that he has failed in this role. There is also a double standard in his comments, which makes the misdirection obvious. When an overwhelming amount of community want no macro mechanics "we do not agree, we're staying with this". But when a much smaller minority of the community is complaining about "nonexistent macro" they do changes because of "negative perception"??? Not because of anything that has to do with balance, or even FACTS and REALITY, but perception??? Really??? We are making major design decisions that have a major affect on the game based on perception??? Not only is that a double standard from how they treat the community on other issues, but that is a complete absolute failure of a move for a lead designer to make... ESPECIALLY after giving players a taste of how it was without the mechanics, and most of the players who tried it overwhelmingly behind removal of them. Why even have these community feedback updates, if the feedback doesn't matter? And you asked, why accusations against him? I provided more than accusations. Look at the link I provided in my last post. I quote his own words. He contradicts himself. He ignores the overwhelming majority of feedback and tells us that our feedback was in a direction it was not. He tells us they are happy with the direction and then reverts the changes once they schedule a release date. Then he tells us they believe the choice they made is the "best move for the game" when a couple weeks earlier he described that change as inferior design... Now was it his "intent" to mislead us? Possibly. Probably a decent chance of it by his conflicting statements. But I am not positive about that. What am I 100% positive about? 2 things: That he is a poor game designer for even CONSIDERING making changes based upon perception rather than reality. That he is horrible at public relations and the community would have been much happier in the end if they never did this whole switch of directions this last month, because every since then it has been a PR nightmare, and this makes it obvious that what we are being told is smoke and mirrors to hide the real issues. You know people were VERY happy with his community feedback updates, not always agreeing, but you continuously seen people saying how they "really appreciate knowing what Blizzard is thinking". Then look how the feedback changes as soon as they decided to re-implement the macro mechanics... Now in less than 1 month, the community is in an uproar, feels misled, lied to, and has lost complete trust in Blizzard and DK. Again. And your last paragraph, about people saying they will not buy the game? Because it's more than just the game they are giving us at this point. They have told people they were going to work with the community for months, asked for our feedback, told us they were happy, and then reverted the changes. It makes all the feedback feel utterly pointless. And by doing that, Blizzard as a brand, has lost trust. I personally was HAPPY by the removal of macro mechanics and the direction they were going so I preordered the game to get in to beta. Now they removed that, and I will be honest, if I could get a refund I would. That was the pretense as to why I became interested enough to play again. They told me they were happy with the direction!!! They did not even ask for feedback anymore on the macro mechanics! Then once the community became comfortable with the changes, they reverted it. They already took my money then changed directions. Why would I trust them enough to want to give them any more money? Why would I recommend anyone else to give them money? Honestly to all the people saying they are not sure if they should get the game or not, I say be VERY cautious. I do not blame them. I support them. Because I was happy with the direction the game was going when I bought it. I am not now. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
| ||
|
Edowyth
United States183 Posts
On September 30 2015 07:09 Big J wrote: I never thought it was possible, but blizzard found ways to make protoss even more gimmicky, even more reliant on the mothershipcore and give them even stronger warpgate rushes. Well played blizzard, well played! The irony is so thick you couldn't cut it with a knife. As for me, the state of the game is so poor in LotV that I'm not even looking to get it until it goes on sale so I can do the campaign -- and not expecting to touch multiplayer at all. Almost a year ago, when I wrote this (http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/15142514694), I had hopes that there might be something to look forward to with Legacy ... if only they paid attention to the pleas for interesting gameplay. Now, I'm just depressed. I'll keep paying attention till at least the end of the beta, but I don't hold much hope for a map-control (non-death-ball) strategic playstyle for Protoss in LotV. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Road to EWC
Replay Cast
SC Evo League
Road to EWC
Afreeca Starleague
BeSt vs Soulkey
Road to EWC
Wardi Open
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
