EPTOn October 30 2015 21:37 GodZo wrote:
The Dark Archon?
The Dark Archon?
the shield battery
the scourge
the science vessel
they gave valkyrie
they gave lurker
disruptor became weird reaver...
all are in the campaign though...
Community Feedback Update - October 29 - Page 5
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
fenix404
United States305 Posts
the shield battery the scourge the science vessel they gave valkyrie they gave lurker disruptor became weird reaver... all are in the campaign though... | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On October 31 2015 03:12 KeksX wrote: Oh come on, don't play that game. If you follow those guys' posts, they're never satisfied with anything. They are also assuming the worst at any point in time. And they're leaving out the past to establish their point. Blizzard >DID< change more things than just balance in the past. It wouldn't the first time and it certainly wasn't the last time when they did it with the Swarm Host. I'm the first one to judge Blizzard for not being bold enough, but at this point many people on Teamliquid.net, especially newer posters, are just playing into the "ded gaem" narrative Destiny started with his post a few years ago. EDIT: Took out the name since it's not just him. Maybe also consider this : some people think this game is bad and is not getting good. So they voice it, or try to understand what's going on. They are not satisfied because they honestly don't like it. I'm one of them. I don't mind that you think differently. But you will not shut my/our voice, so deal with it  | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On October 31 2015 03:15 ProMeTheus112 wrote: Yeah when I watch games with this 12 worker start, what really bothers me is that I think what I'm seeing is players basically blind expo + 2 gate + tech ? I see they nexus 2 gate cyber blind? If you definitely have to FE every time, it means it is no longer strategically relevant the time and the way that you expand the first time and when you choose to build these first buildings which is such an important part of opening a game leading to diversity of stuff happening early, and to different midgames. What was said is the reason why they put 12 worker starts, to speed up the early game?? Or to simplify openings??? To speed up the game. I also fail to see how the FE-focused strategies are any different from HotS. There wasn't that much one base play in HotS and LotV ladder already has its fair share of 1 base openings as well, at least in ZvX matchups. On October 31 2015 03:17 ProMeTheus112 wrote: Maybe also consider this : some people think this game is bad and is not getting good. So they voice it, or try to understand what's going on. They are not satisfied because they honestly don't like it. I'm one of them. I don't mind that you think differently. But you will not shut my/our voice, so deal with it I'm not saying that it is bad. I just think there's a major difference between being disappointed by principle, making up points to support that and "just voicing your concerns". I value every criticism and I hope that Blizzard reads most of it. But the post that was talked about here for example is plain wrong. | ||
|
fenix404
United States305 Posts
On October 31 2015 03:15 ProMeTheus112 wrote: Yeah when I watch games with this 12 worker start, what really bothers me is that I think what I'm seeing is players basically blind expo + 2 gate + tech ? I see they nexus 2 gate cyber blind? If you definitely have to FE every time, it means it is no longer strategically relevant the time and the way that you expand the first time and when you choose to build these first buildings which is such an important part of opening a game leading to diversity of stuff happening early, and to different midgames. What was said is the reason why they put 12 worker starts, to speed up the early game?? Or to simplify openings??? this bothered me from the get go. sure cannon rush and six pool are done away with (not really tho), but so are more solid openers, and more importantly, CHOICE. when coupled with the resource reduction at each base, that makes it forced. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On October 31 2015 03:17 KeksX wrote: I'm not saying that it is bad. I just think there's a major difference between being disappointed by principle, making up points to support that and "just voicing your concerns". I value every criticism and I hope that Blizzard reads most of it. But the post that was talked about here for example is plain wrong. Well BigJ's post, personally I feel exactly this way, it reminds me of Diablo 3 community managers serving as community pacifiers/appeasers instead of an actual communication bridge between the community and the company. One sided, giving an illusion of two sided. It is a bit different than with Diablo 3, but interesting common points. Some little points brought by community they seem to follow, for the rest it seems they have not much of an opinion or direction for the style of the game and races in a broader scale. However, who knows, maybe you are right. Let's see what follows. Didn't Blizzard give the impression that much more interesting changes would be tested through this beta, or that LotV would be something that it is not ? Aren't they now again using lines to pacify the community and tell us to have faith in a future that will never be satisfying ? Personally I am 100% unimpressed, in fact I find the state of game now even less appealing than WoL I think. But I respect that you think different. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On October 31 2015 03:25 fenix404 wrote: this bothered me from the get go. sure cannon rush and six pool are done away with (not really tho), but so are more solid openers, and more importantly, CHOICE. when coupled with the resource reduction at each base, that makes it forced. Yeah and taking away choice that way is equal to reducing strategic depth. By a lot, since openings are strategically at the root of the rest of the game. Maybe, an easy way for the company to kill problems of design and balance of the early game that they could never quite nail down? | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On October 31 2015 03:27 ProMeTheus112 wrote: Well BigJ's post, personally I feel exactly this way, Feel what? What he said is wrong. This is not what the game is going to be. It wasn't in WoL Beta and it wasn't in HotS Beta. It will also not be the case this time. On October 31 2015 03:38 ProMeTheus112 wrote: Yeah and taking away choice that way is equal to reducing strategic depth. By a lot, since openings are strategically at the root of the rest of the game. Maybe, an easy way for the company to kill problems of design and balance of the early game that they could never quite nail down? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Why are you saying that there are fewer openings? They just look different now. Also, they're hardly the root of the rest of the game. Openings, for the most part, look the same in standard games. And only in those really edge cases where someone goes for a 1base timing push etc they really matter. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
| ||
|
OSCEWiNtER
Hungary20 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 31 2015 02:08 BisuDagger wrote: You continue to post super negative front page posts. You're whole attitude is terrible, outlook on this op is wrong, and it's a shame you can't seem to change. DK did a solid job here of vocalizing acknowledgement of all the current issues mentioned on TL and has said they are reviewing them. You can't ask for anything more. This is very positive and should be regarded so. The post in itself isn't negative. Of course I personally think that this interpretation I give is not good for the game, but I deliberately left out the part where I said I want more and bigger changes, so that anyone who wanted could respond with a "and that's good, LotV is great as it is". The fact that you yourself interprete what I feel DK is saying as negative and the fact that many people in this community have been voicing that they'd rather have a long experimental beta instead of actually getting a grab on their next (potentially) favorite toy is what justifies my fear of nomore changes. And let's not make this a question of who was right about the interpretation.  What scares the crap out of me is how little they did after HotS came out besides balancing it. the first thing they gave up upon was their dedicated goal to make mech playable TvP. They weakened that stance again and again until they settled on "at least they can play widow mines now and don't always suicide their factories for scouting". Mech TvZ took them around one year to become playable. Swarm Hosts were only fixed due to tournament organizers not being able to schedule properly anymore and only after everyone had been training this style forever. Blink was left broken in TvP - though it seems like they learned from that one and seem to have the goal to not balance by pidgeonholing maps, but actually tackle unit problems. The comments before that were the same as nowadays though. Blizzard always tells us how they are ready to make big changes if necessary, so far it just never seemed necessary besides that one time after 2years of complaints with swarm hosts...So if that is what the pace and philosophy of the patching is going to be - and again, the comments are oh-so-similar to HotS - then I feel like it's going to take a long, long time until actual diverse gameplay will be possible or until grave balance failures like the ultralisk are going to be adressed. If at all. And yes I'm negative. I've been positive very often, I've defended blizzard, tried to interprete well-meanings in their content and patches, tried to be objective towards features I didn't like (e.g tank drops are great fun, e.g. liberators make a lot of sense in the relation to new ultralisks and in heneral zerg techswitches between ultras/mutas, e.g. ling/bling ZvZ being mechanical intense), but it has gotten tiresome. At some point I would just like to play a game of which I knew it offered what I expect. Now, not in 2years after the metagame has settled where they maybe acknowledge that every ZvT is mutas because of medivacs. | ||
|
NyxNax
United States227 Posts
and then this... a. We do plan on testing potential issues a bit more aggressively in LotV. The reason for this is to be more quick to react on solutions once something is determined to be an issues. I really want to write constructive criticism, but the majority of the bullet points before this quote are about how they're too cautious to make any changes for being unsure if they're actually a problem, which I dont know how many times I've heard "many times in the past we've been too quick to nerf things only realize they werent needed". I love SC, I'm not giving up on it yet and I've committed to buying the game. I suppose we'll just have to see how it goes from here on out... | ||
|
skatbone
United States1005 Posts
Why do we expect that they will sit idly and watch another BL-Infestor, or Swarmhost meta to dominate? Doubters argue that Blizzard's past behavior is evidence of their future behavior. I am not convinced by this line of argumentation. I am naively optimistic enough to entertain the notion that up until now, the balance team has always had their hands tied, in part, by the inevitability of a future expansion. Now that they are free of that inevitability (the constant specter of another team working on future units and future changes), they have LotV and only LotV to commit to. | ||
|
Terranist
United States2496 Posts
On October 31 2015 09:12 NyxNax wrote: Never have I seen Blizzard flat out say we got a flawed game were going to balance after release. and then this... I really want to write constructive criticism, but the majority of the bullet points before this quote are about how they're too cautious to make any changes for being unsure if they're actually a problem, which I dont know how many times I've heard "many times in the past we've been too quick to nerf things only realize they werent needed". I love SC, I'm not giving up on it yet and I've committed to buying the game. I suppose we'll just have to see how it goes from here on out... It's a sad truth that the only reason I will buy lotv is because the hots community is going to deprecate itself very quickly. Adding a few units and halving a couple mineral patches is not exactly what was going to fix starcraft but they seem to be content with it. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9448 Posts
On October 31 2015 01:27 KeksX wrote: There are so many interesting things you could do with the Nydus worm. Just three on top of my head: 1) New tool to spread creep (in line, bigger radius) 2) Mass burrow units( units go into nydus -> burrowed, have fixed speed, can move all over creep) 3) Production facility -> produces larvae/can be injected(same as teleport, just slower) But the time of experimenting with the nydus didn't even come in beta :/ 1. Not interesting - try convince players to comeback from LOL/CS because you now have a new tool to spread creep. 2. Don't get your point. 3. New more semi-complicated macrotools is not the way to go. What could be interesting is if it allowed you play new more aggressive playstyles without being an all-in or lose mechanic. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On October 31 2015 18:35 Hider wrote: 1. Not interesting - try convince players to comeback from LOL/CS because you now have a new tool to spread creep. 2. Don't get your point. 3. New more semi-complicated macrotools is not the way to go. What could be interesting is if it allowed you play new more aggressive playstyles without being an all-in or lose mechanic. The point is not that these things are the ultimate solution to bring players over from LOL/CS, but it is more interesting to try out than what Nydus is used for right now. | ||
|
nottapro
202 Posts
| ||
|
Valyrian
41 Posts
On October 31 2015 18:35 Hider wrote: 1. Not interesting - try convince players to comeback from LOL/CS because you now have a new tool to spread creep. I'm not invested in this discussion, but what a ridiculous standard to set for any design question in LotV. You can basically shoot anything down with this argument. "Getting players back" shouldn't even be the primary concern. Designing a good game comes first, and that's not the same thing. | ||
|
NihiLStarcraft
Denmark1413 Posts
On November 01 2015 01:44 Valyrian wrote: "Getting players back" shouldn't even be the primary concern. Designing a good game comes first, and that's not the same thing. It really is. A good game that nobody plays is not a good game, is it? It's just a game that you personally like. Let me explain it this way: a game being good means that the majority of people like it. Which means they play it. | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On November 01 2015 04:06 NihiLStarcraft wrote: It really is. A good game that nobody plays is not a good game, is it? It's just a game that you personally like. Let me explain it this way: a game being good means that the majority of people like it. Which means they play it. Would be great if it was that easy, right? Make a good game and people will play it for sure. Sadly, thats not how it works in todays times. So many more factors play into this, many out of developers' control. | ||
|
NihiLStarcraft
Denmark1413 Posts
On November 01 2015 04:10 KeksX wrote: Would be great if it was that easy, right? Make a good game and people will play it for sure. Sadly, thats not how it works in todays times. So many more factors play into this, many out of developers' control. That's true for indies but for Blizzard? What are you talking about? They have everything they could ask for in advantages. Can you give an example? | ||
| ||
