|
On May 17 2013 08:15 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2013 03:45 NoobSkills wrote:On May 16 2013 03:18 monkybone wrote:
Love what blizzard is doing for this show. Really? Cuz I thought Cloaken(sp) was a terrible guest and basically gave only generic PR responses that basically said you're expecting too much from a billion dollar company. If you're not going to say anything of any worth, then why bother coming on the show in the first place? This isn't the vent how I feel about Acti-Blizz, because that would take too long, but I just don't think they're doing anything to the level of what we expect from old Blizzard. David Kim coming on the show will be exactly like Cloaken. I know I don't know how to balance a game, but I do remember that at the end of WoL the matches were quite boring due to changes he was a part of and even at that the match ups weren't necessarily balanced. .... you really expected a Community manager with virtually no real authority to actually commit to something on a podcast? Really? Do you not understand PR at all?
Cloaken does PR? He seemed like the ultimate Fluff Manager in my opinion, generic answers do not apply to PUBLIC RELATIONS, he did NOTHING in terms of trying to convey anything but fluffy bullshit answers!
As much as I love Starcraft and the designers (Blizzard) of the game, generic answers and ''don't worry it will fix itself.. eventually.." replies don't fit well with representation on one of the most exclusive and premiere talkshows for the Starcraft Community...
if he has intentions of giving such answers another time he gets invited, I'd MUCH rather he just declines with the argument that the community does not need repetition of the same response from the creators of the game... I want proper information, not fluff..
|
Nony, iNcontroL, IdrA, Day[9], David Kim
JP. Make it happen.
|
Idra has to be in this show! Come on Jp...!
|
will this show start while wcs is going on despite david kim being on?
|
SotG isn't a good show for the fluff that's coming our way, a Real Talk would be better.
|
Only two subjects that need to be addressed
- Hacking
- Maps
|
|
|
I personally don't really get why a defensive playstyle should be discouraged so badly. O_o I used to love watching Flash play an insane turtle-style vs Protoss in BW.
|
I would like to know - for sure - his league.
|
Every unit in the game should shoot smaller free units. - David Kim, 2014
|
On May 18 2013 06:20 figq wrote:
Every unit in the game should shoot smaller free units. - David Kim, 2014
i can get behind queens throwing larva at enemies.
|
Defending the colossus was just sad
|
I actually really liked his justification for the Colossus. I see the unit in a new light now. Imagine PvT if Colossi couldn't be hit by AA. Would Protoss ever make Stalkers? Wouldn't you just keep making Colossi with Zealots to tank? A core unit of your army being vulnerable to a different kind of attack forces you to diversify your unit composition, to take terrain into account when engaging, and to not just blindly mass Colossi because they can be so effectively countered.
|
On May 18 2013 06:27 Exarl25 wrote:
I actually really liked his justification for the Colossus. I see the unit in a new light now. Imagine PvT if Colossi couldn't be hit by AA. Would Protoss ever make Stalkers? Wouldn't you just keep making Colossi with Zealots to tank? A core unit of your army being vulnerable to a different kind of attack forces you to diversify your unit composition, to take terrain into account when engaging, and to not just blindly mass Colossi because they can be so effectively countered.
Or they could just not have colossus in the first place?
|
On May 18 2013 06:28 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 06:27 Exarl25 wrote:
I actually really liked his justification for the Colossus. I see the unit in a new light now. Imagine PvT if Colossi couldn't be hit by AA. Would Protoss ever make Stalkers? Wouldn't you just keep making Colossi with Zealots to tank? A core unit of your army being vulnerable to a different kind of attack forces you to diversify your unit composition, to take terrain into account when engaging, and to not just blindly mass Colossi because they can be so effectively countered. Or they could just not have colossus in the first place?
And have just purely ground vs ground armies? The point of the Colossus is that it forces air and anti-air.
|
On May 18 2013 06:29 Exarl25 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 06:28 a176 wrote:On May 18 2013 06:27 Exarl25 wrote:
I actually really liked his justification for the Colossus. I see the unit in a new light now. Imagine PvT if Colossi couldn't be hit by AA. Would Protoss ever make Stalkers? Wouldn't you just keep making Colossi with Zealots to tank? A core unit of your army being vulnerable to a different kind of attack forces you to diversify your unit composition, to take terrain into account when engaging, and to not just blindly mass Colossi because they can be so effectively countered. Or they could just not have colossus in the first place? And have just purely ground vs ground armies? The point of the Colossus is that it forces air and anti-air.
If the ground battles weren't just a big clump going at a another big clump there wouldn't be a need to conceal the terrible with a cloud of air units.
|
|
|
Really disappointed with the carrier answer. Hate to see that they are fine just not balancing it into the game. Kind of the same as BC as well, both are so late in tech that it was hard for them to even get a fair look at them during the beta, and by the time the game settled down they had became too hesitant to make any changes.
And now we just get the cop-out of "we're fine if some units aren't used much in pro games." I just don't see why that kind of mindset is allowed. If you don't want to see them every game, make them situationally good. If you want to see them do well in pros hands, give them some difficult micro-tricks. Ignoring them completely for fear of breaking the game is just not cool.
|
On May 18 2013 06:29 Exarl25 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2013 06:28 a176 wrote:On May 18 2013 06:27 Exarl25 wrote:
I actually really liked his justification for the Colossus. I see the unit in a new light now. Imagine PvT if Colossi couldn't be hit by AA. Would Protoss ever make Stalkers? Wouldn't you just keep making Colossi with Zealots to tank? A core unit of your army being vulnerable to a different kind of attack forces you to diversify your unit composition, to take terrain into account when engaging, and to not just blindly mass Colossi because they can be so effectively countered. Or they could just not have colossus in the first place? And have just purely ground vs ground armies? The point of the Colossus is that it forces air and anti-air.
Huh, what's wrong with that?
Moreover, that's not a sufficient justification for the Colossus. In WOL, Protoss air sucked because Corruptors and Vikings had to be better (either through damage or range) than Protoss air. Don't get me wrong, I think the Colossus is a cool unit. But, it needs to be re-imagined. Lower range, siege mode, less damage, different attack etc. There are many options.
|
United Kingdom12022 Posts
I forgot to watch this live, but did anyone ask David Kim about Mech at all or moreso why very few pros use it? D:
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
