We wanted to talk a little bit this week about the beta ending. Balance updates aren’t coming to a close after the beta ends or after the game launches. As we’ve said many times before, top level pro players haven’t fully joined in yet, so while we got great feedback from the community throughout the beta, there are still unknown factors at the highest skill levels. We will continue to keep an open channel on feedback so that we can react to potential issues that come up. While we would like to respond quickly to possibleissues immediately following the release of the game, we’d also like to be careful to avoid a few pitfalls as we work together with the community:
1. Not overreacting too quickly to potential issues
a. It’s easy to laser in on 4-5 games that happened in 1 weekend and base all your decisions on those salient games. However, if a particular mechanic is cool and has potential, we shouldn’t be too quick to nerf it.
2. Making hard conclusions.
a. At times it’s easy to make hard conclusions on things, like: “This race is completely broken and unbeatable” or “This race is so bad that it can never compete ever.” However, it’s rare for balance issues in a game to be so extreme.
b. Similarly, we should take note that it’s difficult to judge whether there is an issue. We’ve seen many times that even top tier pros can make hard conclusions that turn out to be flawed as time passed. As others have pointed out,it’s just not possible to know with 100% certainty all the time.
c. Finally, we need to focus on keeping an open mind on issues and evaluating them fairly. It’s not about who “knew” what will happen, it’s about working together to find the best solution for different issues.
3. We can be more aggressive with balance test maps, but perhaps not with actual patches.
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.
b. Feedback regarding this line of though is greatly welcome, since now is the time to be discussing this plan.
4. Working together as we have all throughout the beta
a. The same things apply here that we’ve been doing together for so long: It’s not about who was right and who was wrong, and we shouldn’t care who called what and who didn’t know what would happen, extreme statements are often times wrong statements, etc.
b. Our main goal is to correctly identify issues to make sure that they’re actual problems that players can’t fix on their own, and finding the best solution.
With that said, we’d like to thank you guys once again for so much help during the beta. It was a great learning experience to be able to work so closely with many smart, dedicated, and talented people out there. It was also clear that a negative minority out there won’t change, but it was awesome to see so many people who were constructive, positive, and helpful towards the better of Starcraft 2 – we appreciate it, and we know the community does too.
We strongly believe that due to community collaboration efforts, there are clear improvements to how the game turned out for release. Thank you so much. And while we know that LotV isn’t a perfect game yet, we’ll continue working closely with all of you out there who are willing to contribute so much as you have throughout the course of development.
Next balance update We’re not doing another balance update this week, due to how little testing time there will be even if we put one out. After the game releases, the current plan for the next balance update is to mostly focus on issues that are game breaking first. Because players will need time to explore and learn new tools, we don’t want to be too quick to make hard judgements on issues unless we have to.
From past experience, we know for a fact that timing based all ins or strategies will be easily identifiable in terms of extremely difficult to stop all ins or early timing based attacks. For example, if Nydus all in like many of you point out is really unstoppable, we’d easily see a huge amount of games where Nydus is being used in major tournaments + opponents not being able to counter them. This is the sort of issue that we will need to react as quickly as possible on. As compared to if Lurkers are a bit powerful, but Protoss players are going 45% win ratio against them, maybe we can give Protoss players the time to find their own solutions before doing a balance update.
With that said, these are the things we are currently looking at internally:
Photon Overcharge tweaks Lurker morph times Nydus strength Recent Liberator changes Siege tank drops in TvT
New maps We wanted to talk about new 1v1 maps going into release. We’ll be releasing a map blog on these maps as well, but we wanted to talk a bit more in detail about this topic before that happens. We know that there are many of you out there including top tier pros who prefer the same, standard maps every time. As we’ve discussed many times over and over again, it’s much more exciting in terms of playing and watching to have map diversity which leads to strategic diversity as well.
As we’ve mentioned before, the reason why we wanted to reiterate further is because we’re aiming to push map diversity even more for the launch of LotV. We know that there will be some tournaments that happen right after launch, but the actual tournament seasons will begin early next year. That makes this the best time to explore new ideas, since we have an opportunity to change out one or more of these maps before the major tournament season begins in LotV early next year.
Starcraft 2 panels at Blizzcon next week We know that there’s so much going on at Blizzcon these days. Therefore, we wanted to give you guys a heads up on what each panel will cover, so that you guys can plan your time accordingly among all the things you’ll be doing and watching during Blizzcon.
Future of SC2 panel Here, we will talk about our plans on each department of the SC2 development team and what our focuses are going forward. This includes the future plans for campaign/story, multiplayer systems, co op missions, and answers to miscellaneous suggestions. This will be on Friday right after the opening ceremony.
Multiplayer panel This panel will be going over the goals we had for LotV, as well as examples of what actually made it into the game due to these goals (as a summary for people who haven’t been keeping close attention). We will then go into our community collaboration efforts we’ve been putting into Void, and what it means in this area going forward. Finally, this panel will go in depth into thoughts behind the ladder system revamp as well as the current ideas and solutions we have on the design side. This will be on Friday afternoon around 4:30pm.
SC2 Launch Celebration This isn’t a panel, but we’ll be celebrating the launch of LotV on Saturday morning on the WCS stream. This will include looking back through both the development and the life cycle of all of Starcraft, and there will be discussions with SC1 developers, various pro players/influencers to Starcraft, as well as SC2 developers.
We strongly feel that many of you out there have clearly been an integral part of our development team throughout the beta. We hope this process continues even after the launch of the game in less than a couple weeks! Thank you so much, and we’ll see you at Blizzcon next week!
In all honesty ling/ravagers is way better then lurkers in ZvP I have no idea why David Kim thinks that Lurkers timings is to strong when we don’t see lurkers outside of ZvP.
Its to bad cuz now ZvZ is back to Roach vs Roach and faster Lurkers would have made ZvZ go into late game
Byun showed clear counters to nydus in many tournaments, more obvious he showed that bio parade push might be to strong if the Zerg has only 3 larva and the Terran has almost the same MULE
Terran
Liberators are fine but to easy to mass, a simple change to make them at techlab is perfect, damage nerfs might happen if koreans find something broken
Tank drops needs removed, design wise makes no sense
Toss
PO needs to be 50 energy, David Kim knows this, its just a spam fest for now. You cant push a Protoss in the early game.
TLDR: Beta is over, that's what the game will be. Patches will come because the game won't be perfectly balanced right now. But balance issues aside nothing will change from now on.
I'm way into further experimenting with maps, cool that they are talking about it.
Also, with what they're talking about internally, my only issue with LOTV balance that they aren't talking about is warp prism strength. The pickup range is crazy.
Other than that, I'm still really enjoying the beta overall and can't wait to see top tier tourney's next year.
On October 30 2015 10:39 Kingultalisk wrote: Future of SC2 panel Here, we will talk about our plans on each department of the SC2 development team and what our focuses are going forward. This includes the future plans for campaign/story, multiplayer systems, co op missions, and answers to miscellaneous suggestions. This will be on Friday right after the opening ceremony.
Multiplayer panel This panel will be going over the goals we had for LotV, as well as examples of what actually made it into the game due to these goals (as a summary for people who haven’t been keeping close attention). We will then go into our community collaboration efforts we’ve been putting into Void, and what it means in this area going forward. Finally, this panel will go in depth into thoughts behind the ladder system revamp as well as the current ideas and solutions we have on the design side. This will be on Friday afternoon around 4:30pm.
my biggest question for the future of SC2 Esports is how will this new ATVI eSports subsidiary impact WCS 2016
On October 30 2015 10:46 Big J wrote: TLDR: Beta is over, that's what the game will be. Patches will come because the game won't be perfectly balanced right now. But balance issues aside nothing will change from now on.
I honestly doubt it, to many things are imbalanced. Once those change, so will the Meta
Or I at least hope so cuz seeing Protoss mass stalkers and Disruptors in all matchups is not fun
Or I at least hope so cuz seeing Protoss mass stalkers and Disruptors in all matchups is not fun
They nerfed carriers to unplayability and adepts to being kinda meh and less useful than stalkers in many situations, what do you expect? What do you want from protoss matchups?
It has been great to read some of Blizzards thoughts throughout this beta, and it has been sad reading the communities responses to everything they do. LotV is such a cool game and it's a shame to see how so many people hang onto what they know instead of realising it's a very different game that plays mechanically the same.
Well this isn't anything terribly news-worthy.. Of course they will continue to patch and change things as they come up... Nobody should reasonably expect perfection in a game like this straight out of beta..
I like the new weekly/semi-weekly update format and hope it continues. We really do need to get into televised matches to flush out any remaining balance issues and prove what is and isn't working.
I'm excited for LOTV, its really quite different from HOTS in so many ways.
No faith here... but it is time for the Modders to shine...
Like, seriously, now the Devs stated they won't be patching fast, but using PTRs... and remember what happened the last time with PTRs and everything regarded to Swarm Hosts? Yep... almost nobody tested it, and they got flying locust... later they made another PTR and they rolled back the changes.
The only thing I hope is to see decent and different games from pros, instead the same thing over and over.
On October 30 2015 12:32 Sogetsu wrote: No faith here... but it is time for the Modders to shine...
Like, seriously, now the Devs stated they won't be patching fast, but using PTRs... and remember what happened the last time with PTRs and everything regarded to Swarm Hosts? Yep... almost nobody tested it, and they got flying locust... later they made another PTR and they rolled back the changes.
The only thing I hope is to see decent and different games from pros, instead the same thing over and over.
When you are playin for shit tons of money pros will choose the best 1 strategy and use it the most, if you want diversity watch lower pro games or people that don't have it all on the line.
On October 30 2015 12:48 ZeroCartin wrote: Im a big fan, but am still unsure as to buy LOTV. I have both collectors editions, but still not really feeling this one
If you like slow macro "standard" games where a failed big attack means just adding a tech structure and trying again appeals to you, stick with HotS.
Finally, this panel will go in depth into thoughts behind the ladder system revamp as well as the current ideas and solutions we have on the design side. This will be on Friday afternoon around 4:30pm.
I'll be curious to see what the ladder revamp is. As far as I know, there is no information on this and I feel like this could be important to the future of this game. I hope they get this part right, although I'm not sure what that should look like right now.
On October 30 2015 12:01 Ozmodeus wrote: adepts offer free scouting at 0 risk to protoss every game.. wtf seriously?
Nobody's arguing that they don't do that.
A scouting adept won't replace stalker/disruptor blobbing around the map, nor will it replace air armies. It's just something that any protoss style can make good use of in the first few minutes of the game.
It seemed at a few points in the beta that the game could promise to be better and cooler than it currently is, but looking at it in absolute terms - especially looking at the nett changes in the hots->lotv changelog thread - I think lotv is in a good place. It's time to settle down and appreciate the game for what it is I guess
Probably just need a 98.9 second delay on shot after dropping the tank to make it absolutely atrocious except for specific harassment instances.
If that happens TvT will revert to HoTS, and is only one medivac nerf away from going back to glorious WoL TvT.
I have placed information vital to the survival of sc2 TvT into this post. You know how to retrieve it. You must see this post safely delivered to the PTR server. This is our most desperate hour. Help me, David Kim. You're my only hope.
On October 30 2015 15:22 Thaniri wrote: Siege tank drops in TvT getting fixed?
Probably just need a 98.9 second delay on shot after dropping the tank to make it absolutely atrocious except for specific harassment instances.
If that happens TvT will revert to HoTS, and is only one medivac nerf away from going back to glorious WoL TvT.
I have placed information vital to the survival of sc2 TvT into this post. You know how to retrieve it. You must see this post safely delivered to the PTR server. This is our most desperate hour. Help me, David Kim. You're my only hope.
"Got it! Unboosted Medivac removed, medivac always flies at fullspeed. And we believe to have found the perfect tankdrop delay with the last patch. However, to offer more tools as counters to it, medivacs can now pick up bunkers. Also banshee cloak now refunds 200minerals and 200gas upon research."
Working together as we have all throughout the beta
Yes. It would be a shame if the community suggested a whole economy model and Blizzard wouldn't pick it up.
I don't blame them for picking it up at all. It's nothing about the viability of the Double Harvest method, it's just whatever Blizzard's design process and plan for the game is. You seriously cannot expect them to have spent all this time working on LotV as it was and then drop it all suddenly because some people made a fancy extension mod.
I think the community vastly overestimates it's potential value to SC2's design and development. But that's mostly Blizzard's fault for not convincing them how much better and smarter they are, so idk.
Working together as we have all throughout the beta
Yes. It would be a shame if the community suggested a whole economy model and Blizzard wouldn't pick it up.
I don't blame them for picking it up at all. It's nothing about the viability of the Double Harvest method, it's just whatever Blizzard's design process and plan for the game is. You seriously cannot expect them to have spent all this time working on LotV as it was and then drop it all suddenly because some people made a fancy extension mod.
I think the community vastly overestimates it's potential value to SC2's design and development. But that's mostly Blizzard's fault for not convincing them how much better and smarter they are, so idk.
How dare you insinuate that there are people who are paid to understand this game better than random people on a forum.
Working together as we have all throughout the beta
Yes. It would be a shame if the community suggested a whole economy model and Blizzard wouldn't pick it up.
I don't blame them for picking it up at all. It's nothing about the viability of the Double Harvest method, it's just whatever Blizzard's design process and plan for the game is. You seriously cannot expect them to have spent all this time working on LotV as it was and then drop it all suddenly because some people made a fancy extension mod.
I think the community vastly overestimates it's potential value to SC2's design and development. But that's mostly Blizzard's fault for not convincing them how much better and smarter they are, so idk.
Yes. Basically you cannot go ahead and say "please, everyone, play and test and give feedback" when your design process is mainly already finished. I'm not naive enough to expect Blizzard to take over ideas that other guys do that are not part of the company and are "only" playing the game. But I do expect Blizzard to pick up incentives, especially if they call for good collaboration.
On October 30 2015 17:40 Mistakes wrote: Once again the Blizzard forums are painful and full of crying.
Once again the TL threads aren't that much better, surprisingly.
Blizzard is doing a fantastic job. Everything will be ok. Calm down. If you don't know how to win, you haven't explored all possibilities.
This is not about winrates. It's about flawed game design and the lack of being honestly interested in community feedback. If they want a Beta to consist only of rough balance test, then they should say "yo guys, play the game and let us check the balance based on your stats". Nothing more.
On October 30 2015 17:40 Mistakes wrote: Once again the Blizzard forums are painful and full of crying.
Once again the TL threads aren't that much better, surprisingly.
Blizzard is doing a fantastic job. Everything will be ok. Calm down. If you don't know how to win, you haven't explored all possibilities.
Your last sentence just makes me a little bit sad. For me this feels like "ok jump over the street with closed eyes, everything will be fine, if you get hit by a car you didn't jump fast enough". I know you wanted to calm us down but not everyone here is just stupidly crying. Sure there is a lot of crying in forums and thats not good and blizzard deserves respect. But on the other hand (unit balance) if you see something is broken or does not feel good and the whole community agrees and blizzard doesn't even mention it in patchnotes then it is absolutely legit to get angry. I feel that the beta needed at least 1 month more banalce testing. And i think its much better to nerf something if its obviously too strong having the risk that it might be a bit underpowered instead of letting this strat ruin a whole tournament (lets see what happens at dreamhack). I don't want to mention any examples because i do not want to start a balancediskussion again ;D
Yes. Basically you cannot go ahead and say "please, everyone, play and test and give feedback" when your design process is mainly already finished. I'm not naive enough to expect Blizzard to take over ideas that other guys do that are not part of the company and are "only" playing the game. But I do expect Blizzard to pick up incentives, especially if they call for good collaboration.
What? Of course you can! Blizzard are all "ok here's some new units we've been working on, 12 worker start, 60% patches and geysers, let's try and make this all work". That's literally what happened and that sort of thing is pretty much how all betas work.
Sadly enough I think the main mistake during this beta was giving the community this feeling of "taking an active role" in the whole design, with all these comunity feedback stuff.
To me it looked a great idea at first. But if feels like it has only brought disappointment to many people, because everyone has their many own ideas for the game and of course the new patches didn't please most of them. And everyone thinks they are better game designers than the whole Blizz team, so they think "why the hell aren't they doing what I told them? Wtf is this feedback about then?" The economy model is a great example of this.
Weekly updates and sharing their thoughts were great, make no mistake. But the "involving the whole community" thing created more problems than it solved IMO. Over the good or bad design, there are the feelings of the players about the game. And they were kinda crushed for many.
On October 30 2015 15:22 Thaniri wrote: Probably just need a 98.9 second delay on shot after dropping the tank to make it absolutely atrocious except for specific harassment instances.
Tank drop delay is going to be the new bunker build time in LotV.
My main issues with lotv from worst to less worse: -Ultras -parasitic bomb -tank drop -chronoboost -warpin nerf
Ultras and pb make terran play on a timer in tvz and we all know how exciting that is. Tank drop ruin tvt because you can instantly siege everywhere on the map which removes all the positional aspects of the matchup. chronoboost is just terrible and impractical while the warpin nerf nerfs protoss map control and harass potential.
Also I'm really dissatisfied that oracles and tempests are still in their bad state from hots.
i hope that someday they will stop patching the gameplay, making it possible for casual gamers like me to play the game every once in a while without having to relearn every single stat, build time and cost.
I feel like every time I want to play I'd have to read through pages of patch logs first. it's not fun!
I feel like the first half of this update could be summarized as "please don't be so negative, people on the internet!". Good luck with that, company on the internet.
Personally I don't like the direction of maps, and I'm more in favour of standard-ish maps. I guess what might end up happening is GSL/SSL start using their own maps again, if the ladder maps are too wonky, which would suck for ladder-only players. But I have an open mind, so let's wait and see how it pans out.
I'm pleased to see Blizzard committed to continuing to improve the game and the balance post launch.
And most importantly, thank you Blizzard for all the community updates, they were a great means of communication, and have on the whole been superb.
Yes. Basically you cannot go ahead and say "please, everyone, play and test and give feedback" when your design process is mainly already finished. I'm not naive enough to expect Blizzard to take over ideas that other guys do that are not part of the company and are "only" playing the game. But I do expect Blizzard to pick up incentives, especially if they call for good collaboration.
What? Of course you can! Blizzard are all "ok here's some new units we've been working on, 12 worker start, 60% patches and geysers, let's try and make this all work". That's literally what happened and that sort of thing is pretty much how all betas work.
Sorry, I failed at typing. I meant that you cannot say "lets work together, please take part" when in reality all you want to Do is balance test.
The only problem in SC2, it's the pace... it's too fast, sometimes even the casters/players can't see wtf is going on.
They have been always BUFFING every unit SPEED, instead of nerfing the one that is too fast.
I have been playing SC since 2002, and my experience with someone else watching you play sc2 is, "WTF is going on your screen?" The only prize you can gain for playing? It is tendinitis.
The best thing they did, was changing the macro. But everyone knows why they didn't keep it, because it was a bet, either could fail or be a success. Fail, means fired.
Sorry about the bad english.
And anyway, good luck Starcraft, I always loved you, but is time to move on.
Concerning mapdiversity, I think that its not so much an issue about where you only want to see "standard" maps, but maps that are balanced for your race (i.e. no island expo map for Z). Moonlight Madness and Dash and Terminal may be cool and diverse to play on but they lack good balance so I will eventually veto them out.
Yes. Basically you cannot go ahead and say "please, everyone, play and test and give feedback" when your design process is mainly already finished. I'm not naive enough to expect Blizzard to take over ideas that other guys do that are not part of the company and are "only" playing the game. But I do expect Blizzard to pick up incentives, especially if they call for good collaboration.
What? Of course you can! Blizzard are all "ok here's some new units we've been working on, 12 worker start, 60% patches and geysers, let's try and make this all work". That's literally what happened and that sort of thing is pretty much how all betas work.
Sorry, I failed at typing. I meant that you cannot say "lets work together, please take part" when in reality all you want to Do is balance test.
Yes they can, its their game. They can do everything.
I agree that Beta is for design and balance change but not every company cares
goodbye starcraft, i enjoyed you until it became an expand or die game, bye, literally cried for months because i did not want to leave, yet the playing experience and the feedback updates have made me believe that this is not my game anymore, its not fun, its frustrating and it gets boring really fast.
On October 30 2015 19:00 MrMischelito wrote: i hope that someday they will stop patching the gameplay, making it possible for casual gamers like me to play the game every once in a while without having to relearn every single stat, build time and cost.
I feel like every time I want to play I'd have to read through pages of patch logs first. it's not fun!
We've come out of Beta now, the coast is clear, don't worry this isn't DotA
Seems like flavour patches won't be coming anymore, like say giving Thor an ability, or spicing up Hellbats or so. But I think there are so many areas where you can provide more flavour to faded out units that they should do this, whenever balance is skewed. So instead of tweaking boring numbers, use this as an opportunity to ADD something to the game that the design team has had time to think about and from that point the players can find out ways to balance the matchup. Otherwise we end up with a perfectly balanced, but never changing matchup, since with 50% balance there's not much need to explore more of the game.
Don't tweak numbers as much, but provide the tools for the players.
DK still wants to see Pararistic bomb massacre the whole enemy fleet. Terrible, terrible humiliation if this happens in the real tournament. After that, maybe he will release a patch and pretend to understand the situation: "We agree that the curent pararistic bomb is so fucking OP and retared blah blah..." (i guest the only thing backing him up is: "It’s not about who was right and who was wrong"). Not a single word on Pararistic bomb after all discussions from the community during 6 god-damn-months of beta. Sorry everybody, i'm really mad this time.
Finally, this panel will go in depth into thoughts behind the ladder system revamp as well as the current ideas and solutions we have on the design side.
Sounds like there could be some changes that are more than just balance.
I love that they're going for more map diversity. I'm one of those guys that was terribly bored by the stale map meta in HotS and loved the maps the community came up with. But they were never used because they weren't exactly like the other maps. So hopefully this means both: maps become more diverse and more community maps being used.
Just disappointed that they didn't decide on scratching sieged tank drops or gave an outlook on a potential cyclone replacement. Hopefully they will do this at the panels (if at all). Terran seems like the most problematic at this point, seeing as how they basically got nothing except for more mobile tanks and a flying tank variant.
@Thinh123456:
The thing you're missing is that removing/nerfing parasatic bomb now would essentially mean every Terran and Protoss would just go air against Zerg and win, especially in tournaments. It's the best weapon zerg users have against air right now and is needed to beat liberator-based deathballs or carriers reliably. If they removed it NOW, it'd be horribly imbalanced. So it might not be shining & beautiful, but at least it works until they can get back to the balance/drawing board and actually put out patches.
On October 30 2015 20:57 Thinh123456 wrote: DK still wants to see Pararistic bomb massacre the whole enemy fleet. Terrible, terrible humiliation if this happens in the real tournament. After that, maybe he will release a patch and pretend to understand the situation: "We agree that the curent pararistic bomb is so fucking OP and retared blah blah..." (i guest the only thing backing him up is: "It’s not about who was right and who was wrong"). Not a single word on Pararistic bomb after all discussions from the community during 6 god-damn-months of beta. Sorry everybody, i'm really mad this time.
Nerfing parasitic bomb just means you'll have the hots situation where terran just turtles up and builds a god army, it all comes back to the fact air units are far too strong in sc2.
On October 30 2015 20:57 Thinh123456 wrote: DK still wants to see Pararistic bomb massacre the whole enemy fleet. Terrible, terrible humiliation if this happens in the real tournament. After that, maybe he will release a patch and pretend to understand the situation: "We agree that the curent pararistic bomb is so fucking OP and retared blah blah..." (i guest the only thing backing him up is: "It’s not about who was right and who was wrong"). Not a single word on Pararistic bomb after all discussions from the community during 6 god-damn-months of beta. Sorry everybody, i'm really mad this time.
Nerfing parasitic bomb just means you'll have the hots situation where terran just turtles up and builds a god army, it all comes back to the fact air units are far too strong in sc2.
That's not really it. It's the fact that air units lead to very boring play because suddenly half of your unit options cannot fight any longer. Like anything in the game, to be useful airplay must be as strong as other options. Which it isn't even, most games are still won by the "far too strong" basic units. Worst of all, the underlying factor for most won games are the "ridiculously overpowered" worker units which can pay for themselves without micro in less than one minute.
The thing you're missing is that removing/nerfing parasatic bomb now would essentially mean every Terran and Protoss would just go air against Zerg and win, especially in tournaments. It's the best weapon zerg users have against air right now and is needed to beat liberator-based deathballs or carriers reliably. If they removed it NOW, it'd be horribly imbalanced. So it might not be shining & beautiful, but at least it works until they can get back to the balance/drawing board and actually put out patches.
I agree, the spell is okay in principle, it just needs to be tuned so there can be counterplay and it's not as devastating.
What I think is more problematic is how it makes the Viper your all around counter to everything. I wish there was more variety and the Infestor was not as useless.
In the current beta, how do you guys beat mass air zerg + pararistic bomb??? Multipronged attacks or don't let the zerg get into that OP state?? It sounds pretty familiar to the OP era of fungal growth right? I don't like this much.
"Not overreacting too quickly" : this coming from the dev team who actually made the zealot charge deal 30 damage, I find this hilarious. The game is dead, and you're just trying to sell your last piece. BW is litterally 20x more watched than SC2 right now, even with the beta out.
Yeah, keep the whining coming. Blizzard has stated that they are definitely going to listen to over negative posts. So it is really useful to keep writing them. Haha instead of trying to cooperate with blizzard Teamliquid is now called a negative minority. Haha, keep up the good work folks. It is working!!
Really sad that we didnt get many actual Design changes. I was hoping they'd at least change the Ultra into being able to walk over lings similar as colossus does and then reduce its armor back. Or do TLO's idea with smaller Ultras that cost less but can be controlled better etc.
Nothing done with Colossus, Thor, Tank, Infestor (was hoping for 1 or 2 new abilities, i like the mutation we had at start) I dunno, theres so many neat things they coulda done with these Units, and nothing changed at all. No small HP increase across all units to test a small change for slightly longer fights (not as long as in WC3 but slightly longer would have helped a lot with microing fights - which is where the fun is at)
Felt like the Beta was a Beta for 2-3 Units only and nothing else got even looked at (Beta for Disruptor, Adept, Cyclone and Ravagers and everything else is the same.
Not worried about balance tho, and Blizzards shown again and again how good they are here but yeah i feel like many missed opportunities and we wont have that back
On October 30 2015 12:32 Sogetsu wrote: No faith here... but it is time for the Modders to shine...
Like, seriously, now the Devs stated they won't be patching fast, but using PTRs... and remember what happened the last time with PTRs and everything regarded to Swarm Hosts? Yep... almost nobody tested it, and they got flying locust... later they made another PTR and they rolled back the changes.
The only thing I hope is to see decent and different games from pros, instead the same thing over and over.
yeah, i definitely hope we will see a lot of good mods, hopefully at least one can get a healthy playerbase running
What an unfortunate community update. It reads more like an information pamphlet on how to cope. Where is the update that discusses many of the unanswered community concerns? Hopefully those answers will surface in the BlizzCon panels...
So it has been a couple months since I last played any sc2... I actually bought LotV before they started messing with the core macro boosters and I actually loved the game but once they started messing with the core of the game i quickly fell into a strong disarray of disappointment leaving me in a state where I just wanted my money back for a game that no longer existed... I thought to myself maybe just maybe they will make it worth playing again by following the path that it was then they reverted the changes and wanted to make everything automated... unfortunately this has left me in an even worse state. You can look at my posts I was a strong optimist but now I can't bear to think about the $30 i wasted on what I thought was going to be a good game... Sorry for the rant but I needed to get this off my chest about the biggest disappointment to a 17 year long fan of the SC saga...
On October 30 2015 23:10 [PkF] Wire wrote: I won't be really happy as long as the chronoboost isn't reverted back to HotS. Otherwise, promising announcements. As usual.
I'm surprised they revert some of the control mechanisms of CB back to HotS. I think some of the efficiency nerfs are required, because of other pacing changes, but the control mechanic seems to be a "side-grade" (as they like to call it), or maybe even a downgrade (without some sort of GUI help, like a line showing which Nexus is doing what).
But that ship has sailed, folks!
@BigJ - you seem a little more feisty thank usual in this thread. I like it. My and my brother--Archon partner--joke around in that vein often. "What's next, a global announcement every time a fucking Liberator is built?!" Lol.
On October 30 2015 20:57 Thinh123456 wrote: DK still wants to see Pararistic bomb massacre the whole enemy fleet. Terrible, terrible humiliation if this happens in the real tournament. After that, maybe he will release a patch and pretend to understand the situation: "We agree that the curent pararistic bomb is so fucking OP and retared blah blah..." (i guest the only thing backing him up is: "It’s not about who was right and who was wrong"). Not a single word on Pararistic bomb after all discussions from the community during 6 god-damn-months of beta. Sorry everybody, i'm really mad this time.
Nerfing parasitic bomb just means you'll have the hots situation where terran just turtles up and builds a god army, it all comes back to the fact air units are far too strong in sc2.
Keeping parasitic bomb also means we have the hots situation, only that it's the zerg who turtles up to the god army.
It's just so disappointing to think about what the Beta could have been. I didn't think they tried enough and as many people have pointed out already it was more or less just a balance test for a few more units.
I have always been a huge fan of starcraft and have always considered the single player to be a nice bonus that I was going to play eventually. I have prepurchased LotV and I don't regret it but for the first time ever I am more excited about the single player and consider the multiplayer a nice bonus that I will mess around with a little bit before moving on to another game. And that is just really sad, tbh.
Well, at least Blizz is offering a lot more interesting alternatives with Overwatch, Heroes and Hearthstone.
On October 30 2015 20:57 Thinh123456 wrote: DK still wants to see Pararistic bomb massacre the whole enemy fleet. Terrible, terrible humiliation if this happens in the real tournament. After that, maybe he will release a patch and pretend to understand the situation: "We agree that the curent pararistic bomb is so fucking OP and retared blah blah..." (i guest the only thing backing him up is: "It’s not about who was right and who was wrong"). Not a single word on Pararistic bomb after all discussions from the community during 6 god-damn-months of beta. Sorry everybody, i'm really mad this time.
Nerfing parasitic bomb just means you'll have the hots situation where terran just turtles up and builds a god army, it all comes back to the fact air units are far too strong in sc2.
Keeping parasitic bomb also means we have the hots situation, only that it's the zerg who turtles up to the god army.
Maybe but like I said, air units (including zerg) are stupid in sc2 and basically ruin the game.
However, if a particular mechanic is cool and has potential, we shouldn’t be too quick to nerf it
This basically sums up their view on designing sc2. It has to be "cool". Oh siege tank drops are so "cool", what doomdrops are maybe a problem? Wait you guys say that siege tanks should be rather strong on their own and not only with this new mechanic?
This kind of thinking allowed for forcefields to be in the game for all these years when most of the community simply didn't think this spell belongs into the game.
It bothers me so much that they think this is a valid reasoning to neglect the views of the community. (tbh "being cool" is MAYBE a reason when the community thinks that way, the developer should have better reasons)
We can be more aggressive with balance test maps, but perhaps not with actual patches.
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.
b. Feedback regarding this line of though is greatly welcome, since now is the time to be discussing this plan.
WHo the fuck even plays these balance test maps? If you want people to test these things you need an actual test server with matchmaking and maybe even rewards for playing it. Obviously i don't have the numbers, but i would be surprised if balance test maps would be a succesful concept.
For example, if Nydus all in like many of you point out is really unstoppable, we’d easily see a huge amount of games where Nydus is being used in major tournaments + opponents not being able to counter them.
I simply cannot understand how they can even begin to think that invincible nydus worms are good gameplay, no matter if there actually is a reliable way to stop it.
On October 30 2015 23:56 KeksX wrote: The same reason they thought invincible anything was good, The_Red_Viper
Because it is cool? Nah i think Disruptors being invincible made kinda sense for their design. But nydus worms? The nydus worm in general is in a really weird spot to begin with if you ask me. In reality it only is used to allin your opponent, i don't think this is a good sign. In reality sc2 would probably be better if they just removed it (or completely redesigned it, for another purpose) and just buffed drops accordingly.
On October 30 2015 23:56 KeksX wrote: The same reason they thought invincible anything was good, The_Red_Viper
Because it is cool? Nah i think Disruptors being invincible made kinda sense for their design. But nydus worms? The nydus worm in general is in a really weird spot to begin with if you ask me. In reality it only is used to allin your opponent, i don't think this is a good sign. In reality sc2 would probably be better if they just removed it (or completely redesigned it, for another purpose) and just buffed drops accordingly.
They just need to remove the ability to heal nydus, at least spam heals, and nydus will be perfectly balanced.
That's the only thing stopping the counter play, invincibility has nothing to do with it.
For me, the game has become too fast paced, reactive, with things happening all the time, to really enjoy. I would really like to see how will the "casual" and new players react. I love the new units and less demanding MM, I just hope that the game will get paced down with future updates. Ideally before HotS player base gets too small.
On October 31 2015 00:43 MrFreeman wrote: For me, the game has become too fast paced, reactive, with things happening all the time, to really enjoy. I would really like to see how will the "casual" and new players react. I love the new units and less demanding MM, I just hope that the game will get paced down with future updates. Ideally before HotS player base gets too small.
The problem is, there is no way for Blizzard to satisfy everyone. Some people want carriers/battlecruisers/broodlords, etc to be useful, while others (including me) find mass air late game to be extremely boring. Some people don't like that you have to expand fast "or die", while others (including me) find it extremely boring when players turtle to a perfect army on 3 bases. Some players want only standard maps, so they can do their one standard build per matchup, while others want a diverse map pool so that we can see a variety of different play styles in pro games.
Personally, I would like to avoid the slow games like the Infestor/BL, Swarmhost, Turtlemech, Protoss death ball games of the past, and see more games like the bio vs muta/ling/bane, blink stalker vs roach/hydra/viper games where the action is fast paced and spread out across the map, and its not just spending 20-30 minutes building up perfect armies that no one can engage, or just clash them into each other and the game is over.
Also, I would prefer there to be less coinflippy, game ending harassment like oracles and widowmines and more things like immortal/warp prism drops.
On October 31 2015 01:09 zealotstim wrote: As someone who loves to watch but doesn't play, I really hope they keep siege tank drops.
That makes sense, as you watch but don't play...
Yeah agreed. They might be "fun to watch"(which is absurd compared to siege tank lines), but they're definitely completely frustrating to play against.
On October 30 2015 23:56 KeksX wrote: The same reason they thought invincible anything was good, The_Red_Viper
Because it is cool? Nah i think Disruptors being invincible made kinda sense for their design. But nydus worms? The nydus worm in general is in a really weird spot to begin with if you ask me. In reality it only is used to allin your opponent, i don't think this is a good sign. In reality sc2 would probably be better if they just removed it (or completely redesigned it, for another purpose) and just buffed drops accordingly.
They just need to remove the ability to heal nydus, at least spam heals, and nydus will be perfectly balanced.
That's the only thing stopping the counter play, invincibility has nothing to do with it.
Yeah you completely missed the point. IDC about nydus balance, as i said before i am sure you can stop it atm even with queen healing. The problem is the nydus design from the get go, it's an allin mechanic, nothing more (before they made it invincible it simply wasn't worth it in 99% of the cases) Not that interesting of a unit/structure if the sole purpose is to allin the enemy.
On October 31 2015 01:09 zealotstim wrote: As someone who loves to watch but doesn't play, I really hope they keep siege tank drops.
That makes sense, as you watch but don't play...
Yeah agreed. They might be "fun to watch"(which is absurd compared to siege tank lines), but they're definitely completely frustrating to play against.
The reason i don´t really even watch TvT unless it´s two really big names is because of the prevalence of doom dropping. Doom dropping siege tanks will just make it even more difficult to watch for me personally.
On October 30 2015 23:56 KeksX wrote: The same reason they thought invincible anything was good, The_Red_Viper
Because it is cool? Nah i think Disruptors being invincible made kinda sense for their design. But nydus worms? The nydus worm in general is in a really weird spot to begin with if you ask me. In reality it only is used to allin your opponent, i don't think this is a good sign. In reality sc2 would probably be better if they just removed it (or completely redesigned it, for another purpose) and just buffed drops accordingly.
They just need to remove the ability to heal nydus, at least spam heals, and nydus will be perfectly balanced.
That's the only thing stopping the counter play, invincibility has nothing to do with it.
Yeah you completely missed the point. IDC about nydus balance, as i said before i am sure you can stop it atm even with queen healing. The problem is the nydus design from the get go, it's an allin mechanic, nothing more (before they made it invincible it simply wasn't worth it in 99% of the cases) Not that interesting of a unit/structure if the sole purpose is to allin the enemy.
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 :/
On October 30 2015 10:46 Big J wrote: TLDR: Beta is over, that's what the game will be. Patches will come because the game won't be perfectly balanced right now. But balance issues aside nothing will change from now on.
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.
Is there anything incorrect what he has written? He basically wrote accurately hat blizzard has said with the PR bullshit taken out. If it sounds negative, well that's just your interpretation of the essence of the update.
On October 30 2015 23:56 KeksX wrote: The same reason they thought invincible anything was good, The_Red_Viper
Because it is cool? Nah i think Disruptors being invincible made kinda sense for their design. But nydus worms? The nydus worm in general is in a really weird spot to begin with if you ask me. In reality it only is used to allin your opponent, i don't think this is a good sign. In reality sc2 would probably be better if they just removed it (or completely redesigned it, for another purpose) and just buffed drops accordingly.
They just need to remove the ability to heal nydus, at least spam heals, and nydus will be perfectly balanced.
That's the only thing stopping the counter play, invincibility has nothing to do with it.
Yeah you completely missed the point. IDC about nydus balance, as i said before i am sure you can stop it atm even with queen healing. The problem is the nydus design from the get go, it's an allin mechanic, nothing more (before they made it invincible it simply wasn't worth it in 99% of the cases) Not that interesting of a unit/structure if the sole purpose is to allin the enemy.
Ironic that you claim Nydus is only useful for allin's, as you accuse me of "missing the point".
Nydus has a huge amount of uses - for example breaking out/around positional dominance, retreating, blocking expansions, global range creep spread with a queen or 2, or bringing your queens across the map to assist your army as a support unit. Easily setting up static defenses across the map.
Nydus is actually one of the things Zerg has that you can get most creative with it's use. Your argument is flawed.
But in WoL/HotS you never seen it. Why? Because it was so ridiculously easy to counterplay. Your opponent had a chance to counterplay it far before you could do anything about it. The counterplay had no interaction between players whatsoever. It was completely asynchronous.
The new Nydus, in theory, forces interaction between the players better. The counterplay is real time, with both players having a chance to interact as the nydus erupts. But the problem right now is the balance.
Which brings me back to your claims of it being an "allin mechanic".... the only thing making it an allin mechanic right now is the fact that you could throw your entire army in it, queens and all, spawn a nydus right in the middle of hte opponents base, and spam it with heals as you erupt, in hopes that your opponent can't do anything about it.
Simply remove the ability to heal it (or spam heals, at least), and all of a sudden we have a mechanic that is NO LONGER USED FOR ALL-INS, but rather can be used creatively to force interaction. You wouldn't see people bringing their entire army + queens and spawn it right in the middle of their base anymore.
The ability to spam heal Nydus is the backbone of the "all in Nydus" strategy.
On October 31 2015 02:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Is there anything incorrect what he has written? He basically wrote accurately hat blizzard has said with the PR bullshit taken out. If it sounds negative, well that's just your interpretation of the essence of the update.
Yeah I feel pretty much the same as you and BigJ, that's the essence of this community management post.
On October 31 2015 02:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Is there anything incorrect what he has written? He basically wrote accurately hat blizzard has said with the PR bullshit taken out. If it sounds negative, well that's just your interpretation of the essence of the update.
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.
On October 31 2015 03:05 Blizzkrieg wrote: Still wish they would've kept the starting workers at 6.
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???
On October 31 2015 02:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Is there anything incorrect what he has written? He basically wrote accurately hat blizzard has said with the PR bullshit taken out. If it sounds negative, well that's just your interpretation of the essence of the update.
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
On October 31 2015 03:05 Blizzkrieg wrote: Still wish they would've kept the starting workers at 6.
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 02:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Is there anything incorrect what he has written? He basically wrote accurately hat blizzard has said with the PR bullshit taken out. If it sounds negative, well that's just your interpretation of the essence of the update.
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
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.
On October 31 2015 03:05 Blizzkrieg wrote: Still wish they would've kept the starting workers at 6.
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.
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.
On October 31 2015 03:05 Blizzkrieg wrote: Still wish they would've kept the starting workers at 6.
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.
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?
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,
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 03:05 Blizzkrieg wrote: Still wish they would've kept the starting workers at 6.
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.
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.
If you can blindly open nexus gate cyber, that means it is not a strategic choice to expand and get cyber tech. So the availability and timing of 2 base economy and of cyber tech is no longer strategically relevant because you always get it first the same way at start? What valid choices do you really have at start which are not all-ins? And, how well does it scale with the subsequent choices you make? If you always get a blind very fast Nexus first in a match up, you're always going to have plenty of gas from the start to get any tech on the way and good number of units. If you also have PO to defend, you are... just playing a safe game of picking your cards for midgame? Why even have an early game then???? Sped up, but without choice, is that a opening knowledge + speed check without choice then ? I don't know if I'm seeing this right, just questions, but that's why I feel I don't like this. Great impact on diversity of midgames if you don't introduce stuff in early game that define styles and ways to fight/threaten every choice your opponent makes. And not just all-ins, as then there are no midgames most of the time when the non-standard branch happens. That's what I like in.. Starcraft.
On October 30 2015 10:46 Big J wrote: TLDR: Beta is over, that's what the game will be. Patches will come because the game won't be perfectly balanced right now. But balance issues aside nothing will change from now on.
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.
Never have I seen Blizzard flat out say we got a flawed game were going to balance after release.
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...
I'm not the first to post this but I will reiterate: an easy comparison of Blizzard's response post-WoL and HoTS release to post LotV release is disingenuous. Blizzard will likely respond to LotV differently as the multiplayer experience is all the game has left. In the absence of a future expansion, I expect more consistent and sensitive attention.
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.
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...
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.
On October 30 2015 23:56 KeksX wrote: The same reason they thought invincible anything was good, The_Red_Viper
Because it is cool? Nah i think Disruptors being invincible made kinda sense for their design. But nydus worms? The nydus worm in general is in a really weird spot to begin with if you ask me. In reality it only is used to allin your opponent, i don't think this is a good sign. In reality sc2 would probably be better if they just removed it (or completely redesigned it, for another purpose) and just buffed drops accordingly.
They just need to remove the ability to heal nydus, at least spam heals, and nydus will be perfectly balanced.
That's the only thing stopping the counter play, invincibility has nothing to do with it.
Yeah you completely missed the point. IDC about nydus balance, as i said before i am sure you can stop it atm even with queen healing. The problem is the nydus design from the get go, it's an allin mechanic, nothing more (before they made it invincible it simply wasn't worth it in 99% of the cases) Not that interesting of a unit/structure if the sole purpose is to allin the enemy.
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.
On October 30 2015 23:56 KeksX wrote: The same reason they thought invincible anything was good, The_Red_Viper
Because it is cool? Nah i think Disruptors being invincible made kinda sense for their design. But nydus worms? The nydus worm in general is in a really weird spot to begin with if you ask me. In reality it only is used to allin your opponent, i don't think this is a good sign. In reality sc2 would probably be better if they just removed it (or completely redesigned it, for another purpose) and just buffed drops accordingly.
They just need to remove the ability to heal nydus, at least spam heals, and nydus will be perfectly balanced.
That's the only thing stopping the counter play, invincibility has nothing to do with it.
Yeah you completely missed the point. IDC about nydus balance, as i said before i am sure you can stop it atm even with queen healing. The problem is the nydus design from the get go, it's an allin mechanic, nothing more (before they made it invincible it simply wasn't worth it in 99% of the cases) Not that interesting of a unit/structure if the sole purpose is to allin the enemy.
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.
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.
i bought the game, archon mode is fun wish they had it in HOTS. I know blizzard says it's all going great, and that's cool, I think they are awesome guys and I wish them the best, LOTV is just too convoluted for me
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
No thats not just true for indies. It is true for every developer no matter the size. Blizzard just has more money to work against this via marketing campaigns and all that. But it is not enough for them to make a great game, as it is not enough for Valve or Riot. Or even non-eSports companies like CDPR or Bethesda. They all need to do much more to be succesfull.
Compared to other big devs, Blizzard doesn't have the huge fanbase a DotA-like has. Or the huge userbase a Steam offers.
They have a very loyal but small and overly critical fanbase for Starcraft II. They also have a huge "negative viral marketing campaign" against their game(ded gaem) which is coming from this very fanbase as well as the problem of an old business model that didn't really adjust to modern times. And contrary to what many people say, Starcraft II doesn't really benefit from other Blizzard titles.
I wouldn't say that Blizzard has every advantage they could ask for. If I was to choose my fanbase, I wouldn't pick the one that regularly calls their game dead for example.
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.
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?
No thats not just true for indies. It is true for every developer no matter the size. Blizzard just has more money to work against this via marketing campaigns and all that. But it is not enough for them to make a great game, as it is not enough for Valve or Riot. They all need to do much more to be succesful.
But compared to other big titles, Blizzard doesn't have the huge fanbase a DotA-like has. They have a very loyal but small and overly critical fanbase. They also have a huge "negative viral marketing campaign" against their game(ded gaem) which is coming from this very fanbase as well as the problem of an old business model that didn't really adjust to modern times.
I wouldn't say that Blizzard has every advantage they could ask for. If I was to choose my fanbase, I wouldn't pick the one that regularly calls their game dead for example.
You're thinking about this exactly the other way that I do haha.
Ask yourself this: why did Blizzard get this, in your words, 'overly critical' fanbase? You seem to think it was this way always or something.
They way I think about it is that this happened for a good reason. DotA only exists because of Blizzards incompetence to buy into it when it was a WC3 mod. Blizzard had an incredibly large and positive playerbase around the launch of SC2: WOL.
Why did people turn sour? Why did the SC2 community size-down? You make it look like it just so happened. I think it's because of Blizzard's own failures. Failures to take the community serious, failure to accept feedback, failure to support a, once growing, eSports title properly in the same way competitors (ie. DotA, LOL, CSGO) were supported. In one word: arrogance.
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.
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?
No thats not just true for indies. It is true for every developer no matter the size. Blizzard just has more money to work against this via marketing campaigns and all that. But it is not enough for them to make a great game, as it is not enough for Valve or Riot. They all need to do much more to be succesful.
But compared to other big titles, Blizzard doesn't have the huge fanbase a DotA-like has. They have a very loyal but small and overly critical fanbase. They also have a huge "negative viral marketing campaign" against their game(ded gaem) which is coming from this very fanbase as well as the problem of an old business model that didn't really adjust to modern times.
I wouldn't say that Blizzard has every advantage they could ask for. If I was to choose my fanbase, I wouldn't pick the one that regularly calls their game dead for example.
You're thinking about this exactly the other way that I do haha.
Ask yourself this: why did Blizzard get this, in your words, 'overly critical' fanbase? You seem to think it was this way always or something.
Of course it was. The minute SC2 was announced people started raging about how their design choices are shit and the game is shit. I mean, I wasn't terribly active in the community (didn't even have a TL account), but even I saw how people reacted to SC2. It was even worse than it is now.
They way I think about it is that this happened for a good reason. DotA only exists because of Blizzards incompetence to buy into it when it was a WC3 mod. Blizzard had an incredibly large and positive playerbase around the launch of SC2: WOL.
Blizzard wasn't incompentent, but money talks. From what I gathered on interviews/stories about this, what Icefrog wanted was too much for Blizzard moneywise.
Why did people turn sour? Why did the SC2 community size-down? You make it look like it just so happened. I think it's because of Blizzard's own failures. Failures to take the community serious, failure to accept feedback, failure to support a, once growing, eSports title properly in the same way competitors (ie. DotA, LOL, CSGO) were supported. In one word: arrogance
If I had the answer to that question, I'd apply to Blizzard with a happy face yelling "Guys, I know what we have to do! It's so easy!"- so if you know the answer go ahead. But do you really think Blizzard is sitting together like "Guys, maybe we should've listened to the feedback instead of playing table tennis all day. Who knew."
Nah, thats not what it is.
Blizzard not supporting the eSports? They're a game company, not a tournament organization. Yet they built WCS and invested a ton of money into the scene. They also made GSL possible together with GomTV.
Actually, I'm not going to go deeper into this, as I have this argument over and over again. I'm just going to refer to my point about the overly critical and negative fanbase. This is a prime example.
Blizzard is not the evil monster sitting in his big chair turning your face as you walk in, yelling "HAHAHAHAH!! IT WAS MY PLAN ALL ALONG THAT NO ONE WILL PLAY SC2!!!".
If we wanted to be perfectly honest, the most logical move would be to screw the multiplayer and just release the campaign. Would probably make them a lot more money than what they are doing now.
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.
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?
No thats not just true for indies. It is true for every developer no matter the size. Blizzard just has more money to work against this via marketing campaigns and all that. But it is not enough for them to make a great game, as it is not enough for Valve or Riot. They all need to do much more to be succesful.
But compared to other big titles, Blizzard doesn't have the huge fanbase a DotA-like has. They have a very loyal but small and overly critical fanbase. They also have a huge "negative viral marketing campaign" against their game(ded gaem) which is coming from this very fanbase as well as the problem of an old business model that didn't really adjust to modern times.
I wouldn't say that Blizzard has every advantage they could ask for. If I was to choose my fanbase, I wouldn't pick the one that regularly calls their game dead for example.
You're thinking about this exactly the other way that I do haha.
Ask yourself this: why did Blizzard get this, in your words, 'overly critical' fanbase? You seem to think it was this way always or something.
Of course it was. The minute SC2 was announced people started raging about how their design choices are shit and the game is shit. I mean, I wasn't terribly active in the community (didn't even have a TL account), but even I saw how people reacted to SC2. It was even worse than it is now.
Hmm, honestly, I didn't notice that at all. I noticed a ton of hype. There's always critics (same with any other competitor game) but that's normal.
They way I think about it is that this happened for a good reason. DotA only exists because of Blizzards incompetence to buy into it when it was a WC3 mod. Blizzard had an incredibly large and positive playerbase around the launch of SC2: WOL.
Blizzard wasn't incompentent, but money talks. From what I gathered on interviews/stories about this, what Icefrog wanted was too much for Blizzard moneywise.
You think Blizzard couldn't pay? Blizzard? That made WOW just a few years prior? I find that very hard to believe, especially since Valve wasn't doing too hot around that time comparetively. I think they didn't WANT to pay. But I don't 'buy' (pun intended) that they COULDN'T. That's why I called this a giant economical error by Blizzard, and I only blame that on them and nobody else.
Why did people turn sour? Why did the SC2 community size-down? You make it look like it just so happened. I think it's because of Blizzard's own failures. Failures to take the community serious, failure to accept feedback, failure to support a, once growing, eSports title properly in the same way competitors (ie. DotA, LOL, CSGO) were supported. In one word: arrogance
If I had the answer to that question, I'd apply to Blizzard with a happy face yelling "Guys, I know what we have to do! It's so easy!"- so if you know the answer go ahead. But do you really think Blizzard is sitting together like "Guys, maybe we should've listened to the feedback instead of playing table tennis all day. Who knew."
Nah, thats not what it is.
Well it sucks BUT other companies apparently solved the issues. Or at least did a better job than Blizzard. Because Blizz didn't just get the short end of the stick the day some God distributed playerbases and they just so happened to draw the whiny/small one. Sometimes it can hinge on very small things. For example with CSGO and Valve, there's also a LOT of criticism about issues with the game BUT Valve has a way to sometimes, just often enough, show that they do listen and care. A youtuber finds a bug, even something small, and a day later there's a little patch just like that. Somebody does a great play in a big tourney match and a day later they add a little icon on that part of the map, a decal or graffiti in memory of that. This tiny stuff keeps people feeling good for a while. Blizzard never did any of this. Just one example.
On November 01 2015 04:39 KeksX wrote: Blizzard not supporting the eSports? They're a game company, not a tournament organization. Yet they built WCS and invested a ton of money into the scene. They also made GSL possible together with GomTV.
That's not enough. Not when Valve and Riot are pushing out patches, sometimes big, deep updates to the game and the core of the game (everything, engine, optimization, anti-cheat, gameplay updates etc), by the week and/or month.
On November 01 2015 04:39 KeksX wrote: Actually, I'm not going to go deeper into this, as I have this argument countless times over again. I'm just going to refer to my point about the overly critical and negative fanbase. This is a prime example.
That's just your opinion, man. :p You can't call people, especially when they're trying to be constructive like I think I am, 'overly critical' because they don't think the way you do. Hey, in the end it's all capitalism. Nothing wrong with you getting the game if you like it and me not.
1. Not overreacting too quickly to potential issues
a. It’s easy to laser in on 4-5 games that happened in 1 weekend and base all your decisions on those salient games. However, if a particular mechanic is cool and has potential, we shouldn’t be too quick to nerf it.
Wat?
Anyone remember Blizzard's instant Thor nerf when Thorzain ran over Tyler in TSL3 with Thors? That was based on... not even 4 games.
The point here is, some things are so broken they need to be fixed immediately, and sometimes you need to give them time. A good design team does just that.
Blizzard has proven to do just the opposite. Letting things go way too long (4 Gate, 1-1-1, Blink all-ins ect...) before "fixing" them, then making ridiculously fast decisions with things like the Thor.
I probably should leave this community, because it left me when Blizzard messed up SC2.
On October 30 2015 17:01 BEARDiaguz wrote:
I think the community vastly overestimates it's potential value to SC2's design and development. But that's mostly Blizzard's fault for not convincing them how much better and smarter they are, so idk.
The proof is always in the pudding, the pudding that Blizzard makes is frequently undercooked or burnt. It does not have to be like this so frequently, and isn't with other games.
You don't need to ever convince me you're doing a good job, because I can judge that for myself when I taste the pudding.
1. Not overreacting too quickly to potential issues
a. It’s easy to laser in on 4-5 games that happened in 1 weekend and base all your decisions on those salient games. However, if a particular mechanic is cool and has potential, we shouldn’t be too quick to nerf it.
Wat?
Anyone remember Blizzard's instant Thor nerf when Thorzain ran over Tyler in TSL3 with Thors? That was based on... not even 4 games.
The point here is, somethings things are so broken they need to be fixed immediately, and sometimes you need to give them time. A good design team does just that.
Blizzard has proven to do just the opposite. Letting things go way too long (4 Gate, 1-1-1, Blink all-ins ect...) before "fixing" them, then making ridiculously fast decisions with things like the Thor.
The proof is always in the pudding, the pudding that Blizzard makes is frequently undercooked or burnt. It does not have to be like this so frequently, and isn't with other games.
I probably should leave this community, because it left me when Blizzard messed up SC2.
You're pretty right, just look at the last year of hots zvp is 3 base blink all ins and zvt is turtle mech, and they still havnt done anything about either of them. It's the kind of stuff that drives people away from sc2.
The year before that was just 3hour swarmhost games. Players, especially high level ones have had to put up with alot of shit in sc2, it's a wonder theres any left. Its no surprise people are pessimistic.
On November 01 2015 04:39 KeksX wrote: Blizzard wasn't incompentent, but money talks. From what I gathered on interviews/stories about this, what Icefrog wanted was too much for Blizzard moneywise.
according to Pardo, Blizzard did not possess the development pipeline bandwidth to deal with another game of that scale while working on WoW at the same time.
The point here is, somethings things are so broken they need to be fixed immediately, and sometimes you need to give them time. A good design team does just that.
The hilarious thing was that it wasn't even broken. People just didn't know how to counter it as they attempted with a mix of Immortals and Warpgate untis which is the wrong approach. Instead, toss should (a) simply mass Immortals out of 2-3 Robo's with constant CBs or (b) mix in Void Rays and some Stalkers. The former unit soaks up thors shot very well while Stalkers kill the Thors.
Anyway, not that I mind the removal of the ability since it was pretty damn lame anyway. But the point is that its a wonder why Blizzard instapatched something that actually wasn't broken and waited like a year with Broodlord/infestor that no theoretical counter and created super lame gameplay.
When Valve made counter strike "2" they went through through two failed attempts, counter strike zero and counter strike source, they ignored the complaints of the hardcore players who basically said make 1.6 on a better engine and have pro's give feedback until it's almost exactly the same. Then they had the same massive commercial success as CS 1.6.
It's an easy formula to follow, blizzard just had to listen to articles like depth of micro, add a Goliath, etc, spend the energy on making a better version of the most popular RTS not add all these gimmicks and new ideas before they got the foundation correct. New ideas should have come after, what we have now is a game no hardcore fan wanted and no casual player can learn.
Hmm, honestly, I didn't notice that at all. I noticed a ton of hype. There's always critics (same with any other competitor game) but that's normal.
There's always critics, yeah. But Starcraft has had extremely negative ones from the get go. Whether it was about multiple building selection or unit pathing, people were always doomcalling whatever Blizzard did. And it might've been a vocal minority, but it was one that was very present on all Starcraft related communities.
You think Blizzard couldn't pay? Blizzard? That made WOW just a few years prior? I find that very hard to believe, especially since Valve wasn't doing too hot around that time comparetively. I think they didn't WANT to pay. But I don't 'buy' (pun intended) that they COULDN'T. That's why I called this a giant economical error by Blizzard, and I only blame that on them and nobody else.
You can see yourself what Rob Pardo had to say about Icefrog and DotA:
Rob Pardo: Honestly it was just development bandwidth. We were aware of it. We knew it was getting really popular. I actually did have kind of an official sit-down meeting with the other execs of the studio and said: "Hey, we should really talk about this". And we walked down the path and talked about what it would take. We also actually brought Icefrog out and talked to him a bit too. We made the decision we just couldn't take it on and make it successful at that time. Starcraft 2 was already a couple years down the path. Diablo 3 was another thing that was ready to happen. It didn't feel like at that time we could do a Blizzard-job on a DotA-game.
Well it sucks BUT other companies apparently solved the issues. Or at least did a better job than Blizzard. Because Blizz didn't just get the short end of the stick the day some God distributed playerbases and they just so happened to draw the whiny/small one. Sometimes it can hinge on very small things. For example with CSGO and Valve, (..)
I find it very weird that you are actually pulling Valve and CS:GO as a positive example. Exactly how long did it take for CS:GO to be considered "good" by a majority? And how long did it take to fix the hitboxes in the game? Mind you we're not talking about mere balance issues but things were just completely broken until that patch when it comes to hitboxes in jumping etc. And the game released three years ago.
Whereas how fast bugs are fixed from Blizzard, if any serious ones occur at all?
But still people tell Blizzard that they're not listening. Because Valve is putting graffitis on maps that people find funny. Okay, cool, I agree that it is fun. But in the end it's a little extra that makes no real difference.
That's not enough. Not when Valve and Riot are pushing out patches, sometimes big, deep updates to the game and the core of the game (everything, engine, optimization, anti-cheat, gameplay updates etc), by the week and/or month.
Thats what I was getting at with the business model.
What makes money for Starcraft II? A major release. Nothing else. They don't profit from patches if they're not pulling many new buyers because the established playerbase has no way to invest more money into the game. If they'd be releasing big updates for HotS, such as new units, that development time is probably wasted because they're not going to have 20k people suddenly buying the game because of this. Whereas many new features in CS:GO are directly related to players paying even more money.
That's just your opinion, man. :p You can't call people, especially when they're trying to be constructive like I think I am, 'overly critical' because they don't think the way you do. Hey, in the end it's all capitalism. Nothing wrong with you getting the game if you like it and me not.
I haven't even bought the game yet. And I won't until Blizzcon.
But I think you have to be blind if you don't think that the SC2 community is an overly critical one. I have yet to see a >fan<base that shits on their game/developer more than this one.
And I mean, thats okay. In the end it's a great challenge for Blizzard and if they overcome it and make people happy, it's all better.
But the matter of fact is that you're dealing with very different fanbases. Let's not get there but I just want to mention the fact that many "updates" in CS:GO in fact are just more things for players to spend money on(RNG skin boxes).
EDIT:
And let's not forget that CS:GO isn't actually Valve, but Hidden Path Entertainment.
@nottapro:
I think that all Valve did was to do another CS 1.6 with better graphics it wouldn't have nearly the success it has now. The skin ecosystem and everything around it plays a huge role. But those are the factors we cannot really calculate if we don't have the numbers.
Hmm, honestly, I didn't notice that at all. I noticed a ton of hype. There's always critics (same with any other competitor game) but that's normal.
There's always critics, yeah. But Starcraft has had extremely negative ones from the get go. Whether it was about multiple building selection or unit pathing, people were always doomcalling whatever Blizzard did. And it might've been a vocal minority, but it was one that was very present on all Starcraft related communities.
I can only repeat that I don't think that this is the case. The launch of SC2 seemed totally normal to me, with the expected amount of skepticism and a huge scoop of hype. I don't think there is something inherently whiny about Starcraft players. I guess we're turning in circles here tho. Your opinion/impression vs mine.
You think Blizzard couldn't pay? Blizzard? That made WOW just a few years prior? I find that very hard to believe, especially since Valve wasn't doing too hot around that time comparetively. I think they didn't WANT to pay. But I don't 'buy' (pun intended) that they COULDN'T. That's why I called this a giant economical error by Blizzard, and I only blame that on them and nobody else.
You can see yourself what Rob Pardo had to say about Icefrog and DotA:
Rob Pardo: Honestly it was just development bandwidth. We were aware of it. We knew it was getting really popular. I actually did have kind of an official sit-down meeting with the other execs of the studio and said: "Hey, we should really talk about this". And we walked down the path and talked about what it would take. We also actually brought Icefrog out and talked to him a bit too. We made the decision we just couldn't take it on and make it successful at that time. Starcraft 2 was already a couple years down the path. Diablo 3 was another thing that was ready to happen. It didn't feel like at that time we could do a Blizzard-job on a DotA-game.
They could've just reserved the rights. Or expand. In hindsight, both choices would've been good, they let it go and wasted an opportunity. I still call this business incompetence, like when the music industry disregarded mp3 tech in the 90s as laughable and then got their ass handed to them. It happens. Additionally, Pardo is possibly damage-controlling here. Let's not get too deep into this discussion though, it doesn't really have that much todo with LOTV, I just brought it up because you made it sound like Blizzard, the poor baby, couldn't help their situation and was so poor lol
Well it sucks BUT other companies apparently solved the issues. Or at least did a better job than Blizzard. Because Blizz didn't just get the short end of the stick the day some God distributed playerbases and they just so happened to draw the whiny/small one. Sometimes it can hinge on very small things. For example with CSGO and Valve, (..)
I find it very weird that you are actually pulling Valve and CS:GO as a positive example. Exactly how long did it take for CS:GO to be considered "good" by a majority? And how long did it take to fix the hitboxes in the game? Mind you we're not talking about mere balance issues but things were just completely broken until that patch when it comes to hitboxes in jumping etc. And the game released three years ago.
Whereas how fast bugs are fixed from Blizzard, if any serious ones occur at all?
The hitbox update was a very very deep change to the engine. It took longer than it should have, I'd never claim Valve is perfect at patching, especially not with CSGO and their small team that's working on it. But the game was far from unplayable or completely broken before.
But the fact is that Valve is willing to invest the resources to rework these systems. Take the two big movement updates to CSGO or the wall penetration system, the player visibility update and spread calculation change in the netcode. All deep systems that were completely reworked. Blizzard has never done this except for minor attempts with the HOTS/LOTV release, and I repeat, minor attempts. Not willing to spend money and time on the game, convinced that changes aren't necessary (to the performance of the engine for example) or who knows.
On November 01 2015 07:10 KeksX wrote: But still people tell Blizzard that they're not listening. Because Valve is putting graffitis on maps that people find funny. Okay, cool, I agree that it is fun. But in the end it's a little extra that makes no real difference.
That's the point. It DOES make a difference. It's a laughable amount of work for Valve but it sends a message. Compare a little nod of the head like this every couple of weeks (plus more patches, content updates etc.) to the six-month-periods of the Blizz SC2 team of absolute silence (while there are major balance issues) followed by a balance patch finally with a David Kim statement full of politician-like 'say-nothing-with-a-bunch-of-words' bullshit that at times even managed to simulatenously be disrespectful and devaluing to the entire community. This is the psychological effect I'm talking about. Apparently you and the yay-sayers didn't catch that vibe, me and the other nay-says did.
That's not enough. Not when Valve and Riot are pushing out patches, sometimes big, deep updates to the game and the core of the game (everything, engine, optimization, anti-cheat, gameplay updates etc), by the week and/or month.
Thats what I was getting at with the business model.
What makes money for Starcraft II? A major release. Nothing else. They don't profit from patches if they're not pulling many new buyers because the established playerbase has no way to invest more money into the game. If they'd be releasing big updates for HotS, such as new units, that development time is probably wasted because they're not going to have 20k people suddenly buying the game because of this. Whereas many new features in CS:GO are directly related to players paying even more money.
Yes and this is not Blizzards fault exactly how? They didn't go with the times. The skin system in SC2 for example is a laughably pathetic attempt that they seem to have completely forgotten about themselves at this point. The marketplace was promised and then cancelled. To me, what you just said is further evidence of Blizzards incompetence, sorry.
That's just your opinion, man. :p You can't call people, especially when they're trying to be constructive like I think I am, 'overly critical' because they don't think the way you do. Hey, in the end it's all capitalism. Nothing wrong with you getting the game if you like it and me not.
I haven't even bought the game yet. And I won't until Blizzcon.
But I think you have to be blind if you don't think that the SC2 community is not an overly critical one. I have yet to see a >fan<base that shits on their game/developer more than this one.
And I mean, thats okay. In the end it's a great challenge for Blizzard and if they overcome it and make people happy, it's all better.
But the matter of fact is that you're dealing with very different fanbases. Let's not get there but I just want to mention the fact that many "updates" in CS:GO in fact are just more things for players to spend money on(RNG skin boxes).
About your last sentence: what is wrong with that? If people like more skins, they get more skins. Makes the game more popular, more successful, better.
And I still don't understand how anybody in their right mind can believe that there is some inherent thing with Blizzards fans that makes them super whiny and bitchy and other game developers don't have that magically. If it's, according to you, not Blizzard's own actions that turned the community, then what is? Random coincidence? Really?
No, but the thing I'm trying to tell you is that some things are just not influenced by whether or not a company is developing a great game.
Often times it's about marketing a game the right way, or serving a trend, or making people happy via microtransactions etc etc. All those different things have nothing to do with developing a "great game". Yet they have a large effect on how successfull a game is. And sometimes you end up with things you cannot really react to properly because the community is completely split on things.
It's really hard to compare the situations for these companies because each game/company has a unique story, established fanbases and company philosophy.
And let's not act like changing your business model is something you do in a few weeks.. Especially if you're not in 100% control of what you are doing(keywords here are Activision and Vevendi).
I was quite actively following things during the Alpha/Beta, and, yes, the community was super negative/critical even back then. Though the things people complained about were pretty different; the main things were everything being too much like Warcraft 3, too many colors, MBS, automine, etc, etc. Heck, I can still remember the epic fights over team color on Terran units. But yes, there were enormous loads of people who were completely down on SC2 while it was in Alpha and thought of it as a failure and a disappointment before they'd even played it. I still remember there was a big article by a guy on a Starcraft fan site whose name I can't remember in which he described how he'd come to think of it as a complete failure before playing it once at Blizzcon and really liking it. But he got a lot of flack even for saying that. I was Mr. Positivity generally, but the amount of negativity from the community during Alpha was really wearing.
Things actually got a lot more positive during Beta, once people had actually played it. The most positive period was actually probably right around release when the foreign SC scene was revving up to make its big move. But it was preceded and followed by a lot of negativity.
Also, this gives me an excuse to share this video, which is awesome.
I wish the developers would look at Starbow for some ideas. I feel like that's what SC2 should have been. I wish LotV the best and I hope the campaign is at least decent. I don't expect anything better or worse than WoL or HotS, which I guess is fine for most people. I hope I'm wrong, and I'll be tuning in to the initial pro scene for LotV to see for myself. Maybe one day Starbow will get some more community support to satisfy my hunger for Starcraft.
On November 01 2015 07:35 NihiLStarcraft wrote: They could've just reserved the rights. Or expand. In hindsight, both choices would've been good, they let it go and wasted an opportunity. I still call this business incompetence, like when the music industry disregarded mp3 tech in the 90s as laughable and then got their ass handed to them. It happens. Additionally, Pardo is possibly damage-controlling here. Let's not get too deep into this discussion though, it doesn't really have that much todo with LOTV, I just brought it up because you made it sound like Blizzard, the poor baby, couldn't help their situation and was so poor lol
Blizzard is slow to hire because they only hire top notch people. and if they can't find top notch people they either don't do it or cancel the game and stick to their bread and butter. that has always been the way at blizzard. there is zero damage control by Pardo. Blizzard was too busy counting and folding the BILLIONS WoW was pulling in. They did not have time for some "pie-in-the-sky" maybe might-be hopefully could-be game.
Pardo has said in completely separate interviews that they did not possess the developer bandwidth due to the explosion of WoW.
Sry man... i'll take WoW money over LoL money every day and twice on sunday... and that is all this is about. Pardo made a great move by not taking on too much work and continuing to deliver quality WoW content.
Pardo does not have to do damage control because he made the correct decision with Ice Frog.
I agree with the statement that blizzard is arrogant towards players.
They have been so popular and succsessful with their games, peaking at wow - and developed this "fck you, were blizzard - we know best" attitude.
Only with the THIRD expansion of SC2 they even considered listenting to the community on some ideas - and gave a progress update. But even then some responses were questionable "We tested double harvest, it sucks - we also tested units automatically building"
Im not saying test every silly solution out there - but i doubt many people would have complained if blizzard threw some huge changes into the beta. Remove the collosus, hell - even remove the hatchery or make the marine fly - if theres a good idea or reason behind it, why not test it.
Its the same with other blizzard games, like hearthstone (where Ben brode, lead developer, translated to SC basically said - "the community has no idea how good range 2 collosus really is".
Its all turning into some quick moneygrab where they try to lure in young and casual players - trying to take the pricing models to the limit (€10 skin for a hearthstone hero, €10 monthly for ONE hots hero every month, €30 for a character transfer in WoW), and in the end that leads to a really crap competetive scene.
On November 01 2015 11:06 weikor wrote: Its all turning into some quick moneygrab where they try to lure in young and casual players - trying to take the pricing models to the limit (€10 skin for a hearthstone hero, €10 monthly for ONE hots hero every month, €30 for a character transfer in WoW), and in the end that leads to a really crap competetive scene.
if SC2 were a quick money-grab it probably would not have seen the light of day. Maybe WoL would make it.. but that would be it. $0.3 Billion in one month and then almost no revenue after that is fuck all for ATVI. They count revenue in the billions every quarter of every year.
Their next move would be to dissolve the RTS team just like EA and MS closed their studios because the ROI is crap.
in 2010 Pearce stated the SC2 franchise was a 10 year eSports experiment. they're looking good on that promise as EALA, Victory Games, and Ensemble disappears.
we're lucky Blizzard is still willing to support the genre... no one else is.
i'll be shocked if LotV makes even $0.1 Billion.
every Blizzard and ATVI product is about 2 things: cash and brand-building.
On November 01 2015 08:18 pzea469 wrote: Maybe one day Starbow will get some more community support to satisfy my hunger for Starcraft.
So Valve WIll crate Starbow 2 and make a f-ton of money and then Blizzard will sue them for the game name and when it lose Blizzard will make their shitty casual rip off
Take away all the amenable rhetoric, add a dash of cynicism, and the 1-4 David offers boils down to... "We don't like that you're disagreeing with us. Please stop disagreeing with us. We would like feedback that agrees with us."
Why not nerf lurker burrow times instead of morph times? The fast burrow means it's almost impossible to catch them out of position during their timing window which seems wrong.
A player should be able to punish the other player for not positioning their units correctly. Case and point: the siege tank.
On November 02 2015 05:27 BabelFish1 wrote: Why not nerf lurker burrow times instead of morph times? The fast burrow means it's almost impossible to catch them out of position during their timing window which seems wrong.
A player should be able to punish the other player for not positioning their units correctly. Case and point: the siege tank.
You don't want to have a unit that is very hard to attack with and very strong for turtling/once set up. It's already hard to play aggressive with lurkers. Yet they can be very strong when set up. Decreasing burrow time would be actually better for the unit if accompanied with other changes. The siege tank example doesn't work, because siege tank doesn't work. Unless you want speed overlords dropping burrowed lurkers.
EPT![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CM809rKWoAAiV0C.jpg)
