EPT[Interview] Dustin Browder on HotS - Page 14
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
Kuja
United States1759 Posts
| ||
|
Sandermatt
Switzerland1365 Posts
On July 10 2012 22:27 iky43210 wrote: I don't mind them attacking on different places, but this isn't whats happening. Protoss is using it to attack one places over and over till someone falls (all the 2base all-in builds). Give pylon a limit on warp in (lets say 10/min). This would allow multi-point harasses and defending drops, but it would cripple all these boring 2 base all-in protoss are pulling almost more than 50% of their games If often see protoss warping in zealots to kill zerg hatcheries from distand pylons, also warp prism harrass is based on warpgate technology. The thing about a limit on warp in is that it won't prevent the protoss from just building a second pylon right beside the first one. Usually the protoss makes multiple proxy pylons anyway, when he does a two base all-inn. | ||
|
SpiZe
Canada3640 Posts
On July 10 2012 20:54 Toadvine wrote: I should stop reading these interviews, the nonsense oozing out of them just makes me depressed. Or maybe I should keep reading, so my decision not to buy HotS is reinforced. I mean, do you really look at how the game is now, and decide "Zerg should be able to just kill the opponent after getting ahead."? Not being able to instantly convert an advantage (which they get by default) into a win is the only thing keeping them from winning every game where they don't die to an all-in. It's difficult enough for both Terran and Protoss to defend various 3 base attacks from Zerg, right now. And the comment about TvT being stale because of tanks just blows my mind. How the fuck do you arrive at this kind of conclusion? Best mirror matchup with the most viable openings and playstyles, and the most dynamic gameplay, and he says it's stale? Not PvP, with its endless turtling into mass colossus armies. Not ZvZ, with a line of roaches shooting at each other across the map. No, the problem definitely lies in TvT... How can anyone read this and still believe HotS is going to improve the game? Well it seems easy for us here but designing a unit is a long process. They watched TvT of a couple months ago where everyone would go mech and no one would move because his siege line was right in front of you. If we are talking about past TvT, their statement is correct. So they go, "we should make a unit that is going to fix this problem". TThey come up with an idea, they tweak it and try to make in work. In the meanwhile players changed their playstyle and this problem is no longer relevant so what should they do ? Scrap it and start over ? HotS would never be released. As for zerg not being able to convert advantage into a win, some say the zerg needs his one base advantage to say on equal footing, if that is true then is it really an advantage ? I don't really care for the rationale behind their change, as long as their unit aren't completly boring or useless. When I look at the units they decided to add, I picture to myself what they do and how they will affect the current playstyle. In the end, if they do something good, for the wrong reasons, but it still ends up working and bring new ways to play the game to SC2, should we really care about the why ? I understand the why is what's keeping them from doing completely retarded stuff, but for now, they didn't do completely retarded stuff. The only obsolete unit they have presented is the Warhound in my opinion, and lots of people seem to agree that this unit has no place in the game. EDIT : Yeah the warhound part seems a little confusing, I just wanted to say with this example that I understand the validity of your point and even agree with it to a small extent. | ||
|
Ryder.
1117 Posts
I do like the mothership core though. | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
On July 10 2012 23:03 Sandermatt wrote: The key word is timing. I said it is only useful for a short amount of time. How often do you see terrans fighting a 200 porotss army with collosy, templars, archons, chargelots and immortals using mech. Maybe it happend once or twice, but it is definitly rare. Yes i agree, but he didn't say mech he said factory xD He is saying it (Well im reading it this way) in the way factories are not even made (minus to make starport) in TvP which is very wrong. I agree it needs addressing mech, but to say it like that is silly xD | ||
|
Buff345
United States323 Posts
On July 10 2012 22:34 Toadvine wrote: You're absolutely right man, an interview by the lead designer of a game, wherein he explains his rationale about the stuff they're changing in an expansion, is absolutely nothing. Can't base opinions on anything he says. I should just buy the game, and then listen to people like you tell me to wait for LotV before judging it. Seriously, what can I base my opinion on, in your view? And for the TvT thing, it gets "stale" a lot less than basically every other matchup in the game, so why single it out? It's like he said he thought it was too easy to expand in PvP. To be fair, they are adding the mothership core to change PvP too. iirc, there was an interview from a guy working for giantbomb or some other gaming site. I searched for it but couldnt find it. They said PvP sucks so they want to make it better as well. The mothership core will add easier defense for an expansion, I guess. Hopefully it will open up more options for PvP as a whole. As for ZvZ, heres an interview about it. I didnt read the whole thing, but from the excerpt IdrA, who knows more about it than you and me combined probably, thinks that ZvZ is too dynamic. But he says that once people get better at it, it will be ok. Nothing needs to be patched for it. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=350102 I think ZvZ midgame will probably be all over the place anyways in HotS. If I had to guess though, lategame ZvZ will probably be Infestor / Viper micro wars with Ultras / Hydra. | ||
|
bubblegumbo
Taiwan1296 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10825 Posts
On July 10 2012 22:24 Jimmy Raynor wrote: In almost every standard game I watch, zergs have advantage in supply and workers during the mid game. It doesn't make sense to give them a way to make that advantage into an almost guaranteed win Supplycount (especially thanks to ridiculous 2 food roaches which just was a cop out instead of real balancing) does not matter. Cost effectivnes of the units does (this is were the roach was way to good and therefore had to become a 2 supply unit with BIG hardcounters that just maul it (Immortal/Marauder)... Funny looking supplycounts whiteout any meaning are the result). One of the essential problems with SC2 is the instant remaxing/reinforcing Z/P can do: Warpgates and spawn Larva (or the amount of Larva a Hatch can save) are a problem because (near) instant remaxing is more important than actually having a bigger army at the beginning of an engagement. Simplification: 40 Probes / 160 Army vs 70 Probes / 130 Army. 160 Army will win the initial battle but the superior economy of 70 probes will allow way more reinforcements and therefore the bigger army will slowly shrink until the initial armyadvantage is gone and you are at a total disadvantage. You see this mostly happen in ZvP where P (or Z) can win a fight just to get mauled by the next round of reinforcements because your left over's lacked the punch to pull thru (the story of nearly every failed Roach/Ling-Bust or Protoss 2 base all-in)... If a SC/BW battle ended really close, both sides needed a bit of time to reinforce, there was no instant 20-40 supply warp-in right before your base or another 80 supply reinforcement streaming from the Zerg base (at least not unless the Zerg had a truly glorious economy and built tons of hatcheries to get that many larva). Fast "remaxes" were possible but not "normal". Whoever thought removing build/reinforce-time (warp gate) or production restrictions (spawn larva) was a good idea was a true moron. It's actually kinda ridiculous how overpowered Terran units have to be to fight against "this" and still maintain a chance to win ^^. | ||
|
sagdashin
Norway45 Posts
Zerg - Zerg has difficulty pushing, and even with signifcant advantages in the mid-game, they can't push their opponent if they are reasonably defended, until they get broodlords out. WHAT?????? Have they watched even a single Zv*anything but Z in any tournament, ever? | ||
|
phrenzy
United Kingdom478 Posts
So it is more useful now than it has ever been in SC2 short life. Will the tempest eliminate the need for it, probably, but its gonna be a simple a-move unit, which is so uninteresting. People might say the same for zergs and broodlords, but how many time do you see them getting sniped, quite often if they dont micro, launch, move back, launch move back. And you can micro the broodlings to target specific units. The more i think about it, its Zergs who have stolen the Carrier. Thanks, i will happily accept. edit:// On July 10 2012 23:45 sagdashin wrote: WHAT?????? Have they watched even a single Zv*anything but Z in any tournament, ever? I think he is addressing how if P or T get a third up with a ridiculous sim city with a tank or 2 on the high ground, there isnt much zerg can do until broodlords are out. They arent talking about early game with roach/ling/bane busts etc. And midgame bust 200/200 roach busts are becoming less common. | ||
|
Kull of Atlantis
Turkey98 Posts
| ||
|
Mentalizor
Denmark1596 Posts
On July 10 2012 23:45 sagdashin wrote: I think he is addressing how if P or T get a third up with a ridiculous sim city with a tank or 2 on the high ground, there isnt much zerg can do until broodlords are out. They arent talking about early game with roach/ling/bane busts etc. And midgame bust 200/200 roach busts are becoming less common. Name 3 maps in a normal tournament pool where a P/T could easilly defend themselves on 3 base. Let's say... Around 13mins (so 200/200 roach vP and infestor/ling/bling vT) I'm sorry to be "that guy", but every tournament (and ladder) show Zerg with 60%+ winrates. They don't need more to push their advantage | ||
|
RedMosquito
United States280 Posts
On July 10 2012 12:17 Chaggi wrote: If its a failed bunker bust, isn't the whole point to lose them cause realistically what does the Protoss lose then? It bugs me that they don't address Terran late game, and still seem to focus on a 1A mech style rather than position mech style. Exactly. These new mech units are terrible and are just gonna be used for all ins. From there they're just going to be nerfed into uselessness. They really need to focus on late game mech units. | ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
On July 10 2012 23:31 Velr wrote: Supplycount (especially thanks to ridiculous 2 food roaches which just was a cop out instead of real balancing) does not matter. Cost effectivnes of the units does (this is were the roach was way to good and therefore had to become a 2 supply unit with BIG hardcounters that just maul it (Immortal/Marauder)... Funny looking supplycounts whiteout any meaning are the result). One of the essential problems with SC2 is the instant remaxing/reinforcing Z/P can do: Warpgates and spawn Larva (or the amount of Larva a Hatch can save) are a problem because (near) instant remaxing is more important than actually having a bigger army at the beginning of an engagement. Simplification: 40 Probes / 160 Army vs 70 Probes / 130 Army. 160 Army will win the initial battle but the superior economy of 70 probes will allow way more reinforcements and therefore the bigger army will slowly shrink until the initial armyadvantage is gone and you are at a total disadvantage. You see this mostly happen in ZvP where P (or Z) can win a fight just to get mauled by the next round of reinforcements because your left over's lacked the punch to pull thru (the story of nearly every failed Roach/Ling-Bust or Protoss 2 base all-in)... If a SC/BW battle ended really close, both sides needed a bit of time to reinforce, there was no instant 20-40 supply warp-in right before your base or another 80 supply reinforcement streaming from the Zerg base (at least not unless the Zerg had a truly glorious economy and built tons of hatcheries to get that many larva). Fast "remaxes" were possible but not "normal". Whoever thought removing build/reinforce-time (warp gate) or production restrictions (spawn larva) was a good idea was a true moron. It's actually kinda ridiculous how overpowered Terran units have to be to fight against "this" and still maintain a chance to win ^^. Such a good point, this is a big reason mech isn't popular. You can't replace your army, and Zerg and Protoss have no shortage of units that can crush a tank line. | ||
|
Lorch
Germany3690 Posts
On July 10 2012 18:57 HeroMystic wrote: Has there been any changes to the Carrier during the span of SC2's history? Have they ever attempted to make the Carrier viable? I'd understand axeing the Carrier if they actually tried. Nope not a single change from the first beta build to 1.4.3 where we are atm. I really don't get all the negativity in this thread, none of you have even played the game yet, and the build presented at mlg is probably about 6 months old by now, because they never use the newest build they have for these kind of things anyways. Wait till the game comes out and we all have some experience from playing beta before you even think about judging any changes. 22 range does sound insane, but so does fungal, brood lords, ghosts, templar and colossi. Yet sc2 is doing fine with all of these in the game. | ||
|
HeroMystic
United States1217 Posts
On July 11 2012 00:02 Reborn8u wrote: Such a good point, this is a big reason mech isn't popular. You can't replace your army, and Zerg and Protoss have no shortage of units that can crush a tank line. Terran in general is essentially a race with BW's production scheme while Protoss and Zerg has SC2-era production (really damn fast), so Terran by default needs to be that much more cost effective which is why MMM is the best unit composition in the game. I liked it better when Tanks were the best unit in the Terran army and everything hinged on correct tank positioning and making the correct supporting units. The only thing Blizzard can do is overpower Terran's units to compensate, or ramp up their production speed to allow them to remax too. I personally believe early and midgame has lost too much value to the lategame as it is, but perhaps balancing for lategame-rushes should be standard. At least all the tech is opened up. | ||
|
Viperbird
United States118 Posts
-Give carrier a little more range, like 9 or 9.5 like a brood lord (I believe its 8 range atm) Make interceptors ignore armor (could be OP, but worth a test) -I think they hydra should be redesigned completly. I don't see hive tech speed upgrade being useful. Perhaps increase the cost of hydras but make them beefier, similar to the protoss immortal? (Could be a bad idea, the unit wouldn't really feel "zergy" anymore) -I don't like the mothership core being early game at all. Seems like protoss can just attack with whatever and if it doesn't work out, just gtfo cuz honey badger don't care... And on a side note, ZvZ with ultras is becoming very cool, in hots they will have burrow charge (seems kind of OP) but then they will also be not "frenzied" so fungal will make them useless in zvz  Just my 0.02 | ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
22 range flying siege tanks, an interesting unit? wtf is he smoking? | ||
|
toiletCAT
Qatar284 Posts
On July 10 2012 23:58 Mentalizor wrote: Name 3 maps in a normal tournament pool where a P/T could easilly defend themselves on 3 base. Let's say... Around 13mins (so 200/200 roach vP and infestor/ling/bling vT) I'm sorry to be "that guy", but every tournament (and ladder) show Zerg with 60%+ winrates. They don't need more to push their advantage You're missing the entire point. This isn't about win rates. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 10 2012 23:14 SpiZe wrote: Well it seems easy for us here but designing a unit is a long process. They watched TvT of a couple months ago where everyone would go mech and no one would move because his siege line was right in front of you. If we are talking about past TvT, their statement is correct. So they go, "we should make a unit that is going to fix this problem". TThey come up with an idea, they tweak it and try to make in work. In the meanwhile players changed their playstyle and this problem is no longer relevant so what should they do ? Scrap it and start over ? HotS would never be released. As for zerg not being able to convert advantage into a win, some say the zerg needs his one base advantage to say on equal footing, if that is true then is it really an advantage ? I don't really care for the rationale behind their change, as long as their unit aren't completly boring or useless. When I look at the units they decided to add, I picture to myself what they do and how they will affect the current playstyle. In the end, if they do something good, for the wrong reasons, but it still ends up working and bring new ways to play the game to SC2, should we really care about the why ? I understand the why is what's keeping them from doing completely retarded stuff, but for now, they didn't do completely retarded stuff. The only obsolete unit they have presented is the Warhound in my opinion, and lots of people seem to agree that this unit has no place in the game. EDIT : Yeah the warhound part seems a little confusing, I just wanted to say with this example that I understand the validity of your point and even agree with it to a small extent. Blizzard needs to learn that you can't fucking micro-balance an RTS. You can't take every single metagame trend and respond to it with a balance patch. That's how we have such a diluted game now; so many strategies have been killed or nerfed in the past year or more because people instantly bitched the moment they came out and Blizzard didn't give the community a serious amount of time to actually react. Make an expansion to add content; continue the campaign, add to a race where it is severely lacking, but don't try to fix metagame trends by releasing an entire expansion. | ||
| ||
