|
On October 21 2011 17:31 ilbh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 17:12 pirates wrote:On October 21 2011 17:04 ilbh wrote: what do you think about the range of vision of a morphing hatchery. it allows for Terran to place a bunker just next to it and the Zerg won't see it and it is an instantly loss.
don't you think the Hydralisk, symbol of the Zerg needs a speed buff? when out of creep is ridiculously bad. like EG.Idra said, Hydras are so bad that your opponent wants them alive! i wonder how many brain cells ive lost from facepalming at these questions.. this thread is like blizzard forums nonesense. no no, you are the one behaving like a regular at Blizzard forums. you should elaborate more, you know...
Overlords compensate for the vision disadvantage hatcheries have, also scouting. Saying its an "instant loss" is face-palm worthy because if that's the case, you should be looking for it and defending against it 100% of the time.
|
Why did you decide to make mech/siege tanks not viable in tvp beyond a one base all-in?
The TL map making contest is a step in the right direction, but why the reluctance of including community made maps in the map pool to a much larger degree?
Considering how difficult it has been to balance the pvp early game, would you consider removing warp gate tech from the game and rebalancing gateway units accordingly?
|
i want to know if he still feels the same about the baneling, was mentioned sometimes during beta that the baneling filled all the rolls of the lurker, when in fact it does no such thing. It cannot hold locations ( like expos) by stalling a army and the baneling is a massive Hit or Miss unit which makes it really bad design compared to the micro intensive lurker(burrow unborrow in siege range etc etc.)
|
Why can a Collosssus walk over all friendly units and a ultra Stuck between everything? both is massiv and this will give the ulta a massiv bonus on his attack. sometimes they just stay behinind everything or the lings broodlings block him away
|
On October 21 2011 11:10 necrOtix wrote: why close spawns at blizzcon shattered temple??
when will we get name changes? I would love the non-terran race in a tvx match up on that map to just instantly do worker rush and leave the game.
|
Questions:
1. Is the inclusion of highground advantage considered for HOTS in some form (damage reduction, random miss, etc.)? If not, why?
2. While probably an infeasible change at the moment, what do you feel about a general lowering of rate of fire across the board or for a lot of units? (This question due to the "things die so fast phenomenon.)
Thank you if my questions are considered.
|
Watching and comparing SC2 with BW, it's clear the improved pathing and clumping of units has had a profound impact, not always for the better:
1. Opportunities to catch an opponent on the move are now limited to 'are his tanks sieged?', where before any large army could be vulnerable to surgical strikes or prepared ambushes while manoeuvering, allowing a skilled player to 'do more with less'.
2. Maxed battles tend to happen within the confines of a single screen and a handful of seconds rather than the epic, sustained, sprawling engagements of BW. Defender's reinforcement advantage is also diminished.
3. The delaying effect of static defence is diluted, because all 50 marines/roaches/stalkers turn up at once rather than straggling in.
Question: Does the SC2 team have any plans to make it require more skill (and time) for players to bring the full force of their army to bear at a single point?
|
I would be delighted if you asked Dustin a really really awkward question, just to see the sheer "uhhhhhh" look on his face. Something from out of left field, that there's no way he prepared for. Thanks!
|
On October 21 2011 17:59 aFganFlyTrap wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 23:58 labbe wrote: Would you consider removing the ability to stutterstep-micro? This was not possible in bw and is one of the reasons to bio being so powerful thats the dumbest shit ive ever heard.
Agreed I just facepalmed irl. I'm glad the TL staff are actually smart people and I have faith in them to pick the good questions.
|
On October 21 2011 19:01 Umpteen wrote: Watching and comparing SC2 with BW, it's clear the improved pathing and clumping of units has had a profound impact, not always for the better:
1. Opportunities to catch an opponent on the move are now limited to 'are his tanks sieged?', where before any large army could be vulnerable to surgical strikes or prepared ambushes while manoeuvering, allowing a skilled player to 'do more with less'.
2. Maxed battles tend to happen within the confines of a single screen and a handful of seconds rather than the epic, sustained, sprawling engagements of BW. Defender's reinforcement advantage is also diminished.
3. The delaying effect of static defence is diluted, because all 50 marines/roaches/stalkers turn up at once rather than straggling in.
Question: Does the SC2 team have any plans to make it require more skill (and time) for players to bring the full force of their army to bear at a single point?
This is the BEST question possible
|
Will there be anything in the future that can speed up the process of a custom game rematch. So after you surrender you don't have to go back to menu screen but can just repeat the custom immediately again?
|
technically not a direct question to dustin but I would love to hear what they think / why they think the current PvT matchup is working well. Everything falls on the right placed force field or a gueswork scout (usually which 1-1-1 cheese is incomming)
I guess the best question for me is 'what are your thoughts on the 1-1-1 build order supposedly being imbalanced' but i guess everyone already said that.
|
On October 21 2011 18:03 Piski wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 17:50 WesleyLok wrote:+ Show Spoiler + Dustin Browder:
"The Zerg race is incredibly versatile with a vast array of openings, easily changing their builds with a single larva inject allowing them to make 7 units to cheese instead of drones. Their tech tree has pretty much 0 divergence, being that the most stable strategies involve the hatchery which can create every single unit as long as they have 1 building required for that. As Terran and Protoss we must build multiple unit producing structures, and if we ever want to change from bio to mech or gateway to robo/stargate we must invest a large sum into creating more of those unit producing structures while zerg does not.
Was it intentional to make the race this resilient, can you explain the reasoning behind this and whether you have plans to develop the other race's to be able to punish different openings with different strategies, (e.g. a harass/scout unit for protoss and a scouting method for terran that doen't cost 300 minerals) or develop the other two races to be as resilient.
I seriously have trouble to figure out if you are serious or not? Ask Dustin if they plan to change the mechanics of the game in HotS or LotV. Warp gates etc? he's not serious, he's just a butt hurt terran trolling my question.
heres my question
"The Terran race is incredibly versatile, weather it's the wide range of opening strategies that they have, or the tech tree which never needs a real divergence, being that the most stable strategies involve the barracks, the factory and the starport and from their they can branch into ghosts, Thors or BC's with 1 building for each respectively, the vast majority are readily available and also interchangeable with addons in the game. Was it intentional to make the race this resilient, can you explain the reasoning behind this and weather you have plans to develop the other race's to be either able to punish different openings with different strategies, (e.g. a harrass unit for protoss or a siege unit for zerg) or develop the other races to be as resilient."
|
Any plans for more 1v1 maps in the 1v1 pool?
---
Do you still plan on making the colossus work in HOTS? Or did balancing it snowball a lot of other balance?
|
I would like to know if in HOTS or LOTV, will more air units be introduced or will they be patched to be more viable? Kind of like how the wraith and scout were back in the day where both could shoot air or ground (albeit weak but still) and that mutas could evolve?
I just feel like air units in SC2 aren't as viable an option in the game compared to before, unless of course your opponent doesn't build any form of anti air during the whole game.
|
Russian Federation823 Posts
On October 21 2011 19:30 dragonsuper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 19:01 Umpteen wrote: Watching and comparing SC2 with BW, it's clear the improved pathing and clumping of units has had a profound impact, not always for the better:
1. Opportunities to catch an opponent on the move are now limited to 'are his tanks sieged?', where before any large army could be vulnerable to surgical strikes or prepared ambushes while manoeuvering, allowing a skilled player to 'do more with less'.
2. Maxed battles tend to happen within the confines of a single screen and a handful of seconds rather than the epic, sustained, sprawling engagements of BW. Defender's reinforcement advantage is also diminished.
3. The delaying effect of static defence is diluted, because all 50 marines/roaches/stalkers turn up at once rather than straggling in.
Question: Does the SC2 team have any plans to make it require more skill (and time) for players to bring the full force of their army to bear at a single point? This is the BEST question possible
That's true. These are the things that have always bothered me watching SC2 after some BW matches. I really hope they adress it.
Maybe the new units are already a step into this direction.
|
Please ask Dustin Bowder:
Sir, why does end game PvZ simulate a game of cat and mouse (infestor/blord vs P-deathball). That type of play is completely retarded for a RTS like SC. Something needs to be done about it, how bout adjust the armies so they are actually meant to slam into eachother rather than run and dodge each other.
|
please ask Dustin when the repear will be removed or give a use in the game?... when he answers it, say so do you plan on doing somthing similair with the hydra unit?
|
Dear Mr Browder,
With unit clumping due to better AI changing the way you have to balance the game, have you ever considered implementing a formation-system like there was in Warcraft 3 (but improved), where you could maintain certain formations/spread?
|
On October 21 2011 18:05 acrimoneyius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 17:31 ilbh wrote:On October 21 2011 17:12 pirates wrote:On October 21 2011 17:04 ilbh wrote: what do you think about the range of vision of a morphing hatchery. it allows for Terran to place a bunker just next to it and the Zerg won't see it and it is an instantly loss.
don't you think the Hydralisk, symbol of the Zerg needs a speed buff? when out of creep is ridiculously bad. like EG.Idra said, Hydras are so bad that your opponent wants them alive! i wonder how many brain cells ive lost from facepalming at these questions.. this thread is like blizzard forums nonesense. no no, you are the one behaving like a regular at Blizzard forums. you should elaborate more, you know... Overlords compensate for the vision disadvantage hatcheries have, also scouting. Saying its an "instant loss" is face-palm worthy because if that's the case, you should be looking for it and defending against it 100% of the time. yes, I must have an Overlord right there when I could be using it to scout. in some maps if you send your overlord to the opposite direction or even lose it you are pretty much screwed, since you will only be able to scout the enemy base really late...
|
|
|
|