|
So here is what I want too know:
Why no LAN, seriously it's a problem, almost every major event there's lag and D/C's.
When can we watch replays with friends, also this would make watching replay-streamed tournaments a lot better.
Why they make maps that's not intended to be used for tournament play and still uses them in tournaments.
How come it costs money to upgrade/spawn queen/orbital/planetary when chronoboost is free? (no I don't hate protoss)
Are they planing to make carriers more viable? <-- see i love protoss
Why are ghost "counter" to everything Zerg has?
Does Dustin consider buying a wig, if so, what kind?
|
On October 21 2011 20:37 Jetaap wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 19:30 dragonsuper wrote: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 Great question, however I think it's a bit too long. And his answer concerning pathing is "we can't make a pathing that sucks in a 2010 game, so we working the gameplay around it "(basically 80% of the micro in sc2 is splitting your army to get a good concave and minimize splash damage). They obviously can't use the same pathing as in broodwar, but they should work on it if they really care about competitive play rather than casuals.
Reworded for brevity:
The improved pathing and clumping of units in SC2 has had some negative side effects:
1. It's no longer possible to do 'more with less' by hitting a spread-out, straggling army with surgical strikes. 'Sieged/unsieged' is all that matters now.
2. Maxed battles are confined to a single screen and a handful of seconds rather than the sustained, sprawling engagements of BW. Defender's reinforcement advantage is also diminished.
3. Static defence is less effective at delaying attacks because the whole army's DPS arrives at once instead of ramping up.
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?
|
On October 21 2011 22:06 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 20:37 Jetaap wrote:On October 21 2011 19:30 dragonsuper wrote: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 Great question, however I think it's a bit too long. And his answer concerning pathing is "we can't make a pathing that sucks in a 2010 game, so we working the gameplay around it "(basically 80% of the micro in sc2 is splitting your army to get a good concave and minimize splash damage). They obviously can't use the same pathing as in broodwar, but they should work on it if they really care about competitive play rather than casuals. Reworded for brevity: The improved pathing and clumping of units in SC2 has had some negative side effects: 1. It's no longer possible to do 'more with less' by hitting a spread-out, straggling army with surgical strikes. 'Sieged/unsieged' is all that matters now. 2. Maxed battles are confined to a single screen and a handful of seconds rather than the sustained, sprawling engagements of BW. Defender's reinforcement advantage is also diminished. 3. Static defence is less effective at delaying attacks because the whole army's DPS arrives at once instead of ramping up. 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?
Took the words right out of my mouth. The general mechanics force armys to 'ball'.
|
On October 21 2011 21:46 gulshngill wrote:
Dear Dustin Browder,
1. High Templar. When it came to fixing the Khydarian Amulet, why did Blizzard decide to remove the whole ability and not tweak it (+10 starting energy instead of +25 and 50 more max energy, making it more resistant to EMPs)? Will we be seeing more spells for this unit to make it more multipurpose?
2. Mothership. Will the Mothership get any new spells/upgrades in the upcoming expansion to make it a more multipurpose unit? You're only allowed one at a time, at least make it cost effective.
3. Carrier. A buff?
4. Marauders. The marauder is a very cost effective unit especially against Protoss. Have you ever thought of nerfing the marauder (removing concussive shells or increasing upgrade time so that Protoss can have some early game map control) and reducing their vs Armor damage to something like 17 or 18 (not sure about this but last I checked, a marauder with +2 attack is as powerful as a 3/3/3 stalker).
5. Don't know if this is true or not but I find it harder for a Protoss player to play catch up when he is behind especially in terms of economy. Will there be any changes in HotS to fix this?
6. Will there be any multiplayer units removed in HotS?
7. As the game gets older, will we be seeing more macro-oriented maps like Tal'Darim Altar in the map pool? You've previously stated that you want the map pool to be noob-friendly but I think this problem can be solved by giving more vote downs (from 3 to 5?) so the new players can wish vote down the large macro maps.
8. Roach/Hydralisks. Will the roach be tweaked for it to be a little weaker and cost less supply so that hydralisks (give it some changes as well?) can be a viable choice in ZvX?
I definitely like this one +1
|
On October 21 2011 21:49 Pokebunny wrote:
Do you have any thoughts on making it viable to play Terran without relying on the marine and marauder through the entire game? In the current state of the game, trying to play without using these units makes the Terran player easy to abuse by an opponent who knows how to counter whatever tech they choose. Do you agree or disagree, and are there any planned changes?
On the note about MM all game, PLEASE, bring back mech to TvP. It worked in BW, it should work here =D
|
1. What is the reason behind having warp gates produce units faster than standard gates?
2. Any plans to change "neutral" gameplay mechanics? Such as highground(Make it like BW pretty please), watchtowers and line of sight blockers.
|
|
|
What went through your head when you removed W/L Statistics?
|
On October 21 2011 22:06 Umpteen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 20:37 Jetaap wrote:On October 21 2011 19:30 dragonsuper wrote: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 Great question, however I think it's a bit too long. And his answer concerning pathing is "we can't make a pathing that sucks in a 2010 game, so we working the gameplay around it "(basically 80% of the micro in sc2 is splitting your army to get a good concave and minimize splash damage). They obviously can't use the same pathing as in broodwar, but they should work on it if they really care about competitive play rather than casuals. Reworded for brevity: The improved pathing and clumping of units in SC2 has had some negative side effects: 1. It's no longer possible to do 'more with less' by hitting a spread-out, straggling army with surgical strikes. 'Sieged/unsieged' is all that matters now. 2. Maxed battles are confined to a single screen and a handful of seconds rather than the sustained, sprawling engagements of BW. Defender's reinforcement advantage is also diminished. 3. Static defence is less effective at delaying attacks because the whole army's DPS arrives at once instead of ramping up. 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 like this! +1
|
God yes, I'm very interested in asking if there are plans to give more vetoes. I dearly hate playing some maps and 3 is just not enough for me.
|
Why do you keep Protoss in the game if it's not supposed to be usable?
User was warned for this post
|
On October 21 2011 21:46 gulshngill wrote:
Dear Dustin Browder,
1. High Templar. When it came to fixing the Khydarian Amulet, why did Blizzard decide to remove the whole ability and not tweak it (+10 starting energy instead of +25 and 50 more max energy, making it more resistant to EMPs)? Will we be seeing more spells for this unit to make it more multipurpose?
2. Mothership. Will the Mothership get any new spells/upgrades in the upcoming expansion to make it a more multipurpose unit? You're only allowed one at a time, at least make it cost effective.
3. Carrier. A buff?
1. Kyhdarian amulet was removed because of the reversed production cycle. If you start a high templar and an infestor at exactly the same time the high templar has 75 energy when the infestor spawns. The high templar can also be warped in anywhere on the map with a power field. I don't get why people ask about this. It is as if they haven't even tested this.
2. Have you been watching people like inka or kiwi at ipl that actually use the mothership recently? The mothership is a good unit
3. The problem with the carrier is the colossus. The colossus is a massive air targetable unit like the carrier, and what you get to counter the colossus also counters carriers. The anti colossus units have to do high damage because colossi kill things arguably way too quickly. I guess the interceptors are a little too fragile though.
|
Was there any point in time after release that you considered removing the banshee from the game ?
|
On October 21 2011 22:20 Avan wrote:
Why do you keep Protoss in the game if it's not supposed to be usable?
No, protoss only won MLG...
I'd like to see those guys put against the walls and being bombarbed with questions regarding our missing LAN feature. They need to give it to us straight, and face the hate!
|
On October 21 2011 21:45 Zato-1 wrote:
EDIT: Is it wrong that when I read the thread title, I thought it was about Bacon questions for Dustin Browder?
Haha. I did the exact same thing 
|
On October 21 2011 22:20 Avan wrote:
Why do you keep Protoss in the game if it's not supposed to be usable?
Why so much whining? Is Protoss really unusable? All this over the top whining becomes really annoying when you read through this whole thread.
On topic,
Question: How do you feel about the skill cap design of the Protoss race? It feels like having a lower skill cap really makes the balacing so much harder, because if you buff something to help professional players the rest of the players suffer so much. Maybe the answer is putting units that scale better with players' skill.
|
On October 21 2011 22:35 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 22:20 Avan wrote:
Why do you keep Protoss in the game if it's not supposed to be usable? Why so much whining? Is Protoss really unusable? All this over the top whining becomes really annoying when you read through this whole thread. On topic, Question: How do you feel about the skill cap design of the Protoss race? It feels like having a lower skill cap really makes the balacing so much harder, because if you buff something to help professional players the rest of the players suffer so much. Maybe the answer is putting units that scale better with players' skill.
After seeing 21 Terran Players in the GSL Code S and only 2 Protosses, you still have to ask that? And MLG Orlando was sooooo not the tournament to talk about Protoss being cool... Like anyone who attended could beat HuK and/or MC.
|
On October 21 2011 22:46 Avan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 22:35 petro1987 wrote:On October 21 2011 22:20 Avan wrote:
Why do you keep Protoss in the game if it's not supposed to be usable? Why so much whining? Is Protoss really unusable? All this over the top whining becomes really annoying when you read through this whole thread. On topic, Question: How do you feel about the skill cap design of the Protoss race? It feels like having a lower skill cap really makes the balacing so much harder, because if you buff something to help professional players the rest of the players suffer so much. Maybe the answer is putting units that scale better with players' skill. After seeing 21 Terran Players in the GSL Code S and only 2 Protosses, you still have to ask that? And MLG Orlando was sooooo not the tournament to talk about Protoss being cool... Like anyone who attended could beat HuK and/or MC.
They could, but they didn't, did they? So now even when Protoss players win P is still UP? Go figure. But that's not really my point. My point is: if you think P is UP for some reason, then just formulate a question that address this. Most questions here could be summarized as: "OMG, Why ghosts are so imba?"
About the GSL numbers. I think Koreans really prefer Terran and they really make T look good. I wonder why, though, most top foreign players are Z and P. They really just prefer playing the UP races? What's the sense in that?
|
On October 21 2011 22:55 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 22:46 Avan wrote:On October 21 2011 22:35 petro1987 wrote:On October 21 2011 22:20 Avan wrote:
Why do you keep Protoss in the game if it's not supposed to be usable? Why so much whining? Is Protoss really unusable? All this over the top whining becomes really annoying when you read through this whole thread. On topic, Question: How do you feel about the skill cap design of the Protoss race? It feels like having a lower skill cap really makes the balacing so much harder, because if you buff something to help professional players the rest of the players suffer so much. Maybe the answer is putting units that scale better with players' skill. After seeing 21 Terran Players in the GSL Code S and only 2 Protosses, you still have to ask that? And MLG Orlando was sooooo not the tournament to talk about Protoss being cool... Like anyone who attended could beat HuK and/or MC. They could, but they didn't, did they? So now even when Protoss players win P is still UP? Go figure. But that's not really my point. My point is: if you think P is UP for some reason, then just formulate a question that address this. Most questions here could be summarized as: "OMG, Why ghosts are so imba?" About the GSL numbers. I think Koreans really prefer Terran and they really make T look good. I wonder why, though, most top foreign players are Z and P. They really just prefer playing the UP races? What's the sense in that?
Wow, you're absolutely correct. All Koreans really prefer Terran. Ghosts and marines are not particularly imba units. All good players picked Terran. Except Nestea, but that's because he doesn't want to practice as much as Terran players.
This logic is ridiculous. I've read this bull shit enough times in this thread.
|
Please, ask Dustin Browder this:
When are you going to implement multi-core support? I'm tired of overloading 2 cores and have the rest just chillin'. <_<
It would make the game more playable to more people and 4v4 fights micro-able.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
