|
I've said for months now what the main issues are, and blizzard not listening isn't one of them. I think it's more of the case of blizzard reacting to what they hear more so then just listening then doing whatever they want to do.
Maps have major issues they have yet to fix, and many of times try to band aid poor design with gimmicks like the rocks.
Races power swings back and forth to violently, getting unit A or B out should not drastically swing the favor of a battle towards your side...if that's the case that 1 unit is to powerful and the other units in your army are to weak. Such is the case with all the races where they rely on power units almost like heros in WC3 to win battles. Which at hear isn't what made BW so great, with the soft counter system no one unit made your army so beefy all favor swung towards you.
Look at ZvP for a prefect example of how this power swings back and forth high favoring each race as unit X gets out.
- Toss starts on gateway units versus straight lings....advantage to toss.
- Zerg gets to lair with burrow roaches and possibly hydras early on, later infestors...advantage to zerg
- Toss gets out 2 or 3 colossus/voids advantage back to toss
- Zerg hits hive tech and advantage back to zerg
Then who wins is really determined by who does more damage when they have the advantage. Not who out plays the other guy, just who does more damage while they have an advantage. That advantage is sometimes player related but many of times is just related to timings in the game allowing far weaker players to defeat stronger players when that shouldn't be happening unless the stronger player screws up royally.
|
On June 14 2011 06:01 Nerski wrote:
I've said for months now what the main issues are, and blizzard not listening isn't one of them. I think it's more of the case of blizzard reacting to what they hear more so then just listening then doing whatever they want to do.
Maps have major issues they have yet to fix, and many of times try to band aid poor design with gimmicks like the rocks.
Races power swings back and forth to violently, getting unit A or B out should not drastically swing the favor of a battle towards your side...if that's the case that 1 unit is to powerful and the other units in your army are to weak. Such is the case with all the races where they rely on power units almost like heros in WC3 to win battles. Which at hear isn't what made BW so great, with the soft counter system no one unit made your army so beefy all favor swung towards you.
Look at ZvP for a prefect example of how this power swings back and forth high favoring each race as unit X gets out.
- Toss starts on gateway units versus straight lings....advantage to toss.
- Zerg gets to lair with burrow roaches and possibly hydras early on, later infestors...advantage to zerg
- Toss gets out 2 or 3 colossus/voids advantage back to toss
- Zerg hits hive tech and advantage back to zerg
Then who wins is really determined by who does more damage when they have the advantage. Not who out plays the other guy, just who does more damage while they have an advantage. That advantage is sometimes player related but many of times is just related to timings in the game allowing far weaker players to defeat stronger players when that shouldn't be happening unless the stronger player screws up royally.
Unit composition and timing attacks help decide who wins the game -.-' Who woulda thought.
I bet micro, macro, and scouting all play an integral part too. Please consider everything.
This thread has become nothing more than a whining area.
|
I also disagree with Browder's argument that he is trying to make an entertaining game that is appealing to many first and foremost and then worrying about making the game work on an ESPORT level afterwards. (I believe it was in the interview with Sen in which he made this remark.)
But history clearly has shown in the world of sports that if you make a game that is appealing to watch for spectators, then people will naturally pick it up as a hobby and play it, either by trying to emulate their favorite professional players or by innovating completely new styles of play.
Similarly, if Blizzard, instead of trying to make SC2 into some sort of cookie-cutter RTS that is "casual friendly", focused on making the absolute best ESPORT they possibly could, then people would naturally see the beauty in the game from spectating it and want to give it a try themselves.
I can already in this infant stage of SC2 cite real world examples of people who became fans of SC2 as an ESPORT first and players of it second. In fact I personally know of one person who even bought the game with zero intention in playing it (not having a PC that would support such a decision) and yet did so anyway solely to support Blizzard in their initiative to further ESPORTS.
This sentiment among people would only grow were Blizzard to shift their focus in game design to cater more toward professional gamers and less toward these "casual gamers" they are so worried about.
|
On June 14 2011 06:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 06:01 Nerski wrote:
I've said for months now what the main issues are, and blizzard not listening isn't one of them. I think it's more of the case of blizzard reacting to what they hear more so then just listening then doing whatever they want to do.
Maps have major issues they have yet to fix, and many of times try to band aid poor design with gimmicks like the rocks.
Races power swings back and forth to violently, getting unit A or B out should not drastically swing the favor of a battle towards your side...if that's the case that 1 unit is to powerful and the other units in your army are to weak. Such is the case with all the races where they rely on power units almost like heros in WC3 to win battles. Which at hear isn't what made BW so great, with the soft counter system no one unit made your army so beefy all favor swung towards you.
Look at ZvP for a prefect example of how this power swings back and forth high favoring each race as unit X gets out.
- Toss starts on gateway units versus straight lings....advantage to toss.
- Zerg gets to lair with burrow roaches and possibly hydras early on, later infestors...advantage to zerg
- Toss gets out 2 or 3 colossus/voids advantage back to toss
- Zerg hits hive tech and advantage back to zerg
Then who wins is really determined by who does more damage when they have the advantage. Not who out plays the other guy, just who does more damage while they have an advantage. That advantage is sometimes player related but many of times is just related to timings in the game allowing far weaker players to defeat stronger players when that shouldn't be happening unless the stronger player screws up royally. Unit composition and timing attacks help decide who wins the game -.-' Who woulda thought. I bet micro, macro, and scouting all play an integral part too. Please consider everything. This thread has become nothing more than a whining area.
His argument is not nearly as simple as you are making it out to be. Don't bother posting if you demean another's post without adding anything insightful.
If you are still unable to see the point, he is saying that so much emphasis is on things like what your units are rather than what you do with them. Example - Toss is getting out a bunch of colossi. I, a zerg, MUST get out corruptors quick or I am completely dead. I'm not thinking hmm maybe if I burrow micro my roaches well, drop some spines, split my hydralisks I'll be able to handle this - I'm thinking corruptors.
Now sure, you might be able to do the crazy micro and whatnot, but the unit counters are such a huge focus in doing well in the game, and that maybe you should be able to be more successful (to a point) than you are now, with say, things like hydras against colossi, hellions against roaches, bio against HTs. That's his point. But yeah, it's easier to say "lol everyone knows unit comp matters already lolol what a whiner"
|
The races themselves are OK, with some slight problems. Zerg early game still sucks and scouting is still problematic, but it's not enough to really call a matchup broken.
Main issue is Blizzard's map design team is a complete farce. The community has been peristantly complaining about the exact same things for months and still literally nothing has been done. Why is Delta still in the map pool? Why do they keep releasing shitty maps like Slag pits which keep incorporating all of the map elements people hate (small size, rocks, huge naturals). Why are GSL maps still not in the ladder pool? Why did they feel the need to modify a perfectly good GSL map with rocks everyone would rather see gone? Why are there no neutral supply depots on ramps to preventing being walled in with 2 bunkers? Why aren't the rest of the perfectly good and well balanced GSL maps not in the ladder pool?
The game itself really isn't that imbalanced right now, but Blizzard's ladder map pool is a fucking joke for Zerg its so frustrating.
|
On June 14 2011 06:46 Clog wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 06:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 14 2011 06:01 Nerski wrote:
I've said for months now what the main issues are, and blizzard not listening isn't one of them. I think it's more of the case of blizzard reacting to what they hear more so then just listening then doing whatever they want to do.
Maps have major issues they have yet to fix, and many of times try to band aid poor design with gimmicks like the rocks.
Races power swings back and forth to violently, getting unit A or B out should not drastically swing the favor of a battle towards your side...if that's the case that 1 unit is to powerful and the other units in your army are to weak. Such is the case with all the races where they rely on power units almost like heros in WC3 to win battles. Which at hear isn't what made BW so great, with the soft counter system no one unit made your army so beefy all favor swung towards you.
Look at ZvP for a prefect example of how this power swings back and forth high favoring each race as unit X gets out.
- Toss starts on gateway units versus straight lings....advantage to toss.
- Zerg gets to lair with burrow roaches and possibly hydras early on, later infestors...advantage to zerg
- Toss gets out 2 or 3 colossus/voids advantage back to toss
- Zerg hits hive tech and advantage back to zerg
Then who wins is really determined by who does more damage when they have the advantage. Not who out plays the other guy, just who does more damage while they have an advantage. That advantage is sometimes player related but many of times is just related to timings in the game allowing far weaker players to defeat stronger players when that shouldn't be happening unless the stronger player screws up royally. Unit composition and timing attacks help decide who wins the game -.-' Who woulda thought. I bet micro, macro, and scouting all play an integral part too. Please consider everything. This thread has become nothing more than a whining area. His argument is not nearly as simple as you are making it out to be. Don't bother posting if you demean another's post without adding anything insightful. If you are still unable to see the point, he is saying that so much emphasis is on things like what your units are rather than what you do with them. Example - Toss is getting out a bunch of colossi. I, a zerg, MUST get out corruptors quick or I am completely dead. I'm not thinking hmm maybe if I burrow micro my roaches well, drop some spines, split my hydralisks I'll be able to handle this - I'm thinking corruptors. Now sure, you might be able to do the crazy micro and whatnot, but the unit counters are such a huge focus in doing well in the game, and that maybe you should be able to be more successful (to a point) than you are now, with say, things like hydras against colossi, hellions against roaches, bio against HTs. That's his point. But yeah, it's easier to say "lol everyone knows unit comp matters already lolol what a whiner"
Didn't I exactly say that unit composition, macro, and timing attacks are important? Yes, I did. And they are absolutely integral parts of gaining advantages and winning games throughout all levels of play.
There is no reason to imply that these mean that *balances of power* shift drastically to the extent that Nerski is claiming. That's simply not what happens. Getting "counters" to your units is how the game naturally should play out if both players are playing well and scouting frequently. Nerski is whining about this, claiming that such a thing makes the game too volatile to play and is problematic. That's simply not the case, and that's not what happens during the games. Race power doesn't swing back and forth so violently, as he claims. It only swings back and forth when the players make it so. If a Protoss and a Zerg have a back-and-forth game, it's because the players are equally matched, not because the game is flawed to make Protoss overpowered during the odd-numbered minutes and Zerg overpowered during the even-numbered minutes (or every other tech switch), as Nerski is explicitly claiming.
As for his problem with the maps... we have access to the updated map models, so that's another non-existent problem. They keep in the old models as well as have the new ones too.
|
On June 14 2011 08:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 06:46 Clog wrote:On June 14 2011 06:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 14 2011 06:01 Nerski wrote:
I've said for months now what the main issues are, and blizzard not listening isn't one of them. I think it's more of the case of blizzard reacting to what they hear more so then just listening then doing whatever they want to do.
Maps have major issues they have yet to fix, and many of times try to band aid poor design with gimmicks like the rocks.
Races power swings back and forth to violently, getting unit A or B out should not drastically swing the favor of a battle towards your side...if that's the case that 1 unit is to powerful and the other units in your army are to weak. Such is the case with all the races where they rely on power units almost like heros in WC3 to win battles. Which at hear isn't what made BW so great, with the soft counter system no one unit made your army so beefy all favor swung towards you.
Look at ZvP for a prefect example of how this power swings back and forth high favoring each race as unit X gets out.
- Toss starts on gateway units versus straight lings....advantage to toss.
- Zerg gets to lair with burrow roaches and possibly hydras early on, later infestors...advantage to zerg
- Toss gets out 2 or 3 colossus/voids advantage back to toss
- Zerg hits hive tech and advantage back to zerg
Then who wins is really determined by who does more damage when they have the advantage. Not who out plays the other guy, just who does more damage while they have an advantage. That advantage is sometimes player related but many of times is just related to timings in the game allowing far weaker players to defeat stronger players when that shouldn't be happening unless the stronger player screws up royally. Unit composition and timing attacks help decide who wins the game -.-' Who woulda thought. I bet micro, macro, and scouting all play an integral part too. Please consider everything. This thread has become nothing more than a whining area. His argument is not nearly as simple as you are making it out to be. Don't bother posting if you demean another's post without adding anything insightful. If you are still unable to see the point, he is saying that so much emphasis is on things like what your units are rather than what you do with them. Example - Toss is getting out a bunch of colossi. I, a zerg, MUST get out corruptors quick or I am completely dead. I'm not thinking hmm maybe if I burrow micro my roaches well, drop some spines, split my hydralisks I'll be able to handle this - I'm thinking corruptors. Now sure, you might be able to do the crazy micro and whatnot, but the unit counters are such a huge focus in doing well in the game, and that maybe you should be able to be more successful (to a point) than you are now, with say, things like hydras against colossi, hellions against roaches, bio against HTs. That's his point. But yeah, it's easier to say "lol everyone knows unit comp matters already lolol what a whiner" Didn't I exactly say that unit composition, macro, and timing attacks are important? Yes, I did. And they are absolutely integral parts of gaining advantages and winning games throughout all levels of play. There is no reason to imply that these mean that *balances of power* shift drastically to the extent that Nerski is claiming. That's simply not what happens. Getting "counters" to your units is how the game naturally should play out if both players are playing well and scouting frequently. Nerski is whining about this, claiming that such a thing makes the game too volatile to play and is problematic. That's simply not the case, and that's not what happens during the games. Race power doesn't swing back and forth so violently, as he claims. It only swings back and forth when the players make it so. If a Protoss and a Zerg have a back-and-forth game, it's because the players are equally matched, not because the game is flawed to make Protoss overpowered during the odd-numbered minutes and Zerg overpowered during the even-numbered minutes (or every other tech switch), as Nerski is explicitly claiming. As for his problem with the maps... we have access to the updated map models, so that's another non-existent problem. They keep in the old models as well as have the new ones too.
Oh really? The balance of power doesnt wildly swing around? Why then is the start of a game so critical for a Zerg? Because he is very vulnerable to the opponent AND because any serious damage will carry on over to the next few minutes?
As a Terran / Protoss you practically HAVE TO attack a Zerg early on and hinder the economic development, because if you dont do that the larvae multiplication on 2-3 (or more) hatcheries will "explode" the Zerg production and enable him to swamp you with units. This is just too much for a well balanced game and giving Terran / Protoss an early advantage through Chronoboost / Warp Gate and the first few MULEs doesnt "balance" the game on the time axis. Every race should have an equal opportunity throughout the game, but as it stands now they dont. And the culprit is quite clearly the new and funky macro mechanics.
The balance of power shifting in favor of Zerg heavily is only cloaked by the fact that skilled opponents are able to constantly pressure them and keep them back, but if you play a game of "TvZ 20 minutes not attacking" the result wouldnt be funny at all. A wall of 100+ Banelings rolling into a Terran base requires about zero skill, but it can annihilate a lot of things which can not be replaced easily and if the Terran has Siege Tanks the Banelings just get dropped. The real problem starts afterwards, because Zerg can replenish everything in one production cycle with enough stockpiled larvae compared to Terrans and Protoss. So please dont deny the existence of drastic swings of power; they are the reasons for countless nerfs.
Protoss cant "stockpile" Warp-in-slots and Terrans cant "stockpile" production slots in their buildings, but Zerg can do that and it is a terrible mechanic.
To make a great "sport" you need a balanced game, where everyone has equal chances and the game itself has too much impact on the outcome through these critical necessities and requirements. ("hard counters", required attack timings against Zerg, impracticality of tiny maps which Blizzard favours for more action, ...) Therefore Blizzard has lost its touch and even though SC2 is playable and competitive it is far behind its potential as a long lasting esport.
|
The main take away from these interviews, at least in my opinion, is that Blizzard's #1 priority is not competitive play, but appeasing as many people as they can at the cost of alienating a few.
|
On June 14 2011 06:01 Nerski wrote:
I've said for months now what the main issues are, and blizzard not listening isn't one of them. I think it's more of the case of blizzard reacting to what they hear more so then just listening then doing whatever they want to do.
Maps have major issues they have yet to fix, and many of times try to band aid poor design with gimmicks like the rocks.
Races power swings back and forth to violently, getting unit A or B out should not drastically swing the favor of a battle towards your side...if that's the case that 1 unit is to powerful and the other units in your army are to weak. Such is the case with all the races where they rely on power units almost like heros in WC3 to win battles. Which at hear isn't what made BW so great, with the soft counter system no one unit made your army so beefy all favor swung towards you.
Look at ZvP for a prefect example of how this power swings back and forth high favoring each race as unit X gets out.
- Toss starts on gateway units versus straight lings....advantage to toss.
- Zerg gets to lair with burrow roaches and possibly hydras early on, later infestors...advantage to zerg
- Toss gets out 2 or 3 colossus/voids advantage back to toss
- Zerg hits hive tech and advantage back to zerg
Then who wins is really determined by who does more damage when they have the advantage. Not who out plays the other guy, just who does more damage while they have an advantage. That advantage is sometimes player related but many of times is just related to timings in the game allowing far weaker players to defeat stronger players when that shouldn't be happening unless the stronger player screws up royally.
Go watch bw again, because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Typical ZvT
Zerg gets spawning pool, has map control, expands
Terran gets enough marines, can push out
Zerg gets mutas. Keeps Terran in base
Terran gets enough MM, some tanks, pushes.
Zerg gets lurkers, slows terran
Terran gets Science vessels, kills lurkers
Zerg gets defilers, saves lurkers from mm
Terran gets tanks
BW is one big game based on ebb and flow between 2 races based on the units one is able to get out. SC2 needs MORE ebb and flow, not less.
|
On June 14 2011 12:55 Hexxed wrote:
The main take away from these interviews, at least in my opinion, is that Blizzard's #1 priority is not competitive play, but appeasing as many people as they can at the cost of alienating a few.
Yes ... exactly like they do it in WoW, but the difference is that SC2 isnt a game with a monthly fee and should get its longevity from competitiveness as an eSport. Thus the focus on "massive numbers of casual gamers" is exactly the wrong focus.
Giving us only 20 campaign missions in the Zerg expansion isnt a good sign for the casual players either. Sure they go for the "do you want to pay only for an expansion or a full game?" excuse, but since the main game mechanics exist and have been paid for already in WoL that is a "trick question" of economists trying to scare people into the right direction (from their point of view). The price of both expansions should be for an expansion, since that is what they are ... but they should still have the 30 missions for each race.
So Blizzard seems to be "out of touch" with creating a long lasting eSport and "trying to be lazy" for the single players.
|
On June 14 2011 13:04 Two_DoWn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 06:01 Nerski wrote:
I've said for months now what the main issues are, and blizzard not listening isn't one of them. I think it's more of the case of blizzard reacting to what they hear more so then just listening then doing whatever they want to do.
Maps have major issues they have yet to fix, and many of times try to band aid poor design with gimmicks like the rocks.
Races power swings back and forth to violently, getting unit A or B out should not drastically swing the favor of a battle towards your side...if that's the case that 1 unit is to powerful and the other units in your army are to weak. Such is the case with all the races where they rely on power units almost like heros in WC3 to win battles. Which at hear isn't what made BW so great, with the soft counter system no one unit made your army so beefy all favor swung towards you.
Look at ZvP for a prefect example of how this power swings back and forth high favoring each race as unit X gets out.
- Toss starts on gateway units versus straight lings....advantage to toss.
- Zerg gets to lair with burrow roaches and possibly hydras early on, later infestors...advantage to zerg
- Toss gets out 2 or 3 colossus/voids advantage back to toss
- Zerg hits hive tech and advantage back to zerg
Then who wins is really determined by who does more damage when they have the advantage. Not who out plays the other guy, just who does more damage while they have an advantage. That advantage is sometimes player related but many of times is just related to timings in the game allowing far weaker players to defeat stronger players when that shouldn't be happening unless the stronger player screws up royally. Go watch bw again, because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Typical ZvT Zerg gets spawning pool, has map control, expands Terran gets enough marines, can push out Zerg gets mutas. Keeps Terran in base Terran gets enough MM, some tanks, pushes. Zerg gets lurkers, slows terran Terran gets Science vessels, kills lurkers Zerg gets defilers, saves lurkers from mm Terran gets tanks BW is one big game based on ebb and flow between 2 races based on the units one is able to get out. SC2 needs MORE ebb and flow, not less.
In BW both races can play a harass style or turtle up, it just depends on preference.
If you are going to do SKTerran you need to harass lots with dropships and pick out key units science vessels. A lot of flow.
If you do mech you can just keep expanding without really attacking till you get an unstoppable mech ball. Not as much flow.
Jaedong is a Zerg that plays a very aggressive mechanical style.
Effort is a Zerg that plays a more passive tactical style.
However there isn't as much flow in SC2. Its often either 1 timing attack with possible another to finish off the other player, or turtle to 200/200. With the exception of TvZ and TvT because Tanks provide Terran with defenders advantage (explained below). Tanks do not provide defenders advantage in TvP which is why its often just ball vs ball.
However this has less to do with macro mechanics than defenders advantage. Having macro mechanics that speed up the game is fine, but it means in order to balance it out, other players will need better scouting tools and more defensive units that can defend very cost-effectively against a lot of different units. Vultures were 75 minerals and could cost-effectively defend against almost any ground unit, even cloaked units without detection. You didn't need scan (even though they were free) to stop a dark templar rush, you just laid well placed mines. This is the catalyst that allowed Terran to open mech against any race. This has a lot to do with why opening mech in SC2 is so difficult. Not saying this is a problem, but it also makes any creative macro opening difficult unless you deny scouting or do a fake (which results in a coinflip).
You need options like 1 vulture, 1 tank & 1 bunker that can block a huge number of dragoons, 2 lurkers at a ramp to stop an infinite number of bio, reaver & shuttle to stop hydra allin, etc, so players can expand and harass properly without dying immediately to a timing attack.
These units must not be mobile or must be difficult to use effectively too (ie They must NOT synergise too well with your main army and must be controlled separately) , eg, static defense, siege tanks, lurker, reaver, defiler. Otherwise instead of situating them at key locations, you will just move them around in your ball of death.
Without defenders advantage, players will be too scared to attack each other with anything less than their deathball.
(Theres a nice big article on Teamliquid if you wanna know more about it)
|
On June 14 2011 13:14 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 12:55 Hexxed wrote:
The main take away from these interviews, at least in my opinion, is that Blizzard's #1 priority is not competitive play, but appeasing as many people as they can at the cost of alienating a few. Yes ... exactly like they do it in WoW, but the difference is that SC2 isnt a game with a monthly fee and should get its longevity from competitiveness as an eSport. Thus the focus on "massive numbers of casual gamers" is exactly the wrong focus. Giving us only 20 campaign missions in the Zerg expansion isnt a good sign for the casual players either. Sure they go for the "do you want to pay only for an expansion or a full game?" excuse, but since the main game mechanics exist and have been paid for already in WoL that is a "trick question" of economists trying to scare people into the right direction (from their point of view). The price of both expansions should be for an expansion, since that is what they are ... but they should still have the 30 missions for each race. So Blizzard seems to be "out of touch" with creating a long lasting eSport and "trying to be lazy" for the single players.
I am a bit disappointed with 20 campaign missions. (Honestly I'd paid 50% more {40 to 60] for 50% more missions [20 to 30] simply because more missions likely means more assets for map editor >.> + the missions and story is fun too). In terms of it being an expansion "and" having 30 missions - They could do that but they know the same amount of people will still buy the expansion regardless of 20 or 30.
However it really depends how they go about the 20 missions. As long as cutscene and story-wise, it's the same length as WotL (possible) then I'd be okay with it. I feel there is a lot more to explore (UED needs to return >.>).
One thing that troubles me is that this may mean only 20 missions for LotV.
Anyway as for the topic - I am disappointed about Dustin Browder's SC2 is not Broodwar response.
Yes it's true SC2 and BW are different games "but" that doesn't mean SC2 can't borrow or use things from Broodwar. They can still be totally different games but similar at the same time.
While the comparisons are made often it's only because Broodwar managed to do a lot of things right (whether accidentally or intentionally).
Also in terms of casual vs competitive - I agree with those who say that even if SC2 was harder to play, lots of people will still like to play and mimic progamers. I'm not good as Broodwar but that doesn't mean I did not have fun (I still play BW occasionally).
We'll just have to see with HotS how they'll go with things.
|
Isn't there a rule against making a thread that has already been made to death
|
On June 14 2011 17:00 Eknoid4 wrote:
Isn't there a rule against making a thread that has already been made to death
If you're mad that someone else is brazenly trumpeting their beliefs with ignorance, perhaps you should be mad that you are doing it too.
Eknoid4
|
The uninterested unit polls are pretty retarded.
Take away roaches from zerg or nerf them yet again and zerg has nothing to play with in ZvP yet again, i just feel pittiful for the scrub tosses that lose to roaches then come and QQ on the forums.
Also hydras weren't even in the voting list, altho appearently they are the unit in the zerg race that requires the most changes atm since its practically useless.
|
Judging from the 'issues' you listed, sounds like you're more out of touch with the community than Blizzard. Most of your complaints I have never seen mentioned ever before. Sounds like these are just your personal gripes with the game that you're trying to project through the community.
Overall, sounds like a typical case of "This isn't BW, pls fix" instead of realizing that not only is this intended to be a different game, but the strategies and metagame are still evolving week to week.
EDIT: For example, you make a complaint about 'meat shield units,' yet the aspect of those units (except maybe the Roach) was always their DAMAGE, not their tankiness.
|
It feels sad to play Zerg when they have the two of most uninspiring units in the game according to the poll... Roaches and Corruptions.
|
Why are Blizzard claiming to listen to us but really not?
|
On June 14 2011 20:23 Pwnographics wrote:
Why are Blizzard claiming to listen to us but really not?
Because "us" is not the entirety of people who play Starcraft 2. They talk to everyone. Family members. Shareholders. Idiots on the battle.net forums. Random people at tradeshows. This forum may think Colossus is the most boring unit. Blizzard might have heard otherwise from 1000 different people.
This is the same Blizzard that has been shaped and molded by World of Warcraft for the past 6 years. Everything they do must appeal to an extremely wide demographic. It's the Warcraft model.
|
Browder made cnc:g & i respect him for that.
Blizzard made bw & i respect them for that.
But i cant respect them for labelling starcraft 2 as an esport game ...I hope blizzard dies in their shit...
You can call me a hater, I hate lies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
