Why did you nerf NP one patch after zerg players started using it a lot yet ghosts, which still completely destroy everything from the other two races, haven't been touched?

zodde

Sweden1908 Posts

October 20 2011 14:58 GMT

#82

On October 20 2011 23:56 FreudianTrip wrote:

Show nested quote +

That last ones sarcastic right?

Stimmed marines, thors and vikings isn't enough, MOAR AA DPS

Zambozo

United Kingdom63 Posts

October 20 2011 14:59 GMT

#83

Hello i have a small and simple question for you :
Are you pleased with how Sc2 has developed and do you want to change something ?

Medzo

United States627 Posts

October 20 2011 14:59 GMT

#84

Youre probably going to ask about the map pool. They usually say that they want a wide range of maps so that people that like to rush can rush, etc. Please tell them that you can rush on big maps too! The biggest deciding factor in how well a rush works is the natural expansion layout, map distance is a factor but not the biggest. Tell them we want the tournament maps on the ladder!

Ribbon

United States5278 Posts

October 20 2011 15:00 GMT

#85

A lot of people react negatively to the Colossus, citing it as "boring". Do you think the Colossus has an issue, or do you think the Colossus is fine in of itself and it's the other races who need a more interesting way of interacting with it?

What would you consider your biggest mistake in designing SC2? What would you consider your greatest success?

Verator

United States283 Posts

October 20 2011 15:02 GMT

#86

Why is the marine the most cost effective and versatile unit in the game, while zealots and zerglings remain fairly weak through most of the game? (Eg. Stim and combat shields being reached at tier one, while charge/ adrenal glands require late tech and provide much smaller boosts to efficiency.)

Why is terran defensively allowed to remain stronger than the other races, while terran early game pressure is still by far the strongest of all 3 races?

Why does terran have obvious unit counters and choices while protoss and zerg have to use strategies to overcome certain unit combos instead? (eg. zerg v protoss deathballs/ turtling. Protoss v terran openings. While terran simply makes marauders or makes vikings or makes ghosts to counter ultras/ colossi + broodlords/ Any zerg or protoss tech.)

Bunker rushes v zerg are far stronger than any other form of early pressure, why not make bunkers require engineering bay to build? (Thus making terran choose between being defended from early attacks, or doing an early pressure build?)

Why does terran get planetary fortresses when terran already has the strongest positional defense ability of all 3 races, and the other two races must invest considerable resources to defend expansions instead?

Omsomsoms

Croatia194 Posts

October 20 2011 15:02 GMT

#87

Why are you not planning on including some (imo CLEARLY superior) community and gsl-made maps into the season 4 map pool when you don't even have any new blizzard-made maps to add?

BoomNasty

United States265 Posts

October 20 2011 15:02 GMT

#88

Why did you decide to incorporate mules into the game, and why were changes made to the ghost?

Medzo

United States627 Posts

October 20 2011 15:04 GMT

#89

Can we expect to see changes to MULEs/chronoboost/larva inject in HotS? Will there be any other macro mechanics added? What kind of new things can we expect to find on multiplayer maps in HotS (besides rocks and xelnaga towers)?

Inex

Bulgaria443 Posts

October 20 2011 15:04 GMT

#90

On October 20 2011 23:54 Murdock wrote:
Are you going to add Carriers in any expansion? I miss them so much from brood war!

Ahahahaha

.

Question:

Are we ever going to see Clan support with clan tags, or is the paid name change the closest we'll get to it?

Verator

United States283 Posts

October 20 2011 15:05 GMT

#91

You cite the creation of small maps as allowing for rush play, but with rush play being still common and effective on large competitive tournament maps, the community sees your small maps as not promoting rush play, but taking away the viability of any other build. (As is seen as true on any of the close position spawns that existed on ladder maps.) Why not actually respond to this criticism?

tapuchi

Greece7 Posts

October 20 2011 15:06 GMT

#92

Do you plan to reconsider the current high ground design either in hots or the future?
Because , besides the early game defenders advantage that would reduce the volatility of build
order losses and require the aggressor to have much more refined build orders/execution,
the game right now lacks in a fundamental strategy concept , " zone control " , that is accomplished
either by unit design ( vultures , defilers , lurkers ) or by having an army in an advantageous position
( a higher ground area ) .

I know it may be a "big" question but if you get the gist of it feel free to shrink it .

tracoes

United States45 Posts

October 20 2011 15:07 GMT

#93

Why did you decide for the units to clump up when moving? Is there any talk of adding unit formations like for example in Warcraft 3? Thank you

zocktol

Germany1928 Posts

October 20 2011 15:10 GMT

#94

Would you consider replacing the Collosus with the Reaver, because the Collosus is generally considered to be a "boring" unit. If not, what is the reason for that? Is it the pathing system which would make it OP because of the clumping of units or is the collosus to important for your concept of protoss?

Would love this question answered.

tnud

Sweden2233 Posts

October 20 2011 15:10 GMT

#95

On October 21 2011 00:07 tracoes wrote:
Why did you decide for the units to clump up when moving? Is there any talk of adding unit formations like for example in Warcraft 3? Thank you

Considering the AoE spells that has always been in sc are relatively small area I don't think helping out with the unit spread is the right way to go

Slusher

United States19143 Posts

October 20 2011 15:11 GMT

#96

Is there a chance that in Hots or even later in Legacy of the void that we will ever see food counts of 250 or 300? I really feel like having half your end game comp be workers is bad game design. 200 food as I understand it (didn't play bw) worked in BW because saturation was achieved with far fewer workers as is, saturating 2 full bases more than your opponent can be more of a hindrance then an an advantage even given time to realize that income.

DoublespeakUS

United States55 Posts

October 20 2011 15:11 GMT

#97

Will you be adding more units with a dynamic map presence, for example lurkers, or a unit with spider mines?

Roxy

Canada753 Posts

October 20 2011 15:11 GMT

#98

Many players have mentioned they have ladder anxiety. While this is pursuant to their own insecurities and is not blizzards responsibility, blizzard would be able to help people by introducing a practice league matchup system where people with comparable MMR are matched against eachother. This practice league could allow the player to specify the matchup they wish to practice. Is this somethign blizzard would consider introducing?

MilesTeg

France1271 Posts

October 20 2011 15:11 GMT

#99

Basically what I want to know the most is how much they're willing to change the game in HotS.

-Are you only going to remove underused units like the reaper, or are you going to change more important core units like marauders or hellions?

-Is a change to some mechanics (mules, larva and chronoboost for instance) a possibility?

Other questions:

-Do you already have some idea of what you'll do in LotV?

-How long do you think SC2 can remain successful as an esport?

-How big do you see SC2 getting at its peak?

Escape

Canada306 Posts

October 20 2011 15:11 GMT

#100