| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
We will select some questions from this thread to ask assuming they are humorous, thought provoking etc. Balance questions are cool, especially about GomTvT. Side Note: Anything to do with Lan, Battlenet 0.2, Chat Channels almost always leads to a "you need to talk to Chris about that" responses. Try stick to balance/design quesitons/ Go! | ||
|
leo23
United States3075 Posts
On October 20 2011 06:59 Dissonance23 wrote: I would ask why do they say their ladder maps aren't for tournament play, then insist on putting them into a tournament? But in case he isn't in charge of maps in the tournament, just ask about the replacement for colossis | ||
|
Karellen
United States50 Posts
| ||
|
Sanchonator
Australia490 Posts
| ||
|
Nausea
Sweden807 Posts
| ||
|
Hassybaby
United Kingdom10823 Posts
| ||
|
ahronee
38 Posts
spot on | ||
|
kasumimi
Greece460 Posts
| ||
|
Ammoth
Sweden391 Posts
| ||
|
Coal
Sweden1535 Posts
| ||
|
Rachnar
France1526 Posts
Some were simply too good like the reaper at the beggining of the game, roaches in beta, etc ... Obvious nerfs were needed. But i'm thinking especially of ZVP (i'm a T player, i do not take sides on this specific case), why nerf NP so quick ? Zerg players put a whole YEAR to figure how to deal with colossi (like oh wait, the infestor, can we actually USE it?), Why not let the game evolve, let Protoss players discover new things (not being irespecfull to them, but they ALWAYS do the EXACT same thing, only change recently is warp prism play) ? Still now, new strats arise and fall as we still start to discover the game. Edit : and as a suggestion i have for hydras that would still be in their fluff to make them useful units, give them borrowed blink ability like stalkers, they MIGHT get usefull | ||
|
DwmC_Foefen
Belgium2186 Posts
| ||
|
Zarjax
United States44 Posts
| ||
|
monx
Canada1400 Posts
Why no 1v1 map pool change for season 4 ? When will be able to watch replays with multiple people? HoTS summer 2012?¸ Why are you hurting E-sports by not adding LAN support? | ||
|
Jameser
Sweden951 Posts
| ||
|
heroofcanton
United States167 Posts
| ||
|
KAmaKAsa
Finland210 Posts
| ||
|
Gladiator6
Sweden7024 Posts
| ||
|
Elite__
Canada976 Posts
| ||
|
Papulatus
United States669 Posts
| ||
|
Joseph123
Bulgaria1144 Posts
| ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
| ||
|
MisterD
Germany1338 Posts
| ||
|
tnud
Sweden2233 Posts
On October 20 2011 11:45 tnud wrote: Browder. Too many questions to list, I'll run off a few. Maybe someone will ask them at the multiplayer panel.. The "WHY?!" list:
Hopefully this isn't looked upon as bashing. I'm just asking why. I expect him to have a few reasonable answers, and some not quite as reasonable. Clan system was announced for "future expansions". If it isn't in HotS add that to the list. EDIT: I haven't totally given up on HotS. In fact, I expect it to top WoL in all regards. I just don't find them trying to impress me with it at all currently.. and it's supposed to release "soon". Feel free to change these up so they don't get so insulting  EDIT: Do you feel that the 1/1/1 build is a problem? Why? | ||
|
rolfe
United Kingdom1266 Posts
| ||
|
procyonlotor
Italy473 Posts
| ||
|
Twinmold
Sweden238 Posts
| ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
Everyone knew that it was not a bug, but rather a "quick fix" that they attempted to slow down Zerg's mid-late game macro. Of course it was retracted because it was not right - you shouldn't balance the game by chancing the mechanic or harming users' physical well-being. Ask him what he thinks of these secret/quiet "bug fixes" that do not appear on balance change notes but nonetheless affects the balance or game play. How often do they have done it, and whether he feels guilty on these opaque balance changes that players may not recognize. | ||
|
KAmaKAsa
Finland210 Posts
| ||
|
TheKefka
Croatia11752 Posts
| ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
| ||
|
iamperfection
United States9642 Posts
| ||
|
spinal2k
Portugal148 Posts
| ||
|
SirMilford
Australia1269 Posts
Do you have any idea about the pricing for Australia regarding HOTS/LOTV. Although they are expansioin packs will they be priced as full games? Also, Will people who buy the south east asia version of the game still get access to the North American servers with the expansion packs? | ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
Do you have any intentions bringing back the units we had in Starcraft:Broodwar, reaver, lurker, vulture etc to the SC2 multiplayer or are you going to focus on new units like the units we've seen so far for HoTS? Thanks TL. | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
I am aware that FF is micro-inhibiting as well, but I don't really expect that redesigning all of protoss is a possibility at this stage in the game. I feel like removing concussion shells and altering fungal to slow instead of root are reasonable. Why do you not find it more appropriate to have fungal as a slow instead of a root? | ||
|
saynomore
Norway149 Posts
 Anyway: I really loved your presentation in GDC, about making an e-sport game. What are your plans\hopes\ideas that you would do to improve the viewing quality for the spectator in the upcoming expansions or patches, and drive SC2 further as an spectator sport? | ||
|
djfoxmccloud
France185 Posts
(trololol) | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
Why do marines counter every unit in the game (except infestors and colosi)? | ||
|
Deckkie
Netherlands1595 Posts
| ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:40 Coal wrote: When a stalker fires a projectil, there's a slight delay with the animation, making it harder to micro perfectly. Is this a bug or is it intended? If it's not a bug, could you please motivate why? Some guy here at TL posted a modification of the stalkers animation while firing, making it 100% easier to micro while being time efficient. I have a similar issue with colossus. Colosuss damage register at the end of animation and if you move colossus before its attack animation ends it does zero damage. | ||
|
MotherOfRunes
Germany2862 Posts
| ||
intrigue
Washington, D.C9933 Posts
more reasons: to sneak past overlords to harass while your opponent is distracted, and not having a "units under attack" alert come up. might make precision dart in dart out snipe micro better, as no shots would be wasted on closer units on approach to a specific target. | ||
|
stonetalon
Netherlands482 Posts
why are there imba spawn possitions on certain maps on ladder? in comparison to other companies (valve and riot) you don't really put alot of money into developing e-sports, why? compaired to BW, how balanced is the game according to you? | ||
|
Predguin
Canada188 Posts
It makes them incredibly efficient DPS dealers and melee-kiters, much more so than in SC1 or Brood War. Do you think a slight adjustment should be made to their animation to make them harder to stutter-step? Because it seems that a lot of their use and cost-efficiency comes from their ability to be easily micro'd. | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
| ||
|
Treble557
United States221 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:43 Elite__ wrote: what do you think about the hydralisk, and do you have any intentions to change it? (notwithstanding future morphs into different units) This. But add in if they feel like returning it to T1 would be in the Zergs best interest given the current state of the game and returning roaches to T2 but making them more tanky and less dps-ish | ||
|
rolfe
United Kingdom1266 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
| ||
|
Tppz!
Germany1449 Posts
What is your way to develop a "new" multiplayer for hots? or which information do you use and which ideas are you including to create the new Multiplayer in Hots. (Which units, spells, how do you approach highly discussed balance"problems" like 1/1/1 for the HOTS) Are you going to implement a feature to turn on "progamming graphics" for the progaming oriented players? for example the colormod. | ||
|
bounca
140 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
My question would be regarding maps: Last year, the SC2 beta site had an interesting interview with the Blizzard map making team. At the time they said their design focus was on making smaller maps with only two close spawns to promote "face-paced" gameplay, early game rushing, and to avoid what they called "luck based scouting". With the very negative community and pro-scene reactions to small maps like Steps of War and complaints about poor map balance; how has the Blizzard map team's philosophy changed? Are we going to see larger maps on the ladder, and what is Blizzard doing to address the issue of map balance? This is the link to the interview (scroll down to Q&A) http://us.starcraft2.com/features/gameplay/multiplayer.xml -edit: wording change, and link added | ||
|
Noocta
France12578 Posts
Like, with Colossus instead of Reaver, what was the design phylosophy behind it ? | ||
|
djfoxmccloud
France185 Posts
| ||
|
BigNJuicy
Sweden2 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
What types of Bnet 2.0 changes do you have in mind for upcoming expansions/patches? What types of ongoing content additions do you expect to add to the game through patches (other than expansions)? | ||
|
andiCR
Costa Rica2273 Posts
Name change system said "soon" when you guys released the game. It's almost time for the the expansion and you have yet to even address the issue. Same with clans. In Broodwar, Protoss was the strong unit race. Why is it now the most fragile race out of the three? Was that intentional? | ||
|
justiceknight
Singapore5741 Posts
why transforming a gate to warpgate takes another 10 secs? why zerg easily get to 170 food within 15 mins? why terran anti air so suck? | ||
|
Lorch
Germany3679 Posts
| ||
|
Clay_H
United States3 Posts
Is blizzard planning on giving professional players a reason to play a race besides Terran in the upcoming expansion? | ||
|
djfoxmccloud
France185 Posts
| ||
|
Faricho
Colombia116 Posts
2- Have you considered multiple ladders for people that wants to try different races? I mean like the way it is for different teams (2v2 random, 2v2 with Bob, 2v2 with Carl, etc) 3- lurker plz? Edit: #2 is pretty much what Zarjax said [...] ways to have different leagues/ladders for each race that you can play? (i.e. You can be diamond for Zerg and gold for Terran on the same account) | ||
|
zBro
Finland448 Posts
| ||
|
Condor Hero
United States2931 Posts
I watch a lot of SC2 and I can't tell what's happening in a battle or see who won until after everything died, which I think makes for shitty experience. | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
What would you say the biggest problem with Starcraft 2 is right now, and how are you planning to fix it? How would an "ideal" game of starcraft 2 play out, from start to finish? What are the underlying themes to how each races works and should be played? | ||
|
Murdock
Poland490 Posts
| ||
|
Stiluz
Norway688 Posts
Could you include more GSL and ICCCUP maps in the map pool, and increase the number of vetos? Are you planning to change the Hydra? Will we see a nerf to Ghosts soon? | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
Examples would be things such as team melee 1v1 (2v2 team melee) Ranked FFA (for more even matchmaking) Have you considered having separate ladder records for each race a player uses? | ||
|
Proko
United States1022 Posts
| ||
|
Rachnar
France1526 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:51 justiceknight wrote: why stalker doesnt get +2 attk for each upgrade? why transforming a gate to warpgate takes another 10 secs? why zerg easily get to 170 food within 15 mins? why terran anti air so suck? would you like banshees to get +2 attak from each upgrade ? personally i wouldnt mind 18*2 damage instead of the 15*2 at the moment with +3 | ||
|
Zorgaz
Sweden2951 Posts
Why is the Mothership a multiplayer unit? Why do you hate the Hydra!? Edit: #2 is pretty much what Zarjax said ''[...] ways to have different leagues/ladders for each race that you can play? (i.e. You can be diamond for Zerg and gold for Terran on the same account)'' As stated earlier i would like to hear his thoughts on this! | ||
|
Escape
Canada306 Posts
| ||
|
Soliduok
Canada222 Posts
| ||
|
FreudianTrip
Switzerland1983 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:51 justiceknight wrote: why stalker doesnt get +2 attk for each upgrade? why transforming a gate to warpgate takes another 10 secs? why zerg easily get to 170 food within 15 mins? why terran anti air so suck? That last ones sarcastic right? | ||
|
Cuiu
Germany410 Posts
he said "that the Mothership is a Casual Unit that should not play any Role in Competitive Games" but in the recent Patch Kim said "We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership." so WTF? | ||
|
nooboon
2602 Posts
Serious questions: How important is lore to the development of SC2 and more importantly, HOTS? | ||
|
MetalLobster
Canada532 Posts
| ||
|
sereniity
Sweden1159 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:47 Roxy wrote: Why do you have micro-inhibiting abilities such as concussion shells and fungal root? I am aware that FF is micro-inhibiting as well, but I don't really expect that redesigning all of protoss is a possibility at this stage in the game. I feel like removing concussion shells and altering fungal to slow instead of root are reasonable. Why do you not find it more appropriate to have fungal as a slow instead of a root? First you say that concussive shell ruins micro due to the slow effect, then you say that fungal could be fixed by making it a slow instead of a root? makes no sense... Also, FF is probably even more "micro-inhibiting" than any of the other two you mentioned, even tho you did mention it I still feel that it'd be unfair to remove the other two if FF stays. | ||
|
labbe
Sweden1456 Posts
Do you design the new units with an "E-sports" perspective to give them more strategical depth or with a "casual" perspective with it's main focus being "easy to use"? | ||
|
xtfftc
United Kingdom2343 Posts
You've stated a number of times that you want to keep ealry game rushes as an equally viable part of the game. Is this the reason why you keep maps with close spawns and generally don't like including larger maps in the map pool? Even the very top players struggle with things such as blocking a ramp with a force field (if MC loses games because of this, what hope do I have?) but they don't have to face them that often anymore because they play on the more macro-oriented tournament maps. However, due to the horrible custom games system and lack of chat channel communities, the average player is forced to face this all day long and thus a lot of us simply don't play the game as much. Do you consider trying to keep these early game rushes viable but not as game-ending strategies but rather as damaging ones? Also, a few people have already asked similar questions, so I'd just add that I am also interested in whether Blizzard would consider adding more micro-tasking abilities instead of abilities that limit micro (concussive shell, fungal growth, force field, etc.). Edit: two more. A few weeks ago Day9 half-jokingly suggested that making a Mothership shouldn't cost any resources, considering that it is high up the tech tree, takes a lot of time to complete and you can only have one at a time anyway. Would you ever consider doing something similar? Also, a few months ago the guys from State of the Game (I think it was Incontrol who came up with it but I'm not sure) had the idea that that ladder map pool shouldn't have just ~10 maps and the option to veto some of them but something like 30 maps from which the player has to pick at least 10 that he would like to play. This way the casual players would have the opportunity to stick to the small maps they are familiar with (and would be automatically enabled for them), while the more devoted ones would be able to practice those they need for the tournaments and leagues they participate in. Players would even have the opportuntunity to play all types of maps, thus having a more varied experience. Can you find a single flaw of this idea? | ||
|
LemonDill
Canada1 Post
| ||
|
zodde
Sweden1908 Posts
Stimmed marines, thors and vikings isn't enough, MOAR AA DPS | ||
|
Zambozo
United Kingdom63 Posts
Are you pleased with how Sc2 has developed and do you want to change something ? | ||
|
Medzo
United States627 Posts
| ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
What would you consider your biggest mistake in designing SC2? What would you consider your greatest success? | ||
|
Verator
United States283 Posts
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
| ||
|
BoomNasty
United States265 Posts
| ||
|
Medzo
United States627 Posts
| ||
|
Inex
Bulgaria443 Posts
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
| ||
|
tapuchi
Greece7 Posts
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
| ||
|
zocktol
Germany1928 Posts
Would love this question answered. | ||
|
tnud
Sweden2233 Posts
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
| ||
|
DoublespeakUS
United States55 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
| ||
|
MilesTeg
France1271 Posts
-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
| ||
|
Asha
United Kingdom38205 Posts
Support for this is already in a number of other games and would at least prevent having to do complete regames when someone gets dropped from Bnet for one reason or another. | ||
|
feebas
Finland268 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
Have you considered reducing the rate at which multiple SCVs can repair buildings. Planetary fortresses are neigh impenetrable without your entire army there to attack it (leaving you ripe for a counter attack, or a flank between the PF and their army) | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
| ||
|
Pietro
Poland103 Posts
| ||
|
Soulriser
United States192 Posts
also, when are you going to fix hellions? | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
An example would be allowing MLG to make an account and embed a stream that other players can watch though their SC2 client. Perhaps adding a spotlight and quick viewing link from the main SC2 page? Surely the increased awareness and convenience would be good for all parties involved. | ||
|
Diavlo
Belgium2915 Posts
And if you think there is indeed a problem, what do you intend to do about it? | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:47 saynomore wrote: Now I am a little disappointed. I thought it said Bacon Anyway: I really loved your presentation in GDC, about making an e-sport game. What are your plans\hopes\ideas that you would do to improve the viewing quality for the spectator in the upcoming expansions or patches, and drive SC2 further as an spectator sport? I second this question. | ||
|
Kinshuk
India116 Posts
| ||
|
feardragon
United States972 Posts
Are you considering the implementation and change of units that give more positional advantages based on risk-reward? Right now it feels like only the seige tank has the balanced trade off for risk reward in terms of positioning. If you feel that's not the case, what units do you think are being utilized for positional advantages with a risk reward formula? | ||
|
blae000
Norway1640 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
Examples would be thigns like allowing the player to specify that they want the resources counter above the minimap instead of top right Another example of an addition to the UI would be additional hotkeys to help players do things faster (such as a button that lets you drop one unit from your control unit each time you press the button) or have a separate worker and army counter on your screen? | ||
|
phodacbiet
United States1740 Posts
| ||
|
Novalisk
Israel1818 Posts
| ||
|
Mash2
United States132 Posts
| ||
|
Vuistgevecht
Netherlands77 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10329 Posts
In SC2, we see that Terrans are encouraged to get a more mixed army composition than in BW -- that is, as the game progresses, the need for support units from different kinds of buildings increases. For example, against Protoss, a Mech army can add Vikings or Ghosts; against Zerg, a Bio army can add Medivacs and Tanks and even later in the game, Thors; against Terran, an Air army could use Hellions. Bio armies now need to use Starport-unit-Medivac in order to heal, which are available at the Barracks in the form of Medics in BW. Mech armies now need to use Starports in order to create Vikings, which replace the anti-armor role of the Goliath from Brood War since Thors only do extra damage to Light units. Air compositions are now more complete since Banshees fulfill the role of Air to Ground attack units. Strategies using pure Bio or pure Mech still exist of course, but in a more limiting fashion. Against Zerg, you can make pure Marines, but as the game gets longer and armies get bigger, eventually you cannot depend on your micro and so will need to add other units like Tanks. Were these changes intentional to improve Terran's ability to transition between the tech trees without making their armies weaker, as well as to make Air-based strategies viable? Note: Only include the italicized part if it's too long, thanks in advance! | ||
|
hugman
Sweden4644 Posts
How would you analyze the design success or failure of the Colossus as a replacement for the Reaver? Does it create more or less interesting gameplay, tactics and viewer excitement? Do you think that the new SC2 macro mechanics should come into play more in the later stages of the game as opposed to being there from the start? MULEs, Chronoboost and Larvae Inject all contribute heavily to the early game volatility. | ||
|
Resistentialism
Canada688 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 00:23 Vuistgevecht wrote: Did they know about magic boxing mutas when they designed the thor? or was their initial plan to make 1 thor counter infinite mutalisks? I am interested to know this as well | ||
|
Kanil
United States1713 Posts
Most of these units have clear weaknesses that offset their immense strength, forcing the player to use the unit skillfully to get the maximum out of it, but the Colossus tends to be incredibly forgiving with it's reasonable movespeed, ability to walk over other units (or even up a cliff!) to escape an attacker, lack of minimum range, no need to deploy it's weapon, and large amount of hitpoints. Was the unit designed to be more forgiving, or are it's ease of use advantages supposed to be countered by it's vulnerability to AA fire? Are you happy with the current forgiveness (or lack thereof) in the Colossus? | ||
|
Kazot
Switzerland8 Posts
How do you feel about Ghosts countering two entire races? What do you think about Hydralisks right now and do you think about any changes for them? Any comments about "boring" units (Collosus, Roach, Marauder, ... )? Any plans on adding carriers back to the game? What do you think about the scouting possibilities for each race? What do you think about rocks blocking regular blue expansions instead of only golds? What are your general motives for each race (zerg fast and swarmy etc) and do you think you reached your goals? Are there things that don't fit? What do you want to change? | ||
|
Baptista
Poland141 Posts
| ||
|
FlopTurnReaver
Switzerland1980 Posts
2. Who came up with the idea of destructible rocks and does this person still work with Blizzard? 3. Are you ever gonna fix all those small obnoxious Terrain/Doodad/Unit bugs in the Map Editor? | ||
|
HypernovA
Canada556 Posts
| ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
Can you ask if they plan on adding an automated tournament system like they had in WC3? | ||
|
Scorch
Austria3371 Posts
What was the reason for changing the hydralisk from a tier 1.5 cheap, fast, massable allround unit in Broodwar to a tier 2 expensive, slow glass cannon in Starcraft 2? | ||
|
Mash2
United States132 Posts
| ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
| ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
On October 21 2011 00:29 Mash2 wrote: Why is it that zerg and terran have mobile detection regardless of the tech path they choose, compared to protoss who can only have mobile detection if they choose robo tech? Has there been any though given to changing the building that the observer is built from? that's been something in place from BW. i don't think they thought much about it or care enough to change it. | ||
|
laguu
Finland278 Posts
Now that the game has been out for a year, what things about the game/bnet is he least satisfied with? Ignore all the balance whine questions during the interview, they're not effective use of time. | ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
| ||
|
dooraven
Australia2820 Posts
2) Why was the Ghost given the EMP ability instead of the Raven? 3) What was the reasoning behind the Roach, it is completley the opposite of Zerg design philosophy where they are meant to be weak individually but easily massable. Right now, it's a fairly decent cost effective units but is horribly supply inefficient. 4) Why is all Protoss AoE stuck on Tier 3 Tech? 5) What was the reasoning behind Protoss design in general? The Tech Tree is far too rigid and inflexible and it's too heavily dependent on the sentry and AoE due to the warpgate mechanic, 6) Were Zergs expected to Magic Box or did Blizzard never think of that when they designed the Thor? 7) What Changes would you make to the game so that Base Trades aren't always a significant occurance in progames and how would you address the fact that Terran has a clear advantage in those situations? 8) Why was SC2 Terran really designed so that Bio was viable in almost every matchup and as a consequence required SC2 protoss to be fully desgined around defeating mech (warp gates, blink, charge, immortals, vrs etc all discourage mech play and shoehorn Bioplay)? | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
In the Halo series Bungie added the option of an MLG playlist as a ranked option for the players. Would you consider making something similar? As in I could choose lets say between GSL playlist, MLG playlist, IPL 3 playlist, ESV playlist etc.... That would help map makers into having their maps preapproved by the tournament organizers, Encourage laddering from progamers, the Blizzard playlist could be the standard maps you guys want, and let the tournaments showcase their maps. In that same vein, it woudl be cool if we could make our mixed playlist for the ladder. | ||
|
Mash2
United States132 Posts
On October 21 2011 00:27 HypernovA wrote: Any plans for adding female ghosts to Terran just like Protoss have 2 types of DTs? The ghost as it is already tears shit apart. I can only imagine the wrath a female ghost, on her time of the month, would invoke. J/K I actually like this idea. | ||
|
Striding Strider
United Kingdom787 Posts
| ||
|
Sabu113
United States11047 Posts
What is the degree of assymmetry in difficult in execution that is tolerable to blizzard in the use of a (straightforward?) strategy? Ex. 1-1-1 and its defense. On that line, are strategies that affect the whole families of an opponent's response good for the game? Do you admit the design of Zerg/Protoss was fundamentally a failure and sequential TvTs in the most competitive league is evidence of that. If you had to take a TL admin on a date, which admin would you take and where would you go? | ||
|
Dispersion
Korea (South)504 Posts
| ||
|
templar rage
United States2509 Posts
It was said in the latest patch report that you guys still weren't sure about the Ultralisk, and that the build time buff was to get more data. What exactly about it are you unsure about? Why does it feel like all the changes are steering Protosses away from non-Colossi compositions (especially when you're on record as saying that Colossi are "boring units")? What are your thoughts on the lack of early viable scouting from Protoss and Zerg (especially against Terran), and what are your plans to remedy this, if any? Why do so many of your maps have destructible rocks on the 3rd? It seems like you really want to encourage 2base play, which is pretty detrimental to an entire race (Zerg). If the motivation was to hinder the recent trend of super fast 3rds by Zerg (especially in ZvP), will you consider changing it now that we're seeing ways to specifically punish it? | ||
|
DwD
Sweden8621 Posts
| ||
|
Mentymion
Germany259 Posts
2.) (Harsh Critisism for Dustin as Game Designer) Many people would say, that the majority of the balance problems in Starcraft 2, were in fact caused by the Game Design itself, rather than simply stronger and weaker units influencing the games balance, for example: Zerg's early scouting problems, Protoss's heavy reliance on the observer and timing attacks, Terran's dominance because of too many cost efficent units and overall versatility and mobility. Ofc. many problems are not that easily spotted when designing the game, but how will you change that by not screwing up the "Status Quo" of Starcraft 2 ? 3.) During the Q&A from the Beta time, you mentioned that the whole team decided not to include a 4th Race for Starcraft 2, because it would be harder to balance the game and other various reasons. The Question is: What was the 4th Race...the Xel Naga or something entirely different, such as a silicon based race or machine based race ? | ||
|
daxile
Canada829 Posts
We have been seeing a large amount of internet failures in recent tournaments, people have had to wait extra time to get to see their favourite players battle it out. The simple solution everyone seems to be saying is adding LAN, what will be your solution to this problem? | ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
| ||
|
MCDayC
United Kingdom14464 Posts
| ||
|
Vildhjarta
Sweden126 Posts
| ||
|
Striding Strider
United Kingdom787 Posts
| ||
|
marttorn
Norway5211 Posts
What did you guys have in mind when designing the PvP matchup? Did you realize at the time how powerful the warp gate mechanic would be and the timings that could be achieved on one base, and did you predict how it would dominate the matchup? | ||
|
Existor
Russian Federation4295 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=277428 | ||
|
NasKe_
Brazil570 Posts
A unit specific for a matchup late game? A "main goal" for all games or just a unit to go when you are really ahead? | ||
|
Jehct
New Zealand9115 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
It has also been shown that terran is incredibly strong when you break into small groups (such as 1 or 2 medivacs). Often, for a protoss to defend a medivac drop, they have to send a significant portion of their army. and generally lose a significant portion of it as well. When there are multi-pronged attacks, this usually results in the protoss losing the base of one of the two locations. Also, if they go to defend the drop by subtracting from their main army, a push my the main army of the terran will surely crush the protoss (unless htey attack into a horrible position). Is this all working as intended? | ||
|
Tppz!
Germany1449 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
| ||
|
H0i
Netherlands484 Posts
Why does blizzard not use the PTR more, and with more I mean a lot more? Why not more radical changes, such as returning KA (perhaps in a different way), or similar things? Does blizzard acknowledge that it removed a lot of the great things from BW and added a lot of not so great things? Examples are the focus on early game (T1 strength), lack of flexibility especially on the protoss side (and zerg), and a bunch of nearly completely useless units in tournament setting games (mothership, carrier, ultralisk, battlecruiser, etc). Other examples are the clumping up of units, protoss relying extremely on AoE such as templars and colossus, and those units are also huge steps backwards from their BW equivalents. Is blizzard prepared to radically change the game, to make it more creative, flexible, fun to play and fun to watch, by not only experimenting but also by looking at BW and thinking about what went wrong? Of course I am not suggesting to make a BW2, but one should expect blizzard to learn from BW and make a game that has all the good of BW, and more. Not a game that lacks what was good in BW and replaced it with worse mechanics and units. In my opinion blizzard failed here, the new interface and control is much better and there are a few interesting abilities like blink and baneling bombs, but overall quality decreased, a lot. Also, if Browder denies this, it would be nice to say something like "The players have spoken, the game needs to radically change if it wants to survive as an esport and grow, why do you ignore the people who buy your product and promote it?". | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 00:45 BronzeKnee wrote: Ask him why David Kim doesn't watch the GSL when making balance decisions. Liken it to the people who change the rules in the NFL every year not actually watching NFL games, but rather watching only High School and College games. Not watching highschool and college games. Only basing decisions on his own experiences | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
| ||
|
hugman
Sweden4644 Posts
| ||
|
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
| ||
|
Roynalf
Finland886 Posts
| ||
|
Paperplane
Netherlands1823 Posts
They're 0.47 unupgraded 1.88 upgraded. It takes about 6 minutes to get your overlord to cross positions on the biggest maps. They shouldn't be too fast, scouting isn't supposed to be very easy. Terran loses a mule to scan and toss has to make observers/hallucinations. However I think they could be buffed to 0.70 or something without being overpowered and you should be able to barely see the an all in before it hits. (reference: flying barracks is 0.94) - Any plans for in-game clan and tournament systems? | ||
|
Daralii
United States16991 Posts
This forced protoss to rely on their higher tier units, namely the colossus and high templar while at the same time limiting aggression due to how weak the units produced at the warp gate are. Despite this, the highter tier units have been nerfed constantly, and Mr. Browder implied a while ago that you had plans for the colossus as well, while not having any intention of buffing the zealot or stalker to compensate. At this point, would it not be better to simply remove the warp gate? | ||
|
Oktyabr
Singapore2234 Posts
Have the designers ever considered lowering gateway unit production timings while the buiding is in the "gateway" form and increasing timings for warping in (as a warpgate), hence allowing greater flexibility over redesigning the stats of protoss gateway units? | ||
|
gCgCrypto
Germany297 Posts
When will you ever concider to balance things like Marines Ghosts MULEs ? | ||
|
Azurues
Malaysia5612 Posts
| ||
|
bGr.MetHiX
Bulgaria511 Posts
/nerdragequit | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
Battlenet 1) Where are Clan Support, customizable (e.g. with a ban function) chat channels, and shared replay features? There is, as far as I can tell, absolutely no reason not to have included these features. They bring more people to the game and give functionality that pretty much all of the player base wants. Your traditional stance on this issue has been that it isn't needed and that we'd like the way Bnet 2.0 handled things. We gave it a shot. We want this stuff back. It won't hurt anything about Sc2 and won't require any current features from Bnet 2.0 to be wiped. Please, listen to 99% of the player base on this one .2) Name changes. Why aren't these implemented yet, be they paid or free? I really don't understand this one. Clearly the backend work is already done, since everyone gets a single name change with each account. All that would need to be done is for a fee to be implemented for forthcoming name changes. Simple, and it would probably even make Blizzard money. 3) LAN support. I think I *sort of* understand where Blizzard is coming from on this one, but have you guys thought about compromising with the vast number of players who dearly want this feature, particularly for tournaments? Perhaps something which requires logging into Bnet but then allows you to use your LAN connection. I'm just spitballing here, but clearly the sort of delays we've had at tournaments warrant some kind of response. I think your players would love you for it and buy all upcoming expansions if they saw you do this. I understand that you don't want an influx of piracy, but to be frank, it's already going to happen anyway, and your responsibility is to the customer first. Maps 1) Why is close positions on small maps still on ladder? Clearly tournament organizers and pro players in general have seen fit to exclude it from professional play on the grounds that it inevitably skews winrates towards Terran and pretty much always results in allins or cheeses. When it comes to ladder, I've heard responses that Blizzard wants to keep the game interesting. Fine, I agree. However, I'm not advocating the removal of close positions period, but rather its removal on maps where it clearly doesn't work (ST, to name one such example). I don't think it's particularly honest to suggest that a close positions ZvT on Shattered Temple has ever amounted to an exciting, back and forth game. 2) Weird wall off positions. I was playing a game on Abyssal Caverns a few days ago as Protoss and I happened to spawn in the top left position. Bizarrely, the ramp is made in such a way that one needs to wall off in a rather unorthodox manner. May I ask why? It doesn't add anything to the game and probably slightly skews the map against Protoss (since Terran can reposition a failed wall off). What's stranger is that the issue only figures in to this one particular spawning location. 3) Impossible-to-take-thirds. I understand that rush maps are something Blizzard wants to keep, and that's fine, but when it comes time to expand to a third base, it shouldn't be impossible to defend that base from some sort of central choke point. Again, to pick on Abyssal Caverns once again, it seems like the map is actually designed to aid your opponent in taking out your third. First, you start with rocks on your side of the path to your third. This makes it impossible to cut your opponent off or flank him until the rocks have been destroyed. What's the point? 3base play is arguably Sc2 at its most exciting. Can we please have fewer maps that bestow such bizarre advantages to the attacking player? A rush generally comes before the 12 minute mark (when people get their third, generally, unless they're Zerg) so once the game reaches that stage, is it not fair to suggest that rushing is no longer an issue? Race Dynamics 1) Why have the archetypes which found each race been utterly disregarded? Zerg is supposed to be a swarm of (generally) weak units. Terran is supposed to be a medium-number of rag-tag bandits with ingenious strategies. Protoss is supposed to be a hyper-advanced alien race with powerful technology. This hasn't translated well into the game. Zerg seems to fare the best when it comes to sticking to their archetype, except in the later stages of the game when they get some of the most powerful and versatile compositions in the game. Terran seems to have gone completely overboard and become the race with not only the cheapest units, but also the most-efficient and versatile ones. They also have the best scaling in that their basic units remain effective in large-scale engagements all throughout the game. Protoss has been gutted into having the most expensive units which are also weaker than their cheaper counterparts from other races. 2) Pro Players. Why doesn't Blizzard ask them about their opinions more? I recall in one interview DB said that pros don't necessarily know much about balance. Well, okay, sure, but when pros are coming out in droves and condemning a specific unit or strategy, I think it would be smart to listen, especially when said pros represent players from every ladder. It's not an attack on your ability to ask pros for their thoughts, you know. Sure, some pros (Idra) have chips on their shoulder in general, but there are a lot of level-headed ones too. When they ALL come out voicing concerns about, say, the ghost, I think it warrants another look into it. Balance 1) Why was the game made with such a reliance on hard counters but the patches made to improve soft counters? This one requires a bit of explanation on my part. When the game was released, we were introduced to units like the Marauder, which hard counters pretty much any low-tiered armored unit with admirable speed, and which remains useful against pretty much every ground composition there is. Okay, fine. Why, then, when it inevitably became clear that this unit (and units like it--the Marauder is merely an example of a hard counter) was too good, did Blizzard opt to slightly buff the Marauders soft counters (e.g. the +1 range to the immortal)? If the buffs and nerfs are going to remain slight (+5 seconds to rax build time, for example) why in the world are the advantages that counters have over their prey so huge? Shouldn't the two be closer together? To draw an example from BW, we had an amazing dynamic between the Lurker and the Marine. In unmicroed combat, the Lurker wins, but with good micro, the marines could actually mitigate the damage. But that's not all. Skilled Zerg players used the hold fire command to compensate for the marine micro. It came down to who had the better micro. The Terran player had very little room to make a mistake, but he was rewarded for not making any. Turning back to Sc2, we have the situation that properly microed stimmed marines should never lose to banelings (even with speed). This has been proven by pro replays and even AI simulations of perfect splitting. If we consider a Marauder versus a Blink Stalker, we have the same scenario. Even if the Protoss player has the Blink micro of a god, he's still going to lose to the Marauders. Why? 2) Casters. Why are the casters so unbelievably powerful without having any obvious weaknesses, except in the case of the HT? I'm talking about the infestor's ability to burrow, freeze units, and throw down an array of ITs to slow down attackers, or the ghosts ability to cloak and run away. Why are these things in the game? They merely encourage players to take risks that they shouldn't be able to take without suffering some sort of recourse should they mess up. As it stands, a bunch of cloaked ghosts might take one or two casualties even if the Terran player accidentally micros them into the vision of an observer. 3) Why is Protoss so weak? I know this is a very specific question, but in light of what is perceived by the community as the death of the race, I think it deserves its own question. Why are Protoss units a) the weakest cost-cost? b) countered so incredibly hard by easily accessible units from other races? c) awful at scaling? d) not actually hard counters to anything? I actually think all of this stems from d). It's not really a problem in itself that Protoss units don't hard counter anything. I actually think that's the way the game should be, since it encourages strategy rather than mindlessly build order countering. However, when the other races (particularly Terran) have a plethora of accessible hard counters, it puts Protoss at a disadvantage to have nothing but soft composition counters. 4) Why is the balancing process so secretive and opaque? Take a look at minecraft, a non-competitive but hugely popular game. The developer of that game pretty much makes a diary out of the changes that are going to be implemented in upcoming versions. If people deride them en masse, they are reconsidered. Why doesn't Blizzard do the same? We have a huge number of users playing this game and a very accessible PTR. There should almost always be patches being tested on this PTR, with the intent that when the patch finally does come out, many many weeks of testing various changes will have been done. I'm talking about the players being involved from the start. Blizzard should be putting ideas on the table at least every month and letting testers play around with them. I don't mean to say that patches should come out more frequently, but PTR patches definitely should, because Blizzard needs to be experimenting with the metagame versus balance dynamic, and the PTR enables you to do that in a very efficient, risk-free way. It also makes you look honest. Specific and Immediate Balance Complaints 1) The Ghost. I think everyone saw this coming. This unit is extremely effective against both Protoss and Zerg, has no hard counter, and soft counters pretty much every non-Terran unit. EMP is already very useful against Zerg, but is actually broken against Protoss. Why does this spell have such effectiveness that players don't even need to aim it, knowing that whatever they hit it will still do immense damage? It should just drain (all) energy like it used to, but shouldn't affect shields. It's pretty unreasonable that the Ghost should have an inherent advantage against one particular race when it's already so good in general. 2) Terran tech & basic units. Why don't Terrans have tiers? Pretty much every (or is it actually every?) unit that Terran makes comes from the three building that they need to get every game: Barracks, Factory, Starport. Combined with the Tech Lab, which isn't specific to any structure (consider if there were a Barracks TL, a Factory TL, and a Starport TL) Terran pretty much has access to their entire tech tree with just these three structures. Compare Protoss and Zerg. Protoss has three completely disjointed tech trees which have essentially no overlap whatsoever, and a bunch of purely research structures to unlock new units (Twilight, Robo Bay, Fleet Beacon, Cyber Core, etc) whereas Zerg needs to build a structure to unlock each unit on its tech tree. Zerg tech choices are further limited by the state of their Hatchery (Lair/Hive tech etc). It should be pretty clear that Terran is at a huge advantage here, since they can't really be BO countered but are capable of BO countering other races, sheerly because they're able to swap TL with a Reactor from a completely different class of structure and begin pumping out the required counter that they already have access to. Next we have the Marine. Not much to say here. I've already touched on the Marauder (why does it have stim, anyway?). The Marine scales too well, does too much DPS, doesn't lose to any tier one composition for cost, gets T1 upgrades that are hands-down better than the P/Z T2 and T3 equivalent upgrades for T1 units and can be exploited with good micro by use of MKP style stutter stepping (NOTE: I am not talking about conventional stutter fire, I'm talking about the kind that players with amazing micro can do whereby the marine barely even lifts his rifle and the damage is dealt). While it's good to reward micro, the other T1 units have no such option available, and, to be quite honest, the advantage here gained is far too good for the effort which goes into it. Stutter stepping isn't exactly difficult, and I'm sure a lot of pros could, with practice, learn to do it as well as MKP does (some already do *coughMVPcough*). The advantage is just way too big and makes the unit insanely cost efficient against everything, even against its "hard" counters. 3) Warp in Mechanic. In brief: it needs to go. If you philosophy is going to continue to be that Protoss units, which are already the least cost efficient, should have to be not only more expensive, but also least supply efficient and the weakest simply because they can be warped in anywhere, then I think I speak for all Protoss players when I say that you should remove the Warp mechanic so that we can get T1 that is capable of going toe to toe with roaches and marines properly and not just through abusive use of forcefield. Conclusion 1) Where is HotS, when will the BETA start, who will be invited (masters players and above would be a good idea) and why does this need to be such a secret, especially when some players are clinging to what they perceive as an imbalanced game in the hope that HotS will fix it? Thanks for your time Mr. Browder. While some of my criticism may seem harsh, I will be the first to say that you've put together an extremely fun game. Clearly a lot of work went into making this game. I just want to ensure that it gets the attention it deserves, and I'm doing my part to help by giving suggestions of things I (and many others) feel need to be addressed. I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't love the game, so please don't take it personally. | ||
|
VforValdes
Canada96 Posts
| ||
|
bGr.MetHiX
Bulgaria511 Posts
Doesnt blizzard think that maps with unprotected gold are absurd?for example Antiga Shityard | ||
|
Ulfsark
United States958 Posts
| ||
|
Absentia
United Kingdom973 Posts
2. What are some of their primary balance concerns at the moment? | ||
|
Sm3agol
United States2055 Posts
Basically every matchup with T(even TvT) revolves around effectively killing marines fast enough so you don't get dps'ed to death while you take out their actually normal units(siege tanks/thors/banshees/hellions/etc). Reactors and MULES are a big part of this. 8 reactored raxes can pump out more marines than pure caster units can really deal with very efficiently, considering costs and limited mana. Then, MULES provide mechanics free, massive mineral boosts to T that can be hoarded and are supply independent. A T can be 100% mined out, and on their last legs, but have 4 orbitals. Float one to a gold base, drop 16 MULES, and then can pump out an incredible 144 marines from that 1.5 minutes of mining. That is an example of an "interesting" game mechanic. | ||
|
Daralii
United States16991 Posts
On October 21 2011 00:53 Ulfsark wrote: Will players who purchase Heart of the Swarm Still be able to play with players who only own wings of Liberty. They said that there will be separate ladders back when they first announced the expansions, iirc. | ||
|
rolfe
United Kingdom1266 Posts
| ||
|
redLeg
Switzerland16 Posts
| ||
|
FrostedMiniWheats
United States30730 Posts
- Would it be possible to simply increase the size of the map pool, while also increasing the amount of vetoes to compensate for this? This way there would be more variety for everyone, and perhaps both the hardcore and casual could be satisfied with your map selection? - Alternatively, perhaps there could be a changing map pool depending on league. Bronze-Gold, Platinum-Diamond, and Masters-Grandmasters could all have their own respective pools. - Will we ever see a map with Snow/Ice tile? - Are there any plans to possibly implement more than one gsl map into the pool? Or at the very least, rotate Tal'Darim out for another gsl map? Balance/Racial Design Related: - In the past you've spoken of removing older units as the new HotS units are implemented. Do you have an estimate on how many units for each race will be cut? Specifically, have you locked down which units will be on the chopping block for each? - In addition to new units in HotS, can we also expect any new upgrades for the older units? - Ultralisks, Hydralisks, and Corruptors....what are you going to do with them? - What is the rationale for not having to research EMP, despite how powerful a spell it is for the ghost? - Can we expect new/updated animations? For example, Dark Templars vary slightly in appearance and Zerglings grow wings when they have the speed upgrade. Can we expect, say, a female ghost, or perhaps a more robust ultralisk when upgraded with Chitinous Plating? That's all I got for now.. | ||
|
laguu
Finland278 Posts
| ||
|
ShadowWolf
United States197 Posts
Is there any concern in the balance team about how the Zealot matches up against marines, zerglings, marauders, and roaches in the early to mid game? Also, have you guys considered modifying the Stalker to help curb some of these early-game opener woes for Protoss players (and viewers!)? | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
Long before 1.3 I proposed that instead of nerfing WG research time, they remove the ability to warp in units on ramps. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2416114960 And then they nerfed the WG research time because the 4 gate was overpowered in PvP in their eyes, and it did nothing in PvP to stop 4 gating, but ruined all the timings for PvZ and PvT. And then in 1.4 they finally decided to remove the ability to warp in on ramps. | ||
|
n0ave
180 Posts
On October 21 2011 00:52 VforValdes wrote: Can we please have a BO3 ladder? At least a toggle that allows us to play BO3 on the current ladder? This is the best idea. | ||
|
CaptainCrush
United States785 Posts
| ||
|
FrostedMiniWheats
United States30730 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:00 CaptainCrush wrote: Why is the seige tank the only unit in the game that does friendly splash damage? It needs to go or colossus need to start doing friendly splash damage as well. Psionic Storm yo | ||
|
Achaia
United States643 Posts
| ||
|
Go1den
England116 Posts
2) When will you remove MULES, Supply Drops, EMP, detection on Scans, mass repair, and other generous game-saving things from the Terran race? 3) Why doesn't Protoss have a third form of detection that doesn't require static defense or a robo? | ||
|
Acayex
United States26 Posts
What's with the concept of these "super units" such as the Thors, Colossi, Roaches, replacing the much more specialized yet interesting Brood War counter parts like the goliath, the reaver, and lurker creating a far more stale and far less dynamic gameplay in SC2? At the same time, most of these specialized units had a completely different dynamic back in Alpha and sneak peaks. For example, the roaches would regenerate HP and the Colossi would have a single target attack. Most of these dynamics have completely changed and essentially were removed. What prompted these units to remain in the game rather than scrapping them to return their former unit counterparts which clearly had a more secure role in Brood War? | ||
|
Snusdosa
Sweden112 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:00 CaptainCrush wrote: Why is the seige tank the only unit in the game that does friendly splash damage? It needs to go or colossus need to start doing friendly splash damage as well. Are you serious here? First of all, Psi Storm damages friendly units as well and without friendly fire tanks would completely over the top. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
Why does Terran have the strongest detection available to them so easily (scan), and it comes from the precise same building as the MULE and Supply Drop? Wouldn't it be better design to perhaps weaken the MULE a little to make the supply drop a competitive choice on occasions where you didn't just forget to build a depot? Should all 3 spells require the same exact energy cost? Is it intended that protoss has the lowest map vision of all 3 races? (Scans, sensor towers, overlords, creep are all great for map vision, protoss has observers which require robo time >_<). | ||
|
Paramo
Mexico138 Posts
| ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
Will they implement chat commands /w Name*Number@Region ( To talk to people on other servers too? ) | ||
|
phiinix
United States1169 Posts
| ||
|
ander
Canada403 Posts
| ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
templar rage
United States2509 Posts
On October 21 2011 00:53 bGr.MetHiX wrote: oh sry forgot about this one : Doesnt blizzard think that maps with unprotected gold are absurd?for example Antiga Shityard By "unprotected", do you mean not blocked by rocks? Because the gold on Antiga is the least defensible gold in the map pool. Gold bases are the only ones that should be blocked by rocks in any way IMO. If they're not, they have to be absurdly vulnerable (which the one on Antiga is). The only way you can take and hold it is if you're so far ahead you'll crush their army before they make it to the middle. If you can't do that, the gold is dead. It's fine the way it is on Antiga, but I agree in general that gold bases should be blocked if they can be defended at all easily. | ||
|
Mabius
Canada323 Posts
| ||
|
Hikari
1914 Posts
High yield minerals: What are your thoughts? On most maps the gold seem to heavily favor terran: as they have both effective ways to attack and protect the gold expansion, as well as mules to fully benefit from having the gold (as they have 2 less patches: its just another mining base that takes less workers to saturate in the eyes of zerg and protoss) Marines: a lot of progamers have pointed that marines are very powerful. Not only do they scale well with various upgrades, they also scale very well with the player's multitasking (via drops) and micro (stutterstep, marine split). Any thoughts on the power of the unit? Is stuttersteping "intended" when the unit was first incorporated into the expansion? Nydus worms are not used much beside early game timing attacks to punish a greedy protoss or low leveled players who do not have full vision of their base. Overlord drop overshadow the nydus a lot: are there plans to change how nydus work or tweak the cost? Ghost: Do you feel EMP is too punishing for protoss or infestor centric zergs - land one good EMP and the battle is won as stim and concussive shell can force a battle to happen? While EMP is AoE and also drain shields, snipe can be used to take out key units such as broodlords, do you feel both spells have conflicting roles against enemy casters? Why do the technologically advanced protoss race still make their high templars float slowly through the battlefields? Wouldn't it be better for them to ride a segway? | ||
|
ineq
Sweden376 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:42 monx wrote: Can you bring back the reaver? Why no 1v1 map pool change for season 4 ? When will be able to watch replays with multiple people? HoTS summer 2012?¸ Why are you hurting E-sports by not adding LAN support? They're not adding LAN cause that'd hurt them to the point where it's pointless to keep improving the game. | ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
On October 21 2011 00:58 BronzeKnee wrote: Ask him why the balance designers don't listen to the PTR forums at all. Long before 1.3 I proposed that instead of nerfing WG research time, they remove the ability to warp in units on ramps. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2416114960 And then they nerfed the WG research time because the 4 gate was overpowered in PvP in their eyes, and it did nothing in PvP to stop 4 gating, but ruined all the timings for PvZ and PvT. And then in 1.4 they finally decided to remove the ability to warp in on ramps. I'll answer this for you: pros don't play on the PTR, or post on the PTR forums. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
| ||
|
Mutaahh
Netherlands859 Posts
| ||
|
Talic_Zealot
688 Posts
How far are you willing to go in the expansions to improve the game? You have said that adding/replacing/removing units is something you look into. Is something more radical like tweaking the pathfinding algorithms or some other general mechanic an option? | ||
|
Pimmeh
Netherlands120 Posts
What are the difficulty behind nerfing these units and how is the progress on it moving onward? Are they looking at nerfing the ghosts or buffing the other units primarily affected by EMP and Snipe? | ||
|
Kovaz
Canada233 Posts
| ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
| ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
| ||
|
Marou
Germany1371 Posts
- Can you give us an update about Blizzard's MOBA ? - Regarding SC2 design : considering the demographics of SC2 players being more and more focused on higher leagues 1v1-wise (diamond and master), are you considering focusing less on balancing the game for lower league and team games, knowing that balancing team games is pretty much impossible to do with ressource exchange and units abuse (hello BFH) ? On October 21 2011 01:17 amazingxkcd wrote: Will you guys take efforts to remove clumping from the game? +1 | ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
Now that reapers don't have stim and aren't used as frequently (and when they're used, their fragility means that healing is null anyway), is there any discussion about adding the Medic back into Multiplayer and removing the healing ability from Medivacs? | ||
|
CorruptedGT
7 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:42 monx wrote: Can you bring back the reaver? Why no 1v1 map pool change for season 4 ? When will be able to watch replays with multiple people? HoTS summer 2012?¸ Why are you hurting E-sports by not adding LAN support? good god PLEASE | ||
|
Talack
Canada2742 Posts
Missing: -Shared viewed replays -weekly/daily tournaments, -short limit on b.net icons, -(imo) a terrible UMS system, -unable to kick/ban people from our games we create, -unable to disable all chat from other players on ladder, -no lan support (even if it was tournament only and required a license fee (expires in a few days or w/e). They keep telling us they have "plans" but we have been waiting a whole year for something that should have been completed before it was released. In 10 years we've actually downgraded considerably. 2) Is there a possibility that we could have a seperate ladder for practicing off-races? I.e: I wouldn't have to play at my own MMR in order to practice protoss instead I could compete at a plat-diamond level.\ 3) Is there plans for HOTS to remove the "bio-only" mentality from the TvP matchup and increase the effectiveness of tanks in TvP? | ||
|
SiegeFlank
United States410 Posts
Blizzard has admitted in the past that making Terran such a versatile race, while not necessarily a balance problem, is really more of a design problem. How does Blizzard intend on adjusting Terran in HotS to make it less versatile? Will they simply take away from what Terran is capable of or will they add more to the other races to even it out? Any examples? | ||
|
Klipsys
United States1533 Posts
| ||
|
Mephyss
Brazil128 Posts
Marines - one of highest dps in game, 50 min - 0 gas Marauders - 100 min 25 gas Hellion - 100 min 0 gas Ghosts - 200 min 100 gas (50 less gas then his counterparts infestors and HT) Viking 150 min 75 gas (cheapest air unit on gas in game) And with Mules which increases Terran minerals so much, it feels that anytime terran and his opponent wiped their armies, Terran will come stronger next battle unless the other guy has way too much gas saved or more bases. | ||
|
Shiladie
Canada1631 Posts
- While you say your goal isn't to make every unit or style usable in competetive play, we are seeing a lot of stagnation in ZvZ and PvP due to the unforgiving nature of these matchups. Are you satisfied to leave a matchup in a state similar to ZvZ is in BW right now, or do you have plans to increase defensive advantage for these matchups allowing for more diverse play? - Terran has been doing well recently in Korea at higher levels due to their extremely high number of options and high skill ceiling on their units. Can you elaborate on why your balance team has determined this is happening, and what solutions you are currently exploring to resolve it? - David Kim mentioned previously that he would like to increase scouting potential in the early game to prevent unscoutable 'build order losses' from being as dominant as they currently are. While this is partially true, there's also the low defensive advantage present in the early to mid game for protoss and zerg. Are there any plans to either limit the ways of bypassing defenses/distance, or to increase capibility to have defences up in time? - In relation to the different Macro mechanics, what was the reasoning behind the decision to make one a lot more unforgiving than the others in terms of mechanical skill required to optimise it's use? It seems that it is arbitrarily scaring lower level players away from an already very different race to play, which can be easily seen in the race per league stats. | ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
No one who posts here will be able to escape alive. | ||
|
thrilla2k10
United States9 Posts
| ||
|
theBALLS
Singapore2935 Posts
| ||
|
shockaslim
United States1104 Posts
| ||
|
gobrin
Canada96 Posts
On October 21 2011 00:52 Shiori wrote: 2) Weird wall off positions. I was playing a game on Abyssal Caverns a few days ago as Protoss and I happened to spawn in the top left position. Bizarrely, the ramp is made in such a way that one needs to wall off in a rather unorthodox manner. May I ask why? It doesn't add anything to the game and probably slightly skews the map against Protoss (since Terran can reposition a failed wall off). What's stranger is that the issue only figures in to this one particular spawning location. I would REALLY like to know the answer to this. Didn't David Kim say in that interview with JP that he doesn't like the fact that Shakuras Plateau is in the ladder pool because vertical spawns are disabled and that some people on ladder don't know that? His reasoning was basically that he didn't want to take out close spawns on Temple/Metal etc. because it forces players to learn very specific details of each map. Why then, do they insist on not conforming to a uniform wall-off style? It blows my mind that there are maps like Abyssal/Backwater Gulch that require funky wall-off styles instead of a standard gate/core wall-off. | ||
|
coko
United Kingdom570 Posts
- Have you, or would you, consider hiring ex-pro gamers to aid you in balance testing, game design. (Or in reverse), do you hire non-pro's to test in a less intense environment? (I guess it is more of a balance for pro's versus the majority) - If you had any advice for a company/indie developer for balancing a multi-player RTS, what would your top three be? - From designing the game, what emergent strategies/tactics have most surprised you? And, conversely, are there any strategies/tactics that you haven't seen become popular that surprises you? | ||
|
getSome[703]
United States753 Posts
Protoss early and mid game play is based upon excellent usage of forcefields. Many players have complained about the strength of forcefields, yet it is almost undeniable that without them protoss would be incredibly weak and vulnerable. Has there been any discussion about nerfing sentries/forcefields, yet compensating for this by buffing gateway units? Or is Blizzard satisfied with the weak gateway units + forcefields balance that we have now? | ||
|
Clefairy
1570 Posts
| ||
|
skatbone
United States1005 Posts
[B]Why do the technologically advanced protoss race still make their high templars float slowly through the battlefields? Wouldn't it be better for them to ride a segway? Amen, brother. Head on down to the segway manufacturer in Aiur. | ||
|
Boblhead
United States2577 Posts
"Dustin why not release a lan feature to help out the major tournaments out there. We're tired of seeing good games goto waste when players lag out." Dustins answer "We will release LAN never cause we have made bnet 2.0 the bestest" this is when you show Dustin this picture.+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/10774491.jpg) | ||
|
hipsterHobbit
United States218 Posts
| ||
|
Thereisnosaurus
Australia1822 Posts
| ||
|
Rkie
United States1278 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:42 Jameser wrote: what do you think of Girls' Generation's new track "the boys"? lol 1. Why do you want bio to be the staple for terrans in each matchup as opposed to mech? 2. LAN? Even if it was a tournament edition? | ||
|
skatbone
United States1005 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:16 Pimmeh wrote: Presuming they want to adress the effectiveness/balance of ghosts in both TvP and TvZ: What are the difficulty behind nerfing these units and how is the progress on it moving onward? Are they looking at nerfing the ghosts or buffing the other units primarily affected by EMP and Snipe? I second this question. The poster is thoughtful in his phrasing and not being overly presumptuous whiney. | ||
|
ander
Canada403 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:33 hipsterHobbit wrote: What possesses people who play your games religiously to be such unappreciative dicks about the work that you guys put in? You have got to be kidding me. | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:26 zarepath wrote: It just occurred to me that Kennigit may have cooked this thread up solely for the purpose of herding all balance whine into one single location, where it can't hurt other threads. A quarantine, if you will. No one who posts here will be able to escape alive. but the designated Balance thread didn't work | ||
|
bgx
Poland6595 Posts
Are XelNaga towers a necessary evil or optional? + Show Spoiler [long version, unedited just for the id…] + Xelnaga towers are key elements of current competetive gameplay. They give huge vision and encourage control over them. However they seem to weaken and sometimes completely disable a possible guerrilla tactics used to gain advantage or make a significant comeback. Thats a huge drawback in certain area we could call an army presence on the map. Because of towers an aggressor's main army is generally safe from flanks, also many counter attack routes are already covered by the vision of the tower. You get the idea. Towers discourage more "risky" play that can cought an opponent of guard, sudden baneling attacks, deploying bling mines, suprise fungals/forcefields/emps, shortcut drops (through middle of the map) etc. Wouldnt be the game more fun and dynamic if player had to actually constatly micro his army to not fell into a trap? Many times we can see a typical stagnation when each players army dont move, because there is no need for it the one who posses control towers knows he can be either dropped from sides or he can lose control the towers but still have time to react. If we would remove towers so there is no central point of battlefield but rather more expo/choke essential battles the game would get much more strategical. Units such as ravens (with some tweaks) would be actually useful in tvz. Where terran can actually win games not only based on the fact he killed X drones but because he was capable of capitalizing on opponents mistake and sneak control group of marines (Idra vs Marineking Tal darim altar, Stephano vs Boxer Shakuras) Will we ever see SC2 competetive play without the TLDR version (and more controversial )Almost any map in competetive play (official ladder and tournaments) has at least 1 Xel Naga tower, is it because the game was made in intention of having xel naga towers enabled (balance wise) would the game be as balanced without them? Xel Naga towers were introduced as innovative tool along other race-specific mechanics. But they carry alot of limitations: Towers seem to discourage potential exciting army movements on the map like we see in Brood War,also they seem to restrict players into certain mindsets of not having separate groups of units on the map because Towers are capable of zoning out their potential positions, players are also discouraged or unable to use certain guerrilla/ambush strategies because of it. Is lack of tower-less maps dictated by certain mechanic imbalances in Match ups that would suddenly occur, like Terran needing to sacrifice his economy for scans and Protoss having deadly proxy pylon warp-gate mechanic also creep being much stronger? Is the game currently balanced without tower presence on the map, or the game sort of rally on them? If you like the general idea you can word this question however you like, shorten or add something. Edit: changed | ||
|
papaz
Sweden4149 Posts
2.You have one more expansion after HoTS to add/remove units and tweak the game and hopefully fill the roles that you think the races are missing. What will you do after the LoTV expansion? Will you consider adding/removing units/spells/upgrades or will you only balance the game with what you got? | ||
|
ceaRshaf
Romania4926 Posts
1) Do you feel that Starcraft II is living up to it's ancestor, Broodwar, so far? 2) Why is there such a delayed time between fixes, patches, etc that forces players to get used to existing bugs and gives them a motive to be frustrated? 3) Why is there almost no relationship between Blizzard and the community? The image that "Blizzard listens" is washing away and you guys are not doing anything to fix this. 4) Why is the welcoming menu so bad designed? So much free useless space, for example what the hell is the Broadcast area? Never used but always there. The news are way too small. A real time stream of the on going tournaments can't be linked withing the game? Some more highlights from the community can't be fit in there for easy word to mouth? 5) Can you justify the current state of the terran? Do you feel Gomtvtvtvt is a way to measure imbalance or do you prefer to use your in house statistic tools? 6) Do you feel that balance should be resolved around GM only or around the whole masses of players? Man, I have soo many questions, I could fill an hour with him on my own. | ||
|
Kon-Tiki
United States402 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:36 windsupernova wrote: but the designated Balance thread didn't work It was too obvious | ||
|
pezit
Sweden302 Posts
| ||
|
DusTerr
2520 Posts
| ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:33 hipsterHobbit wrote: What possesses people who play your games religiously to be such unappreciative dicks about the work that you guys put in? This is a good question and I want it answered now!.Should also include that they apparently are too cool to read the OP. | ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
| ||
|
theBALLS
Singapore2935 Posts
| ||
|
saulbert
Germany13 Posts
| ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
Such as Terrans being too strong on 1 base because of MULEs and having too many early game tech options? Zergs being able to attain a nearly insurmountable production advantage in the late game? Protoss having rigid tech options and their early game defense being solely reliant upon Sentry Forcefield? 2) Will the Infestor be looked at in the HotS beta? We have seen many engagements that would otherwise look like epic battles become completely impotent because the Infestor can lock down an army. Are you happy with the way Infestors are currently being used? 3) Will HotS simply feature rebalance of existing units and addition of new units or will there be larger changes to the races? | ||
|
F00LY
United States125 Posts
What brings this question on is this logic. I know you can't discuss all of it, but perhaps you can summarize easily: Ghosts: Start with EMP. Essentially, anti-caster if used right. Starting Energy (50) With Upgrade (50+25) ==> Enough to EMP Cost: Barracks (150) + Tech Lab (50 / 25) + Academy (150 / 50) + Ghost (200 / 100) (Optional +100/100 for upgrade) Total: 550 / 175 --> Ghost without INSTANT Emp Total: 650 / 275 --> Ghost with INSTANT Emp Overall uses: DPS (Autoattack), Spike Damage (Snipe), Splash Damage (Researched: Nuke), Harass (Researched: Cloak), Zoning / AOE Anti-Caster (/Protoss) Infestors: Start with Fungal Growth. Essentially, anti-caster if used right (Same for NP for that matter). Starting Energy: 50 With Upgrade: (50 + 25) ==> Enough to Fungal Growth Cost: Spawning Pool (200) + Lair (150 / 100) + Infestation Pit (100 / 100) + Infestor (100 / 150) (Optional +150/150 for upgrade) Total: 550 / 350 --> Infestor without INSTANT fungal Total: 700 / 500 --> Infestor with INSTANT fungal Overall uses: Zoning / AOE-Anti Caster (Fungal), DPS (Infested Terran), Control (Neural Parasite) High Templar: Starts Feedback. Must research Psionic Storm. Starting Energy: 50 With Upgrade: N/A Cost: Gateway (150) + CyberCore (150) + Twilight Council (150 / 100) + Templar Archives (150 / 200) + Psionic Storm (200 / 200) Total: 800/500 --> Templar without INSTANT Storm Total: N/A Overall uses: Single-Target Anti-caster, DPS / Zoning (with Friendly damage), can be turned into archon at cost of entire tree + 2 HT. So what is it that makes Protoss have to pay the most for their caster, to get the least amount of different uses from it. (Note, I am NOT whining imbalance with this post. I am sure it happens to other races with anti-air, or anti-something). Are other things considered such as the other options unlocked on the path (Unlocking ghosts, only gives ghosts, while going towards Storm also gives protoss access to....well, to getting access to DTs.) or is balance usually looked at on a "overall unit vs unit" basis or what? | ||
|
lunchrush
United States138 Posts
| ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:38 bgx wrote: I started to wrote the question and explaining it, and it became kinda too big, the shorter version is under spoiler. Are XelNaga towers a necessary evil? + Show Spoiler [long version] + Xelnaga towers are key elements of current competetive gameplay. They give huge vision and encourage control over them. However they seem to weaken and sometimes completely disable a possible guerrilla tactics used to gain advantage or make a significant comeback. Thats a huge drawback in certain area we could call an army presence on the map. Because of towers an aggressor's main army is generally safe from flanks, also many counter attack routes are already covered by the vision of the tower. You get the idea. Towers discourage more "risky" play that can cought an opponent of guard, sudden baneling attacks, deploying bling mines, suprise fungals/forcefields/emps, shortcut drops (through middle of the map) etc. Do you remember yo Wouldnt be the game more fun and dynamic if player had to actually constatly micro his army to not fell into a trap? Many times we can see a typical stagnation when each players army dont move, because there is no need for it the one who posses control towers knows he can be either dropped from sides or he can lose control the towers but still have time to react. If we would remove towers so there is no central point of battlefield but rather more expo/choke essential battles the game would get much more strategical. Units such as ravens (with some tweaks) would be actually useful in tvz. Where terran can actually win games not only based on the fact he killed X drones but because he was capable of capitalizing on opponents mistake and sneak control group of marines (Idra vs Marineking Tal darim altar, Stephano vs Boxer Shakuras) Will we ever see SC2 competetive play without the TLDR version (and more controversial )Towers seem to discourage potential exciting army movements on the map like we see in Brood War,also they seem to restrict players into certain mindsets of not having separate groups of units on the map because Towers are capable of zoning out their potential positions, players are also discouraged or unable to use certain guerrilla/ambush strategies because of it. Is lack of tower-less maps dictated by certain mechanic imbalances in Match ups like Terran needing to sacrifice his economy for scans and Protoss having deadly proxy pylon warp-gate mechanic also creep being much stronger than it is without towers? Will we ever see SC2 competitive play without the If you like the general idea you can word this question however you like, shorten or add something. But that is more of a map designer issue than a general game issue. Same with destructible rocks. I mean talking solely about tournament maps there is no obligation to use those tools when designing the map. Blizzard have no control over how people make maps man. You can argue about their maps, but the Xelnaga towers and destructible rocks are up to the map maker to decide if they use them or not. Removing Xelnaga towers and destructible rocks from the game would just lead to map makers having less tools to work with | ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
Fungal and EMP don't require research, why does Storm when it has a longer tech tree just to get HT? Will they release race winrates for just GM? What priority does pro play have in making balance decisions? You've said previously that you want MM to be viable in every match up, do you hold this same disposition for mass gateway play in every matchup? Terran gets bunkers which they can salvage and only need a barracks, zerg gets spine crawlers which they can move and only needs a spawning pool, any chance in HOTS that protoss will get a defensive structure that only requires a gateway (like a shield battery)? Why do they think terran has been winning the most, with a solid margin, in pro play since release? Why do all of their ladder maps have a natural without a choke, a 3rd on low ground, destructible rocks to delay expansions, {large air space, cliffs, or sight blockers that make defending the main more difficult}, are they intentionally designing the maps to punish macro and expanding faster than your opponent? Why are the team maps so cheese oriented, they often have huge ramps, back doors to your main or split your team up to make defending each other difficult? Why does a stalker that costs 125/50 have less dps than a 50 mineral unstimmed marine? Terran has sensor towers (which they barely use) zerg has creep tumors, will we see protoss getting anything to grant vast fields of map vision in HOTS? Have they tried laddering as each race on ladder or do they just play random, which IMO doesn't give them the full feel of playing each race? Are they looking at Broodlords, and Ghosts in terms of balance and their affect on play? Many games are epic, back and forth, very close matches, until these units come out. What is the most problematic unit for them to fix right now in terms of balance? What are the most common complaints they are hearing about balance from pro's right now? Right now there is an unspoken agreement among Pro terran players to not use the 1/1/1 (and it's many powerful variations) on ladder, in order to deny protoss practice against it. They are saving it for easy wins in tournament play. Do they intend to directly address the 1/1/1 in PvT or do they think it is balanced? Will they look at removing the delay after a stalker fires, so they can stutter step? Have they ever considered balancing the game through the map pool instead of patches? (like in pro BW) | ||
|
sagefreke
United States241 Posts
| ||
|
ZAiNs
United Kingdom6525 Posts
| ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
- Shit Custom Map system - Refusal to use custom maps in ladder | ||
|
RinconH
United States512 Posts
Also: Will HOTS try to increase the potential for positional advantages in any way? | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
No no I'm kidding. I'm just kidding careful with that hammer Eugene! Ask them why they can consider the game to be balanced enough for professionally competitive play but at the same time make statements along the lines of "Terran is already very polished". To me, this implies Zerg and Protoss are unfinished or unpolished. If one race is better designed than the others, isn't that fundamentally broken? I am upset by the nonchalant way that was sad and I would like further discourse on what they are doing to rectify the problem (IF they still think it exists) and if only Zerg will be given a shine job and Protoss will have to wait until LotV. That really pissed me off when they said that. | ||
|
Shiladie
Canada1631 Posts
people are repeatedly asking EXACTLY what was said not to ask in the OP, makes me sad. A few more questions I thought of in addition to the ones I posted earlier so this isn't just a useless post: There are a number of units that have a very boring feel about them, roach, marauder, hydralisk, corruptor and even colossus to a degree. What do you feel can or needs to be done to make these units more dynamic to use or fight against? Neural Parasite has seen almost as many changes as the bunker since the beginning of the beta. (comedic tone of voice: ) First of all, who's idea was it to not allow it to be used on massive?! with it's fragile nature it's never been a spell used by lower or mid level players outside of novelty. With the range reduction we have stopped seeing it at all in higher level games due to the ease with which infestors can be picked off when they need to be that close. With this information I cannot imagine your design team is happy with the current state of this ability and I want to know whether there are any plans to drastically change/replace this ability either in an upcoming patch or in HotS | ||
|
vojnik
Macedonia923 Posts
| ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:46 Shiladie wrote: wow, this thread has a lot of horrible questions, I hope kenniget can pull good ones out from this mess... people are repeatedly asking EXACTLY what was said not to ask in the OP, makes me sad. A few more questions I thought of in addition to the ones I posted earlier so this isn't just a useless post: There are a number of units that have a very boring feel about them, roach, marauder, hydralisk, corruptor and even colossus to a degree. What do you feel can or needs to be done to make these units more dynamic to use or fight against? Neural Parasite has seen almost as many changes as the bunker since the beginning of the beta. (comedic tone of voice First of all, who's idea was it to not allow it to be used on massive?! with it's fragile nature it's never been a spell used by lower or mid level players outside of novelty. With the range reduction we have stopped seeing it at all in higher level games due to the ease with which infestors can be picked off when they need to be that close. With this information I cannot imagine your design team is happy with the current state of this ability and I want to know whether there are any plans to drastically change/replace this ability either in an upcoming patch or in HotSwell my clumping question could actually completely balance everything | ||
|
Shiladie
Canada1631 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:44 ZAiNs wrote: Have you considered playing around with Warpgate and Gateway timings in order to make Warpgate-->Gateway ever viable? I think it'd be really cool if you could maybe save 5 seconds of build time overall if you: warp-in Zealot; Warpgate-->Gateway; build Zealot; Gateway-->Warpgate; warp-in Zealot; etc. It would be something difficult and minor enough for it to likely only be used to in very crisp and precise builds and will also give Protoss a small defenders advantage early game. Hopefully that was clear enough and you can phrase it better. wasn't warpgate twisting possible in a beta stage at some point and they changed the timings to remove it due to not wanting that level of management being needed to be competitive at the high level? | ||
|
Hambone636
United States62 Posts
Why the ghost doesn't have a counter Why terran can make any combo of every unit off of 1 base and win .... 1-1-1 builds When does he plan to nerf terran ... GSL shows them to be crazy OP Bring medics back - and lose the medivac - go back to normal dropships Why is the hydralisk a joke Why are the corrupter and overseer such awful units Why does protoss not have a reliable tech path in Stargate - void/pheonix are gimmicky units | ||
|
grappasc
Belgium86 Posts
(I don't need an answer to all the things I list here, but just to give an idea of what I mean with "feel in gameplay": map presence, unit statistics, types of abilities, tech speed, army composition & purpose & size, active/passive play, hard counter units as opposed to other solutions, building usage, access to information, economy growth, tactical preferences(combat), stuff like this ) ... I guess it's a too long question and would require a too long answer. initially I figured it would tell a lot about the direction he's taking the game to and how he thinks of it. | ||
|
bgx
Poland6595 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:42 windsupernova wrote: But that is more of a map designer issue than a general game issue. Same with destructible rocks. I mean talking solely about tournament maps there is no obligation to use those tools when designing the map. Blizzard have no control over how people make maps man. You can argue about their maps, but the Xelnaga towers and destructible rocks are up to the map maker to decide if they use them or not. Removing Xelnaga towers and destructible rocks from the game would just lead to map makers having less tools to work with But current game design isnt accepting it, scans arent free like it was in broodwar, banelings carry to much reward for the risk involved (imgaine 10 banelings rolling into terran who suddenly wanted to macro in his base). Yes i know the decision is up to mapmakers but the game was obviously made in mind that they are neccesity. I need to kinda reword my question | ||
|
AnalThermometer
Vatican City State334 Posts
| ||
|
woob
United Kingdom1322 Posts
| ||
|
Fandango
291 Posts
With Starcraft 2 being the sequel to a game that was heavily lauded for its viability as a professional tournament game, you guys knew from the start that it was going to be scrutinised heavily from this perspective and therefore had to approach design decisions with that in mind. In previous years, the most successful of the pro tournament games of the various genres (CS/MvC2/Quake/DOTA) have been new properties (ironically except for Warcraft I guess) where while there has been a focus on multiplayer, the resulting high level play and balance have been largely emergent properties, usually supplemented by relatively subtle patching and map design changes. My question is this: do you think that approaching game design with the appeasement of the professional gaming community in mind actively prohibits making games which are genuinely innovative in the space in order to fit with players expectations based off existing successful properties in the genre? | ||
|
nimbus99
Canada194 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:43 Reborn8u wrote: Terran gets bunkers which they can salvage and only need a barracks, zerg gets spine crawlers which they can move and only needs a spawning pool, any chance in HOTS that protoss will get a defensive structure that only requires a gateway (like a shield battery)? cannons? i dont get what your saying, yeh you have to build a forge which is not a unit building structure, but u can use it late game and cannons are probably the best static d early game. EDIT: you can use forge late game for upgrades* | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
1b: Many fans feel that the races are too similar at tier 1.5 with respect to the Roach, Stalker, and Marauder. Unless zerglings are present, battles between races seem to have the same number of units on each side. Are you open to giving a zerg 1 supply unit (maybe Roach/Hydra/New) to maximize the feel of the few strong units vs the huge swarm? 2. Does the development team understand the code and related micro techniques behind BW units such as the Vulture, Mutalisk, etc that allows for a heightened skill ceiling? Are there any intentions of adjusting programming code to allow for crisper micro that is more impressive for spectators and more rewarding for top level players? 3. Many fans miss the impact of a deeper high ground advantage, and the increased ability it gave map makers to adjust balance issues and create back and forth games where a far-off expansion could be defended/stalled without needing an entire army to be close by at the beginning of the engagement. Are you open to implementing such a mechanic in the 'final version' of competitive Starcraft 2? | ||
|
1EyedBartender
8 Posts
| ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:56 1EyedBartender wrote: Who is Chris and can you guys interview him?! Chris Metzen. | ||
|
Shanedon
United States147 Posts
| ||
|
tofubeans
United States794 Posts
I'd like to practice customs with random people on different ladder maps but the way the system works right now it just takes eternity for someone to actually join a game I create if it's not a top custom map (which has been team monobattles/shattered temple for the past few months) | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:52 nimbus99 wrote: cannons? i dont get what your saying, yeh you have to build a forge which is not a unit building structure, but u can use it late game and cannons are probably the best static d early game. EDIT: you can use forge late game for upgrades* Opening forge massively delays tech, and Protoss needs high tech units in order to survive the mid-game, because gateway units suck so much. If you could build a cyber core after forge and skip the gateway it wouldn't be so bad. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
Do you feel that excitement levels would be consistently improved if Xel Naga towers were used with more restraint or eliminated? Do you feel that terran scanner sweep is too powerful relative to map sizes and creep/cloaking mechanics? | ||
|
deanx
United States78 Posts
| ||
|
MonDeW
Denmark369 Posts
Also, what are your thoughts on the current state of TvP? | ||
|
Shiladie
Canada1631 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:59 tofubeans wrote: Please re-do the custom game aspect of battle.net 2.0... Make it more like how it was for B.net 1.0 where it lists most recent created games where other players can see and join. This way we're not stuck with just team monobattles/shattered temple as the only 2 top custom maps we can play on (with any chance of another player joining......) I'd like to practice customs with random people on different ladder maps but the way the system works right now it just takes eternity for someone to actually join a game I create if it's not a top custom map (which has been team monobattles/shattered temple for the past few months) I hate to come down on just you since these questions are asked over and over in this thread, but read the OP! Side Note: Anything to do with Lan, Battlenet 0.2, Chat Channels almost always leads to a "you need to talk to Chris about that" responses. Try stick to balance/design quesitons/ | ||
|
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
- What are your thoughts on "anti-micro" ablities (FF, Concussive shells, fungal)? Do you think it's benefitial / detremental to the game if a player can only watch and not influence the battle? - What are your plans\hopes\ideas that you would do to improve the viewing quality for the spectator in the upcoming expansions or patches, and drive SC2 further as an spectator sport? (stolen from saynomore^^) Unrelated *cough*: - Looking at the Korean proscene (GSL) which is heavily dominated by Terran. Would you consider nerfing Terran for a "better racial distribution" even though that would mean to make Terrans underpowered? - What would you consider your biggest mistake in designing SC2? What would you consider your greatest success? No "back in beta" talk  | ||
|
Omsomsoms
Croatia194 Posts
| ||
|
carloselcoco
United States2302 Posts
 HuK and MC in the finals. Will Protoss finally be nerffed? | ||
|
carloselcoco
United States2302 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:41 lunchrush wrote: You and David Kim both play Terran, don't you? Be honest. David Kim actually plays Random and he is one of the best Randoms in the world atm. He can't participate in SC2 tournaments as he is a Blizzard employee, but if he could he would be pro. | ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:44 tnud wrote: Feel free to change these up so they don't get so insulting EDIT: Do you feel that the 1/1/1 build is a problem? Why? How could he? Read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=261137 | ||
|
Omsomsoms
Croatia194 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:06 carloselcoco wrote: David Kim actually plays Random and he is one of the best Randoms in the world atm. He can't participate in SC2 tournaments as he is a Blizzard employee, but if he could he would be pro. Uh, I don't really think David Kim is that good, I know he's GM or masters, but I believe I remember one time on Sheth's stream where he was telling David Kim that you could unload marines in bunkers and then salvage them or something like that, so I don't know. Even so, I think that Blizzard's design/balance team definitely has far too few people. | ||
|
Dubzex
United States6994 Posts
| ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:09 Omsomsoms wrote: Uh, I don't really think David Kim is that good, I know he's GM or masters, but I believe I remember one time on Sheth's stream where he was telling David Kim that you could unload marines in bunkers and then salvage them or something like that, so I don't know. Even so, I think that Blizzard's design/balance team definitely has far too few people. I find it hard to believe that David Kim didn't already know that. And yes, he is in GM. | ||
|
gyad
United States423 Posts
I think this is an interesting twist to the whole "why do the maps suck" question | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
Ya, honestly im more interested in this than balance I know that blizzard certainly wont listen to us for balance, but from what I can tell, this guy seems to be more open to suggestions | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Atlas247
Canada318 Posts
| ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:09 Omsomsoms wrote: Uh, I don't really think David Kim is that good, I know he's GM or masters, but I believe I remember one time on Sheth's stream where he was telling David Kim that you could unload marines in bunkers and then salvage them or something like that, so I don't know. Even so, I think that Blizzard's design/balance team definitely has far too few people. I know a lot of people who have beaten him on ladder. He isn't a pro. He's GM, but not pro. | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:17 Shiori wrote: I know a lot of people who have beaten him on ladder. He isn't a pro. He's GM, but not pro. If I ever play against david kim on ladder, i'm not going to get upgrades and im not going to micro very well against him. I dont want him to have any more reasons to nerf my race | ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:17 Shiori wrote: I know a lot of people who have beaten him on ladder. He isn't a pro. He's GM, but not pro. If I ever played him, my first statement would be "Why no LAN?" | ||
|
bgx
Poland6595 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:16 Doodsmack wrote: Lol 90% of the questions in this thread are basically arguments in the form of a question. Do you really expect them to ask such blatantly loaded questions or are you just using this thread as an opportunity to vent your balance complants? Loaded questions aren't good ones because if Browder answers them as posed, he is basically forced into accepting the stance that is implied in your question. imba or ba? | ||
|
Daralii
United States16991 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:18 Roxy wrote: If I ever play against david kim on ladder, i'm not going to get upgrades and im not going to micro very well against him. I dont want him to have any more reasons to nerf my race I would hope he spawned as toss and 1/1/1 him, personally. | ||
|
ProxyKnoxy
United Kingdom2576 Posts
Opinion on the ghost? Opinion on carriers? Opinion on mule - does it in his opinion not punish Terran enough for an 'all in'? View on the infestor and neural parasite? Has its usefulness been significantly reduced? Opinion on ladder maps and 'rush maps' - Does a casual player really enjoy being cheesed/all-inned? Do they ever contact pros for views on balance? How is balance determined? Only on statistics for win rates? How do they balance the game? From the top or the bottom of skill? View on the 1/1/1? What is their reason for the Terran dominance at GSL? What new capabilities do they believe each race will have with the new units - how do they think these new units will influence the game? Do they believe that adding new units shifts the metagame too much? Starting from scratch can completely change the game - will they not let the metagame settle instead of new units every expansion? Opinion on spells that take away from micro and consequently the skill gap - fungal, forcefields, emps, etc. Opinion on the lack of early game scouting for toss and zerg. Is this something he thinks should be improved upon? Do you need a bigger balance team? Do you have destructible rocks at the back of your bra? I'm done. | ||
|
neagling
Taiwan330 Posts
| ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:16 Doodsmack wrote: Lol 90% of the questions in this thread are basically arguments in the form of a question. Do you really expect them to ask such blatantly loaded questions or are you just using this thread as an opportunity to vent your balance complants? Loaded questions aren't good ones because if Browder answers them as posed, he is basically forced into accepting the stance that is implied in your question. I think TL has the ability to adapt statements into a more amenable form. The general feel of forum-goers is that the questions asked need to be pointed, hard questions. The community is, with respect to certain areas, in an uproar, and DB needs to see that first hand. There's no need to be impolite toward Blizzard, but substantive, difficult questions need to be posed if any serious progress is to be made. | ||
|
kingcoyote
United States546 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:19 RavenLoud wrote: Now the 4 gate has been mitigated due to the no warp-in on ramps and the -1 vision up ramps, would you guys consider removing the 20 sec. warpgate nerf? In addition to the 20 sec warpgate nerf, what about the pylon range nerf and zealot/stalker build time nerf? Those changes were also attempts to address the PvP 4 gate issue that were unsuccessful. Now that PvP has finally shifted away from 4 gating, is there any plan to get at least some of that back? | ||
|
Headnoob
Australia2108 Posts
| ||
|
RogerChillingworth
2842 Posts
| ||
|
Omsomsoms
Croatia194 Posts
| ||
|
Daralii
United States16991 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:21 ProxyKnoxy wrote: Opinion on spells that take away from micro and consequently the skill gap - fungal, forcefields, emps, etc. I don't see why so many people insist on asking Blizzard about this since they've been in SC since its inception. Lockdown, Stasis, Plague, etc. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:19 amazingxkcd wrote: If I ever played him, my first statement would be "Why no LAN?" And he will respond: "Stock holders won't let us." | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
In-battle micro, army positioning, and related tasks have a higher skill ceiling than scouting with a unit or scanning/overlord/observer (which is easier in SC2 than in BW). Given this reasoning, would it not follow that smaller maps actually magnify skill discrepancies, because the most difficult tasks are given increased importance relative to map size, and players with the best mechanics have a magnified advantage because the lesser player has less opportunity to beat tactics/micro with strategy? In addition, the psychological feeling of having lots of space between you and your opponent probably means more to a weaker player than being able to more easily memorize the map layout. It also allows weaker players to attempt 'hi-tech' strategies with more exciting units that are rarely seen in short games on small, unforgiving maps. This excitement can often balance out the discouragement of a loss, because exciting hi-tech units got into batlles. Do you agree or disagree with this assessment? Why or why not? | ||
|
Hypatio
549 Posts
| ||
|
Underoath
Peru113 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:23 RogerChillingworth wrote: Would you give Day9 a job at Blizzard? | ||
|
xevis
United States218 Posts
| ||
|
sushiman
Sweden2691 Posts
| ||
|
RogerChillingworth
2842 Posts
A serious answer could shed light on their design philosophy. | ||
|
DeltaX
United States287 Posts
Main example of this is the ultralisk getting a pretty big nerf in a hotfix patch to fix a bug. See: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=156602 | ||
|
Xaeldaren
Ireland588 Posts
| ||
|
Botnot
United States16 Posts
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:23 Daralii wrote: I don't see why so many people insist on asking Blizzard about this since they've been in SC since its inception. Lockdown, Stasis, Plague, etc. Thing is, Lockdown was a single target spell, Stasis Field is super high tech (comparable to vortex), Maelstrom is another high tech ability that only works on biological units, and Ensnare is usually a waste of queen energy (you said plague but plague is the defiler DoT) | ||
|
rift
1819 Posts
Concrete examples of units that are successful in this way include the marine, which has a high potential for control and the display of that control. In a different manner, StarCraft: Brood War's spider mines and reaver were capable of creating dramatic shifts in the direction of a game without being too strong. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Also, one of the larger complaints in SC2 is the some races(zerg and protoss) inability to scout effectively. One of the strongest aspects of scan is that there is no way to deny or stop it. Do you plan on adding ways to gather information in HotS and other forms of scouting that cannot be denied for the other two races? Also, more dection for Protoss. Please say its comming? The 60 HP sky-squid is not enough. | ||
|
ProxyKnoxy
United Kingdom2576 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:23 Daralii wrote: I don't see why so many people insist on asking Blizzard about this since they've been in SC since its inception. Lockdown, Stasis, Plague, etc. Just because it was in BW doesn't mean it was good. I didn't play BW but anything that takes away from micro isn't great imo. Especially ones that inflict massive damage such as the emp. Storms are great | ||
|
Tacosalad
United States73 Posts
Not really part of the question but for example: In BW you had to research the EMP for the Science Vessel in addition to getting an energy upgrade(although the energy upgrade wasn't critical). Currently the timing around EMP and when ghosts needs to be started is fairly loose compared to that of BW. In combination with snipe and cloak, the ghost of SC2 seems very potent in each MU. Maybe less in TvT. | ||
|
Daralii
United States16991 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:32 Demonhunter04 wrote: Thing is, Lockdown was a single target spell, Stasis Field is super high tech (comparable to vortex), Maelstrom is another high tech ability that only works on biological units, and Ensnare is usually a waste of queen energy (you said plague but plague is the defiler DoT) I brought up plague because it always brings affected units to 1 health. You can't mitigate the damage through micro. | ||
|
koppik
United States676 Posts
Maybe ask him questions like "What do you feel the effect of the various macro mechanics (mules, chrono boost, and larva inject) has been on the game?" | ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:37 Daralii wrote: I brought up plague because it always brings affected units to 1 health. You can't mitigate the damage through micro. The excitement was seeing if the plague would land or not, or if vessels would Irradiate the defiler in time. And of course the plagued player would retreat that portion of his army. It's not like fungal which just roots you in place at least. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
A while back, TL voted the Colossus the most boring unit for spectators, with the marauder being second. Do you have any plans to replacing these units, and if so, how would their replacements differ? Many expensive units in SC2 have a less powerful attack and are almost irrelevant in low numbers (seige tank, colossus, void ray, carrier, ultralisk, thor). Are you open to increasing attack damage and reducing supply cost of these units to promote more spectacular and larger late-game battles? Was this a conscious decision due to graphics/video limitations? | ||
|
Augury
United States758 Posts
I'm also curious if they have plans for making the game more spectator friendly, such as forcing more distance between units. The huge ball makes it difficult to see what's going on. Also when are they releasing automated tournaments on BNET. Thanks. | ||
|
Shootemup.
United States1044 Posts
Currently the "Standard" composition in TvP is Bionic based play, ie MMM plus Ghosts and Vikings. Several experienced Mech users TvP have stated that the extreme mobility of Blink Stalker Colossus and a lack of Spider Mines to zone these mobile forces makes it next to impossible to play Mechanical vs a Protoss player who knows how to abuse the immobility of Mechanical based armies. Do you have any ideas/plans to introduce Spider Mines or something that fulfills that role so that there is more strategic variation in TvP? | ||
|
zyzski
United States698 Posts
spawning pool -> sunken barracks -> bunker gateway -> ??? | ||
|
ProxyKnoxy
United Kingdom2576 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:40 0neder wrote: What scenarios (with respect to units and race matchups) do you feel are less exciting for players and spectators than you envisioned? What are your plans to maximize excitement by adjusting these units? A while back, TL voted the Colossus the most boring unit for spectators, with the marauder being second. Do you have any plans to replacing these units, and if so, how would their replacements differ? Many expensive units in SC2 have a less powerful attack and are almost irrelevant in low numbers (seige tank, colossus, void ray, carrier, ultralisk, thor). Are you open to increasing attack damage and reducing supply cost of these units to promote more spectacular and larger late-game battles? Was this a conscious decision due to graphics/video limitations? Seeing 20 collossus vs 50 tanks would be exhilirating... | ||
|
Playguuu
United States926 Posts
| ||
|
decaf
Austria1797 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:45 zyzski wrote: any chance of protoss getting an earlier defensive structure of some sort? spawning pool -> sunken barracks -> bunker gateway -> ??? Ya, i want nexus upgradable to have a tesla coil on it. :D +dmg vs bio | ||
|
Junichi
Germany1056 Posts
Terran (to me) is the "forgiving race", a lot of mistakes you make, you are forgiven and can fix them: Forgot to build workers? MULE's! Forgot to throw MULE's on time? Doesn't matter, their "effect" stacks up to a ridiculous amount. Built to little production facilities which can produce basic units? Doesn't matter, just switch those you have to reactors and pump away. Forgot to build supply depots? Supply drop. Built CC one square off? Lift + Land, fixed. Not able to get into the enemy base, because they denied scouting by land / air? Scan! Killed the enemy airforce? Land your vikings and still do a lot of good damage. Those are mechanics which the other races (largely) do not have, which forgive mistakes in terran play. Was this intentional, or did they just add them one by one unnoticing how little this punishes mistakes in the play? Oh and another question: In BW marines by far did not stack as much as they do in SC2, due to better pathing and so on. Thus in BW not so many marines could shoot at the same target at the same time. Is the DPS of the marine ball in SC2 maybe too high, because of this or do they feel everything is allright with the marine (DPS, cost (buildtime, minerals + supply))? | ||
|
Micket
United Kingdom2163 Posts
Through the history of Starcraft, it is clear that no matter how hard you try at balancing, the game at the top level will always converge to a small set of unique strategies, with the others being unviable. But in Starcraft 2, you have tried to give multiple options, especially to Terran, which in my opinion has made Terran too versatile. Do you feel this design decision has given you a headache on how to balance the game? For example, for air and mech to be comparable to bio, you have to have units which are comparable to marines. This has lead to tanks and banshees to be absolutely awesome. Hence, we are left with the 1/1/1 all in which beats Protoss 80% of the time, and is a nightmare to fix with a patch. | ||
|
aRRoSC2
Denmark241 Posts
| ||
|
Fanatic-Templar
Canada5819 Posts
| ||
|
Daralii
United States16991 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:50 aRRoSC2 wrote: being the only race with a caster (infestor) being completely useless without energy + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081125031431/starcraft/images/c/c6/HighTemplar_SC2_Head1.jpg) High templar is not amused. | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:50 Fanatic-Templar wrote: Why do Marines have 5 more hit points than they did in Brood War? Because that is th only logical thing to do after reducing zealot and zergling damage | ||
|
Loes
Canada115 Posts
I miss this so much | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
Ya man, I duno what hes thinking Raven Mothership loses to like.. 6 rines im pretty sure.. even with energy Sentry wet noodle attack causing you problems? Only caster that IS good without energy is ghost He may have been under the assumption that HT can morph into archon and be ready after the battle is over? | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
| ||
|
Daralii
United States16991 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:54 Roxy wrote: Ya man, I duno what hes thinking Raven Mothership loses to like.. 6 rines im pretty sure.. even with energy Sentry wet noodle attack causing you problems? Only caster that IS good without energy is ghost He may have been under the assumption that HT can morph into archon and be ready after the battle is over? And then be killed by 4 marauders, which leaves you without two HTs and an archon. | ||
|
minimalistic
Hungary157 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:38 Sanchonator wrote: why are ghosts still in this game? Well to remove them you just have to remove the storyline of the Starcraft lore. Does the name Kerrigan rings a bell for you my friend? (and this is Dustins's answer) | ||
|
RogerChillingworth
2842 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:39 Demonhunter04 wrote: The excitement was seeing if the plague would land or not, or if vessels would Irradiate the defiler in time. And of course the plagued player would retreat that portion of his army. It's not like fungal which just roots you in place at least. yeah. I'm really not a fan of a lot of these spell choices, especially given smart cast. Fungal is an example of a spell that was given to zerg and then buffed because of the lack of dps, and no real splash. But instant cast shit that's really easy to land brings the skill ceiling way down and hurts the game. It was a lot better when fungal was more of a snare, but instead of increasing dps elsewhere they decided to make fungal that change. Forcefields could also be a lot more dynamic instead of protecting a poop gateway army that's only protecting the heavy hitters anyway. Just flawed design on both fronts. The problem isn't smart-cast (it's never going to be changed anyway), it's the spells themselves. Fungal/forcefield are the biggest issues in this department, since they're in the game to put tape over serious wounds that need to be addressed in smarter ways. Maybe come up with a question or two about this problem? | ||
|
GreyKnight
United States4720 Posts
| ||
|
TedJustice
Canada1324 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:26 Hypatio wrote: When will blizzard get rid of the horrid popularity contest for custom maps? This. I'm wondering if they even see a problem with it or not and if maybe they can give a rundown of what they see wrong with it, and how they would fix it. | ||
|
Msr
Korea (South)495 Posts
| ||
|
DeadBull
421 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
In Wings of Liberty, a decision was made to omit attack animations from casted spells (excepting the infested terran). One PTR tested fungal having an animation, but it was not implemented. What was the reasoning behind this decision? Was it mainly lag/lack of LAN latencty, or were there other reasons? Many fans feel that a lack of spell animations (EMP/Fungal/etc) is bad for two reasons: 1 - It's confusing for new spectators since they don't know who is doing what 2 - It reduces the excitement when a spell successfully lands because a. It's too easy to anticipate/micro a spell to land and thus it happens often and is not exciting b. Because it is easy to land, the spell's power must be nerfed, making it less exciting even when damage is maximized. In light of this reasoning, would you consider giving spells animations in the 'final' version of professional, spectated SC2? Why or why not? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 21 2011 03:02 DeadBull wrote: Are you going to work faster on the balance changes? Or take you time and let the players work it out? | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:57 minimalistic wrote: Well to remove them you just have to remove the storyline of the Starcraft lore. Does the name Kerrigan rings a bell for you my friend? (and this is Dustins's answer) You could just deus ex machina them like they do everything else. "Mengsk got tired of ghosts betraying him and deleted all of the training information on how to train them, and had all of the ghosts that work for him executed/imprisoned." | ||
|
FinestHour
United States18466 Posts
| ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
May be NSFW: http://www.cracked.com/blog/8-questions-every-wow-fan-apparently-needs-answered/ | ||
|
RodYan
United States126 Posts
| ||
|
Loes
Canada115 Posts
On October 21 2011 00:52 VforValdes wrote: Can we please have a BO3 ladder? At least a toggle that allows us to play BO3 on the current ladder? This would also be awesomeeeeeee | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
Chro
United States240 Posts
| ||
|
Daralii
United States16991 Posts
On October 21 2011 03:04 Whitewing wrote: You could just deus ex machina them like they do everything else. "Mengsk got tired of ghosts betraying him and deleted all of the training information on how to train them, and had all of the ghosts that work for him executed/imprisoned." iirc, that's canon already. The Dominion's been phasing out ghosts between BW and WoL to make way for the spectres, which are easier to control. | ||
|
aRRoSC2
Denmark241 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:54 Roxy wrote: Ya man, I duno what hes thinking Raven Mothership loses to like.. 6 rines im pretty sure.. even with energy Sentry wet noodle attack causing you problems? Only caster that IS good without energy is ghost He may have been under the assumption that HT can morph into archon and be ready after the battle is over? Raven: Detection Mothership: Cloaking and 7 attacks Sentry: 6 damage / 1 sec, range 5 HT: Archon morph Infestor: burrow? lol | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 03:06 aRRoSC2 wrote: Raven: Detection Mothership: Cloaking and 7 attacks Sentry: 6 damage / 1 sec, range 5 HT: Archon morph Infestor: burrow? lol Infestor: Meat sheild Just burrow and run away. then u get more energy and use it again We need like 300 energy on a sentry to acomplish what 1 fungal does | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:52 Roxy wrote: Because that is th only logical thing to do after reducing zealot and zergling damage I'd love to see this addressed. Do you feel Marine HP upgrade is necessary? How might the game improve if marine HP upgrade was removed? In BW, Marines and Dragoons(Stalkers) required range upgrades in order to reach their powerful state. Given the current state of Wings of Liberty, have you considered tempering the offensive power of 1-2 base all-ins by giving marines/stalkers range upgrades (to get to their current range). Why or why not? | ||
|
MatiNO
Australia327 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 03:09 0neder wrote: I'd love to see this addressed. Do you feel Marine HP upgrade is necessary? How might the game improve if marine HP upgrade was removed? Browder: "This meeting is done!" | ||
|
True_Spike
Poland3421 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 21 2011 03:06 aRRoSC2 wrote: Raven: Detection Mothership: Cloaking and 7 attacks Sentry: 6 damage / 1 sec, range 5 HT: Archon morph Infestor: burrow? lol Is this really a discussion on why the infestor isn't good enough? | ||
|
aRRoSC2
Denmark241 Posts
On October 21 2011 03:08 Roxy wrote: Infestor: Meat sheild Just burrow and run away. then u get more energy and use it again That's a damn expensive meat shield. The point is, a part of your supply gets completele useless when drained, and there is no such thing for any of the other races. Waiting to regen energy is not always an option if a terran is sieged up and shooting at your front door. I'm sure zerg can do just fine regardless, but my question is simply what the thought is behind having no energy drain and at the same time not even having an auto attack on the most common combat caster for zerg. Edit: On October 21 2011 03:11 Plansix wrote: Is this really a discussion on why the infestor isn't good enough? No, read my entire post instead of a single quote taken out of context. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
undoubtedly arbitor-like-unit will add more depth to the game, meanwhile mothership's use is limited to non-existent, it has no serious use. terran in bw had a bio vs zerg, mech vs protoss relationship, will something like that be considered for the future of sc2? | ||
|
forumtext
575 Posts
| ||
|
Gonzo103
Germany220 Posts
Maybe its better to close this threat! It transform into a "Dear Dustin, why protoss is so weak and why terran is so op?" whinning. | ||
|
Gotmog
Serbia899 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:39 DusTerr wrote: Was/is 200 v 200 battles being over in a matter of seconds (and usually very one sided) a balanced design choice? Or is this simply a case of players not handling the battles appropriately or design/balance being off? Do you feel it should be changed? (If so, how? - "anti-clumping"?) On October 21 2011 01:38 pezit wrote: Are they happy about how battles play out in SC2? Where it's almost completely focused on having the entire army in one blob and the game often ends after one big fight that lasts a short time because of the density of the units. Or will the try to change it more towards how broodwar is with more drawn out battles that are spread out all across the map. I am also interested in an answer to something along the lines of these, so bumping it. From a few games of bw that i watched, i have to say, i just love how everything is so spread out, battles are all over the place etc etc. | ||
|
KaiserJohan
Sweden1808 Posts
On October 21 2011 03:10 True_Spike wrote: How do you feel about destructible rocks? This, many many times over! What about dem' ROCKS? | ||
|
ilikeredheads
Canada1995 Posts
Why is Blizzard so reluctant to implement balanced GSL maps into the ladder, when the current ladder map pool is pretty imbalanced? Are the Blizzard map makers in Bronze league?? | ||
|
Gotmog
Serbia899 Posts
On October 21 2011 03:23 Gonzo103 wrote: Maybe its better to close this threat! It transform into a "Dear Dustin, why protoss is so weak and why terran is so op?" whinning. Well....he asked for balance/design questions......so it boils down to questions like that. | ||
|
VTPerfect
United States487 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
Their programer sdont really know how to make good maps anyways, so if they just copy whatever GSL does, this is Win/Win | ||
|
akaname
United Kingdom599 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:45 Darkdeath3 wrote: are the new units in the HOTS in your view created to address balance issues in the game or are they intended to totally change how HOTS plays compared to wings of liberty. i like this one a lot. most of the questions in this thread seem to be whining, which makes it really unpleasant to read (akaname said, without a trace of irony). why do people who hate the game so much spend time on this website! edit: like, i get that we're unhappy with the game, but why can't we appreciate the good parts of it, based on this we're too spoilt and entitled as a community! | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 21 2011 03:16 jinorazi wrote: will mothership ever be replaced by arbitor? undoubtedly arbitor-like-unit will add more depth to the game, meanwhile mothership's use is limited to non-existent, it has no serious use. terran in bw had a bio vs zerg, mech vs protoss relationship, will something like that be considered for the future of sc2? Better way to word this would be: Mothership currently only viable for defensive recalls at the highest level. Are you considering a cloaking, non-hero equivalent of the Mothership that encourages offensive recalls as well, both because you could have more than one and because cost would be slightly less? | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 21 2011 03:27 akaname wrote: i like this one a lot. most of the questions in this thread seem to be whining, which makes it really unpleasant to read (akaname said, without a trace of irony). why do people who hate the game so much spend time on this website! Yes, great question. We should be more worried about increasing excitement over fairness. Fairness will come in time. | ||
|
setzer
United States3284 Posts
Does Blizzard ever intend to include custom ladders/clan support? | ||
|
LordOfDabu
United States394 Posts
Will unlocked WOL portraits be usable in HOTS? (This is important!)Will SCII ever support automated tournaments like in Frozen Throne? I only glanced through the thread, so I don't know which of these were already asked. I saw a lot of loaded balance questions though. =( | ||
|
Postman
United States269 Posts
| ||
|
galivet
288 Posts
Here's a hypothetical example answer that doesn't necessarily have any basis in reality, but exemplifies what I mean: "Over the course of the last year it's become apparent that the unique terran ability to construct any building anywhere on the map has made balancing WoL very difficult. For example, we kept trying to tweak the build-time and cost of bunkers to keep them useful for defense but not too powerful for offense, but we've never been able to get it quite right. In HotS, we plan to change terran's building mechanics so that new terran buildings can only be constructed within a 30-square radius of a command center. It'll be much easier to balance bunkers now that we don't have to worry about their offensive use -- not to mention proxy barracks play!." | ||
|
Welmu
Finland3295 Posts
| ||
|
alwaid
United States96 Posts
| ||
|
seansye
United States1722 Posts
| ||
|
HyperLimen
United States278 Posts
| ||
|
Thebbeuttiffulland
Brazil288 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 03:34 alwaid wrote: Ask him if he reads TeamLiquid. Also interested in this They dont moderate their own forum Any input on this forum is much more valuable to any decisions they make based on community discussions. | ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
| ||
|
Sighstorm
Netherlands116 Posts
Starcraft2 was designed to be an e-sport and the past year has shown that you've been successful. However there has been a lot of critique about balance and several patches have been released to fix the balance and satisfy players and spectators. It's said that in some cases units were over-buffed to put them in the spotlight, so players would start using them. Some changes have been reverted (or at least some of those units have been nerfed again) in more recent patches after people discovered how powerful those units had become. Question: Was it your goal to create a balanced game with static rules/unit stats? Or has it been your philosophy from the outset that it's impossible to create a perfect game when the metagame is constantly evoling? Simply put... did you plan to do balance patches? Looking at the future, is perfect balance a design goal or should it be ever evolving? Or is it simply impossible to balance it before the masses get their hands on the product? What is Blizzards strategy on balance? How do you think balance changes impact competative play? (People from the former Broodwar scene seems to love it having a static unit stats. On the other hand a game like Magic the Gathering embraces evolution of the game (obv. they make money off of it) and i think it's attractive to their players because it rewards strategic creativity.) ___ I'm personally undecided about static vs. evoling... just like to know Dustin Browder insights on this topic. | ||
|
sekritzzz
1515 Posts
| ||
|
ishboh
United States954 Posts
| ||
|
HyperLink
Canada172 Posts
1) The reasoning behind the recent nerf of the Infestor because of the increased use and the seeming counter to every composition. The Ghost counters every unit from the other races as well but did not receive similar treatment. Why was the Ghost not given similar treatment and are there plans to modify either the Ghost (through nerfs like EMP energy cost increase) or through buffs to other races (like Guardian Shield preventing shield drain or causing a fraction of the damage to shields)? 2) What does Blizzard plan to do to make Carriers, Ultralisks and Battlecruisers viable while not feeling like simply making the units is throwing away your advantage or putting yourself further behind? Is there anything to be done at this point but a complete redesign of the units themselves or would that also require reworking every unit to accommodate the change? 3) The lack of AA for Zerg early game is only compounded by the lack of early scouting (IE, you don't scout it to prepare more Queens, you can die or suffer severe damage or you simply have to blindly make more Queens). Given the fact Zerg (being the reactive race) has a hard time scouting until lair and Queens are produced via Hatcheries (cutting queen production further), what are some ideas being explored by Blizzard to give Zerg a reliable way to scout and react to the opponent? Will the solution be something more simple like Hydralisk being moved to T1? 4) Maps. The general feeling about the map pool is they are poorly designed (for higher level games were imbalances are noticed more). Will Blizzard involve the community to help design maps? Will Blizzard work with other organizations (GSL, MLG, etc) to design maps? Will Blizzard simply keep the status quo? 5) The Marine has been a focal point of balance discussion for a while. The cost-effectiveness of the unit (even versus the supposed counters like Banelings) when controlled at high level can still be efficient. How does Blizzard approach the Marine, an obvious staple of the Terran army, from a design perspective relative to every other unit in the game? What (if any) changes are Blizzard think of making to the Marine relative to the other T1 units and their effectiveness? 6) Will Blizzard implement a BO3 ladder? | ||
|
Qntc.YuMe
United States792 Posts
| ||
|
ma70
253 Posts
#2. Have they considered just letting custom map makers make new maps so it takes off some responsibility of Blizzard and they can focus on doing more things? #3. Is it possible for them to fix the Stalker attack animation so that good micro is rewarded and Stalkers can actually kite things? | ||
|
koppik
United States676 Posts
"What do you think is the reason for the recent low win-rate of Protoss in the GSL compared to Zerg and Terran?" | ||
|
Moobutt
United States1996 Posts
| ||
|
Cambam
United States360 Posts
| ||
|
tainted muffin
United States158 Posts
2. Why do you insist on killing ESPORTS! | ||
|
FoeHamr
United States489 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 21 2011 03:43 tainted muffin wrote: 1. Why are SC2 siege tanks so bad and BW siege tanks so good! 2. Why do you insist on killing ESPORTS! These questions are related. See sig. =) | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:35 Kennigit wrote: Side Note: Anything to do with Lan, Battlenet 0.2, Chat Channels almost always leads to a "you need to talk to Chris about that" responses. Try stick to balance/design quesitons/ Make sure to refer to it like this when talking to DB. hee hee Anyway, this is rapidly turning into the "Whine about balance in the form of a question" thread. It's like friggin' jeopardy in here. On October 21 2011 03:27 akaname wrote: most of the questions in this thread seem to be whining, which makes it really unpleasant to read (akaname said, without a trace of irony). why do people who hate the game so much spend time on this website! Holy crap, right? lol On October 21 2011 03:30 LordOfDabu wrote: Will ffa ever get a ranked ladder? Okay, this one is good. | ||
|
DeltaX
United States287 Posts
| ||
|
kazie
258 Posts
On October 21 2011 02:57 minimalistic wrote: Well to remove them you just have to remove the storyline of the Starcraft lore. Does the name Kerrigan rings a bell for you my friend? (and this is Dustins's answer) we all know mp doesnt have anything to do with lore.. there are a lot of units in single player (and the lore) that are missing from mp | ||
|
Cybren
United States206 Posts
Which RTS, that you haven't had a had in designing (besides Broodwar/SC1), do you admire most? | ||
|
pt
United States813 Posts
Will there be any changes to the ladder system? Are we going to see forcefields in HoTS? | ||
|
WhiteraCares
Sweden339 Posts
| ||
|
sevia
United States954 Posts
Question: Has Blizzard ever considered using the welcome page of SC2 for 'featured streams' (e.g. MLG, IEM), similar to how Riot uses theirs in League of Legends? | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
Speaking only from the view as a protoss: Perhaps I am not playing properly, but I find tanks to be incredibly hard to attack into (even when sending a sacraficial immortal / zealot in for the first hit). Yes they do less damage than in SC1, but the infantry support they have does a lot more damage. Also, protoss T1 is a lot weaker by comparison to SC1. I only see tanks on certain maps (such as mid-map in shakuras), so perhaps that may be the issue? Tank mobility doesnt seem to have gotten any worse when compare to BW though. Also, units ball up and take more splash from the tanks. Re your sig, i'm totally with you on marauders. Hate them so much. I hate how consussion shells shut down any possibiity of early game scouting or poking with a stalker. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
billiebrightside
United States150 Posts
| ||
|
IreScath
Canada521 Posts
"Why do ghosts and infestors both get a starting energy upgrade, while HT do not. Is it because infestors counter everything and there fore get used a lot and thus need it? And because ghosts emp is so much better than feedback that they too will use it more often making the energy upgrade a necessity?" DISCLAIMER: QQ wine is more for humor than to wine about balance... But the questions remains as HT's are the only one without an energy upgrade. | ||
|
TheBomb
237 Posts
2. Why are you so fast to nerf protoss way too much, but when it comes to buffing it you take you sweet time and go with the smallest of buffs possible? Will we actually see the carrier buffed and being able to actually use it as a viable unit? Thanks you very much. | ||
|
HyperLink
Canada172 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:04 B00ts wrote: OMG please... "Why do ghosts and infestors both get a starting energy upgrade, while HT do not. Is it because infestors counter everything and there fore get used a lot and thus need it? And because ghosts emp is so much better than feedback that they too will use it more often making the energy upgrade a necessity?" DISCLAIMER: QQ wine is more for humor than to wine about balance... But the questions remains as HT's are the only one without an energy upgrade. I can answer that, it's simple math. It takes 45 sec to produce Ghost ready for EMP with energy upgrade. It takes 50 sec to produce Infestor ready for FG with energy upgrade. It takes 49,5 sec to produce HT ready for Storm without energy upgrade. With the KA upgrade it takes 5 seconds, spawned anywhere on the map within a power field. I don't think the energy upgrade was the problem, I think it's the Warpgate mechanic at the core of it and the balance it requires. Edit - My response to H0i is in PM so as not to derail the thread. | ||
|
Shiladie
Canada1631 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:04 B00ts wrote: OMG please... "Why do ghosts and infestors both get a starting energy upgrade, while HT do not. Is it because infestors counter everything and there fore get used a lot and thus need it? And because ghosts emp is so much better than feedback that they too will use it more often making the energy upgrade a necessity?" DISCLAIMER: QQ wine is more for humor than to wine about balance... But the questions remains as HT's are the only one without an energy upgrade. this has been explained and talked to death over and over in different threads, here's the cliffnotes: Time from deciding you need a fungal/emp/storm to having one available to you is the same for all 3 due to warpgates + energy regen vs build times + energy upgrades, combined with being able to have them anywhere on the map on-demand was too much. You never needed to have HTs with an army vulnerable to EMP, instead warping them in just when you needed a storm. | ||
|
RogerChillingworth
2842 Posts
| ||
|
Snorkle
United States1648 Posts
Would he consider perhaps increasing the move speed of HT since they are currently the slowest caster, have a smaller aoe spell, do not have an energy upgrade, and have no means of evasions such as burrow and cloak. But seriously, can we have 2.0 AOE storm back please? edit: also, Terran has had the highest win % over the course of the first year, never dipping below the other two races, do you think this is right? Do you think that the amount resilience upgraded marines+mules provide the terran in the very late game is the reason they tend to have more "chances" to win than the other races? Why do gold mineral expansions exist when they are inherently several times more beneficial to one race than the other two? | ||
|
RaKooNs
United Kingdom397 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:40 Coal wrote: When a stalker fires a projectil, there's a slight delay with the animation, making it harder to micro perfectly. Is this a bug or is it intended? If it's not a bug, could you please motivate why? Some guy here at TL posted a modification of the stalkers animation while firing, making it 100% easier to micro while being time efficient. If you can't micro 1 stalker perfectly, you have a brain defiency. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44256 Posts
2. Any possibility of having four 1v1 ladder rankings, one for each race (including Random)? 3. Any possibility of getting rid of marines and ghosts? (Just kidding, but seriously) | ||
|
SpiritAshura
United States1271 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:06 TheBomb wrote: 1. Why aren't they putting tournament maps in the ladder poll? We've seen poll after poll, everyone from total noob to pros prefer tournament maps in the ladder poll. So why is it that its only Blizzard who can't seem to understand this? I'd like a response to this ladder map pool question as well. Off topic: I saw the [Bcon] tag and though it said [Bacon]...mmmm. | ||
|
Kamuy
United States212 Posts
Why do they continue to ignore the fact that close positions on any map are a terrible game design and greatly benefit different races? | ||
|
billiebrightside
United States150 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:16 RaKooNs wrote: If you can't micro 1 stalker perfectly, you have a brain defiency. I have a brain deficiency, thank you very much | ||
|
ilikeLIONZ
Germany427 Posts
| ||
|
ampson
United States2355 Posts
| ||
|
Greggle
United States1131 Posts
| ||
|
A Wet Shamwow
United States1590 Posts
| ||
|
Zozo
Brazil2579 Posts
If tournaments use their own set of maps they belive to be better for the game, how do you balance the game? Aiming for ladder balance doesn't help pro players, and aiming for high level balance makes your maps (close spawns etc) biased. | ||
|
tehemperorer
United States2183 Posts
This question is stated with the belief that Protoss require either HT or Colossus in all 3 matchups, but can only realistically sustain them with a minimum of 2 bases but due to costs of building and replacing, are racially put into a natural decline the longer the game goes against T or Z. | ||
|
FMJ
United States169 Posts
On October 21 2011 00:23 Mash2 wrote: Can you explain why stim for marines and marauders allows them to fire their guns faster? As I understand it, it is a drug allows their bodies to function faster and more efficiently for a small cost to their health. This should have no effect on the rate of fire for their mechanical weapons, right? Actually, the marine's rifle is semi-automatic, but the stim pack allows them to click the trigger a lot faster. You should read up on SC2 lore. Specifically, the fan-fiction ones written by me. | ||
|
H0i
Netherlands484 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:10 HyperLink wrote: I can answer that, it's simple math. It takes 45 sec to produce Ghost ready for EMP with energy upgrade. It takes 50 sec to produce Infestor ready for FG with energy upgrade. It takes 49,5 sec to produce HT ready for Storm without energy upgrade. With the KA upgrade it takes 5 seconds, spawned anywhere on the map within a power field. I don't think the energy upgrade was the problem, I think it's the Warpgate mechanic at the core of it and the balance it requires. It doesn't take 5 seconds to produce a HT, it takes about the same as ghost/infestor. The production cycle is reversed, but you still need to have a pylon or warp prism up and in the end the only real moment where it takes 5 seconds to produce units is the moment when warpgate finishes, and at that moment your amount of units is small anyway so protoss needs that. To produce HT in 5 seconds you would need to have warpgates off cooldown and resources stockpiled. Really, what you're doing is quite similar to arguing ghosts and infestors shouldn't be able to enter medivacs/overlords because it would be instant "warp in". Wait 40 seconds, spawn unit in 5 seconds, wait 40, spawn in 5 seconds. Total units spawned: 2. Time : 90. Train unit in 45 seconds, train unit in 45 seconds. Total units spawned: 2. Time: 90. See? It's exactly the same. Warpgates do give more mobility, but isn't that what they were made for? Complaining about this is like complaining about workers being able to mine, it's just what they do. But this is offtopic... | ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:16 RaKooNs wrote: If you can't micro 1 stalker perfectly, you have a brain defiency. If you can't spell "deficiency" correctly, you have a brain deficiency. See where that logic takes you? It is actually impossible to micro a Stalker vs Marines without taking some damage, due to the animation of attack. Try it in the unit tester before claiming people have a "brain defiency". | ||
|
LoLAdriankat
United States4307 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:20 Kamuy wrote: Why are ghosts the absolute go to answer late game to solve any problem vs Z/P. Does he feel that it makes sense for their snipe to be so powerful against massive units. Why does it have a longer range than other casters for EMP? Why do they continue to ignore the fact that close positions on any map are a terrible game design and greatly benefit different races? Make 300 zerglings. | ||
|
Coal
Sweden1535 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:24 SeaSwift wrote: If you can't spell "deficiency" correctly, you have a brain deficiency. See where that logic takes you? It is actually impossible to micro a Stalker vs Marines without taking some damage, due to the animation of attack. Try it in the unit tester before claiming people have a "brain defiency". Thanks bro^^ Glad to see that some 1 else is thinking about this | ||
|
willoc
Canada1530 Posts
| ||
|
M1cha84
Germany64 Posts
| ||
|
tuho12345
4482 Posts
| ||
|
geno
United States1404 Posts
| ||
|
skeldark
Germany2223 Posts
When you read balance discussion on tl or bnet or answer stupid balance suggestions all the day how can you hide your laughing? If your normal work is to develop software does it not feel strange to get asked every interview about some unit stats like the whole world depend on it? | ||
|
1st_Panzer_Div.
United States621 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:17 amazingxkcd wrote: Will you guys take efforts to remove clumping from the game? Or at the very least reduce it. +1 to this question. | ||
|
media
Canada13 Posts
| ||
|
trGKakarot
United States129 Posts
Currently, Terran has very powerful early game all-in attacks; mostly due to the high DPS of Marines and early expansion builds by their opponent. Don't you think that a reasonable solution to this would be to simply put destructible rocks at every natural expansion in order to encourage one base play until later in the game?" | ||
|
Hollow27
United States111 Posts
| ||
|
Mjolnir
912 Posts
Do you have any plans to make Zerg less of a reactionary race that struggles to survive the early game and more into the horrifying early game monster it was in BW? | ||
|
lorcasTV
Canada100 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:38 bgx wrote: + Show Spoiler + I started to wrote the question and explaining it, and it became kinda too big, the shorter version is under spoiler. Are XelNaga towers a necessary evil or optional? + Show Spoiler [long version, unedited just for the id…] + Xelnaga towers are key elements of current competetive gameplay. They give huge vision and encourage control over them. However they seem to weaken and sometimes completely disable a possible guerrilla tactics used to gain advantage or make a significant comeback. Thats a huge drawback in certain area we could call an army presence on the map. Because of towers an aggressor's main army is generally safe from flanks, also many counter attack routes are already covered by the vision of the tower. You get the idea. Towers discourage more "risky" play that can cought an opponent of guard, sudden baneling attacks, deploying bling mines, suprise fungals/forcefields/emps, shortcut drops (through middle of the map) etc. Wouldnt be the game more fun and dynamic if player had to actually constatly micro his army to not fell into a trap? Many times we can see a typical stagnation when each players army dont move, because there is no need for it the one who posses control towers knows he can be either dropped from sides or he can lose control the towers but still have time to react. If we would remove towers so there is no central point of battlefield but rather more expo/choke essential battles the game would get much more strategical. Units such as ravens (with some tweaks) would be actually useful in tvz. Where terran can actually win games not only based on the fact he killed X drones but because he was capable of capitalizing on opponents mistake and sneak control group of marines (Idra vs Marineking Tal darim altar, Stephano vs Boxer Shakuras) Will we ever see SC2 competetive play without the TLDR version (and more controversial )Almost any map in competetive play (official ladder and tournaments) has at least 1 Xel Naga tower, is it because the game was made in intention of having xel naga towers enabled (balance wise) would the game be as balanced without them? Xel Naga towers were introduced as innovative tool along other race-specific mechanics. But they carry alot of limitations: Towers seem to discourage potential exciting army movements on the map like we see in Brood War,also they seem to restrict players into certain mindsets of not having separate groups of units on the map because Towers are capable of zoning out their potential positions, players are also discouraged or unable to use certain guerrilla/ambush strategies because of it. Is lack of tower-less maps dictated by certain mechanic imbalances in Match ups that would suddenly occur, like Terran needing to sacrifice his economy for scans and Protoss having deadly proxy pylon warp-gate mechanic also creep being much stronger? Is the game currently balanced without tower presence on the map, or the game sort of rally on them? If you like the general idea you can word this question however you like, shorten or add something. Edit: changed I was pretty much going to post the same thing, but I'll just quote and agree. BW army movements was very exciting to see and the typical 1 push win wasn't that common because of it as you were never stuck in your base. You'd exchange armies in the middle of the map and have built an acceptable defense by the time the other player showed up at the steps of your base. It was a game that favored optimal exchanges over eradicating the enemy. I also have a question regarding 1v1 ladder. Are there any plans to have 1 ladder per race or will I have to still lose a bunch of games to play my lesser races at the correct level and risk being banned as it is against your ToS? edit: When will we see (if ever) multiplayer replays? | ||
|
Nemireck
Canada1875 Posts
Are there any plans in the works to help tournaments deal with online lag issues (ie. LAN)? | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:34 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: Or at the very least reduce it. +1 to this question. SC2 armies, although comparable in size to BW armies, feel very small because things are so clumped up. Are you willing to consider implementing greater spacing between units in the 'final' version of SC2 to maximize how big the armies 'feel'? | ||
|
Nemireck
Canada1875 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:39 lorcasTV wrote: I also have a question regarding 1v1 ladder. Are there any plans to have 1 ladder per race or will I have to still lose a bunch of games to play my lesser races at the correct level and risk being banned as it is against your ToS? This is such a ridiculous assertion. You won't be banned for losing games when you switch races. It's against the TOS to intentionally forfeit games in order to earn achievements (ie. win-trading), it's not against the TOS to go on a losing streak because you switched races. | ||
|
Zionner
Scotland112 Posts
In the up-coming expansion, The Heart of the Swarm, all of the multiplayer focus from the fanbase thus far seems to have been discussion in regards to potential new units in the Expansion. However will there be any major changes to existing units, balance wise? (excluding the possiblity of taking units out). Thanks a lot ^^ Zionner | ||
|
NormandyBoy
France200 Posts
I know it was the other way around in BW, but you want to have diversity within each match-up, right ? | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
It was stated that these changes were made for PvP but I think with the most recent changes, they are not necessary. It is so freakin hard to defend against early pushes. The pylon radius still screws me up regualrly (even after playing about 1000 games with them). | ||
|
Asymmetric
Scotland1309 Posts
Currently armies seem to reach max at a rather rapid rate off only a handful of bases. Zerg especially feels constrainted by this due to its inherent nature and having so many 2(+) supply units. i.e. what are you going to do to make the swarm feel more like a SWARM? | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
Would Starcraft 2 be better if the rankings of units contributed to a "kill-streak" system? For example, if a marine killed three zerglings, he would gain an ability for increased vision area, five kills would give a high aoe damage ability, and seven would grant the ability to summon a flying recon and attack unit that lasted for five minutes? I think that this would be effective, because it would encourage newer players to learn to micro units effectively so as to score the most number of kills on a single unit, and would promote a diverse array of unexplored gameplay options and depth. I think this would also draw newer players into the game, as the early game would be much more focused on combat and action instead of watching one's base for several minutes. Praetorial | ||
|
AZN)Boy
United States57 Posts
| ||
|
Tewks44
United States2032 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:42 Nemireck wrote: This is such a ridiculous assertion. You won't be banned for losing games when you switch races. It's against the TOS to intentionally forfeit games in order to earn achievements (ie. win-trading), it's not against the TOS to go on a losing streak because you switched races. I believe he was implying he would have to intentionally lose games to lower his MMR so that he would be more evenly matched due to the loss in skill that a race switch usually entails. Although it would make a lot more sense to just switch races and let your MMR lower naturally, he would risk being banned if he was intentionally losing matches in an attempt to play easier opponents for his race switch. | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:55 PraetorialGamer wrote: Dear Mr. Browder, Would Starcraft 2 be better if the rankings of units contributed to a "kill-streak" system? For example, if a marine killed three zerglings, he would gain an ability for increased vision area, five kills would give a high aoe damage ability, and seven would grant the ability to summon a flying recon and attack unit that lasted for five minutes? I think that this would be effective, because it would encourage newer players to learn to micro units effectively so as to score the most number of kills on a single unit, and would promote a diverse array of unexplored gameplay options and depth. I think this would also draw newer players into the game, as the early game would be much more focused on combat and action instead of watching one's base for several minutes. Praetorial that would definitely be a cool custom map, but i dont think this has a place in SC2 multiplayer perhaps would be more suitable for WC4?? | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:55 Roxy wrote: I would like to know if we can have pylon radius back and warp gate research back to the way it was It was stated that these changes were made for PvP but I think with the most recent changes, they are not necessary. It is so freakin hard to defend against early pushes. The pylon radius still screws me up regualrly (even after playing about 1000 games with them). This is so true about the pylon radius. If you play fast, you have trouble finding room to throw down your buildings (and you can even see it in pro stream like Huk's and SaSe's, sometimes, they have to search for a place to put that shit down for quite a long time). And if you want the most room you can have, you're forced to really spread out your pylons, yielding the so-called "Artosis pylons" that are so much more frequent since this patch. For an expansion, you can no longer put a pylon in front of your nexus so that it covers the front and the mineral line at the same time (if you want to plant a pylon in the mineral line), you basically have to put 3 pylons (because one at the rear isn't even enough to cover the full area with cannons). It's 300 minerals that add greatly to the cost of an expand, without including the cannons you will have to put down like the other races do. And of course, they are more reachable for your opponents, making defending against all ins and drops that much harder. | ||
|
Match
215 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:59 Roxy wrote: that would definitely be a cool custom map, but i dont think this has a place in SC2 multiplayer perhaps would be more suitable for WC4?? WC4: Ancient Warfare. I'm digging it. | ||
|
Nachtwind
Germany1130 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:55 PraetorialGamer wrote: Dear Mr. Browder, Would Starcraft 2 be better if the rankings of units contributed to a "kill-streak" system? For example, if a marine killed three zerglings, he would gain an ability for increased vision area, five kills would give a high aoe damage ability, and seven would grant the ability to summon a flying recon and attack unit that lasted for five minutes? I think that this would be effective, because it would encourage newer players to learn to micro units effectively so as to score the most number of kills on a single unit, and would promote a diverse array of unexplored gameplay options and depth. I think this would also draw newer players into the game, as the early game would be much more focused on combat and action instead of watching one's base for several minutes. Praetorial what´s with banelings? | ||
|
SniXSniPe
United States1938 Posts
Also, the SC2 map maker has great potential, but the delay when playing side scrollers/rpg based maps is rather annoying. Any intent on being able to fix said problem, or is a solution even possible at this point? And any plans to change layout designs for battle.net? The current channels system feels quite... lacking to be honest. Channels also could have use for moderation, but I would supposed you could do that for "Clan/team specific" channels. | ||
|
rivurivurivurivu
Sweden140 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 05:07 rivurivurivurivu wrote: who was the guy that suggest to change PDD from zerg to terran ? The same guy that moved Maelstrom to zerg and attached it to plague's little brother ^^ | ||
|
goDrop_
Poland43 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 05:03 ZenithM wrote: This is so true about the pylon radius. If you play fast, you have trouble finding room to throw down your buildings (and you can even see it in pro stream like Huk's and SaSe's, sometimes, they have to search for a place to put that shit down for quite a long time). And if you want the most room you can have, you're forced to really spread out your pylons, yielding the so-called "Artosis pylons" that are so much more frequent since this patch. For an expansion, you can no longer put a pylon in front of your nexus so that it covers the front and the mineral line at the same time (if you want to plant a pylon in the mineral line), you basically have to put 3 pylons (because one at the rear isn't even enough to cover the full area with cannons). It's 300 minerals that add greatly to the cost of an expand, without including the cannons you will have to put down like the other races do. And of course, they are more reachable for your opponents, making defending against all ins and drops that much harder. Now that you mention it, you're right about the pros having problems with their pylons too. I guess it's not just me / If we ever want to have a pylon that can morph onto the low ground from our base, it is in range of being sniped by marauders One thing that I DO think would be a totally reasonable pylon nerf is not allowing it to provide power to highground (but can still power even and lower ground). It should be able to provide power the same way an overflowing fountain gets things wet. | ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
| ||
|
lorcasTV
Canada100 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:42 Nemireck wrote: This is such a ridiculous assertion. You won't be banned for losing games when you switch races. It's against the TOS to intentionally forfeit games in order to earn achievements (ie. win-trading), it's not against the TOS to go on a losing streak because you switched races. Ok, I was wrong it is not explicitly said in the TOS/TOU/EULA, but it is very clearly said here. And on top of that, I hate wasting 1 hour (or 6-7 hours if I do try to play) to get placed in an appropriate ladder spot. | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 05:13 Tyrant0 wrote: Does blizzard acknowledge the importance of allowing the meta game to play out for more than a few months rather than take innovation away from players when you cave into balance demands? But on the other hand, realize trends that have existed for over a year and conclude that maybe they DO need to be changed (*caugh* GOMTvT) | ||
|
IreScath
Canada521 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:24 H0i wrote: It doesn't take 5 seconds to produce a HT, it takes about the same as ghost/infestor. The production cycle is reversed, but you still need to have a pylon or warp prism up and in the end the only real moment where it takes 5 seconds to produce units is the moment when warpgate finishes, and at that moment your amount of units is small anyway so protoss needs that. To produce HT in 5 seconds you would need to have warpgates off cooldown and resources stockpiled. Really, what you're doing is quite similar to arguing ghosts and infestors shouldn't be able to enter medivacs/overlords because it would be instant "warp in". Wait 40 seconds, spawn unit in 5 seconds, wait 40, spawn in 5 seconds. Total units spawned: 2. Time : 90. Train unit in 45 seconds, train unit in 45 seconds. Total units spawned: 2. Time: 90. See? It's exactly the same. Warpgates do give more mobility, but isn't that what they were made for? Complaining about this is like complaining about workers being able to mine, it's just what they do. But this is offtopic... I was about to write something like that. But anyway... Just ask the question! lol | ||
|
Nuttyguy
United Kingdom1526 Posts
Why does zerg get 'punished' for missing larvae injects? (Cant stack larvae injects) Whats the ratio of time spent designing the race in sc2? (Terran: Zerg : Protoss) | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On October 21 2011 03:29 0neder wrote: Yes, great question. We should be more worried about increasing excitement over fairness. Fairness will come in time. This is indeed one of the smarter questions in the thread and I'd be grateful to hear it asked. | ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On October 21 2011 05:15 Roxy wrote: But on the other hand, realize trends that have existed for over a year and conclude that maybe they DO need to be changed (*caugh* GOMTvT) Trends haven't existed for a year. The meta game has shifted vastly in many forms every 2-3 months since release. These past few months aren't comparable; Everyone plays much differently and *cough*Terran was dominant for different reasons in a different/outdated meta game*cough*. | ||
|
FMJ
United States169 Posts
On October 21 2011 03:27 akaname wrote: most of the questions in this thread seem to be whining, which makes it really unpleasant to read (akaname said, without a trace of irony). why do people who hate the game so much spend time on this website! We whine because we care! Obviously everyone who posts on this site loves the game. It's just that there are two types of people who love this game. Those that play X race, and those that don't. | ||
|
Luepert
United States1933 Posts
| ||
|
Brotocol
243 Posts
- Do you feel your balance team reflects a racially diverse perspective? It seems to be incredibly biased because of David Kim's role. I know he's only human, and it's normal for him to be biased - but why aren't measures taken to reduce this (such as, having a larger balance team)? - What is your plan for dealing with 1-1-1? Also, how do you determine that 1-1-1 requires a metagame shift, but, for instance, blink rush requires a 30 second nerf instead of a metagame shift from T and Z players? - Have you considered nerfing mules such that players cannot drop 6 mules (for instance, on a gold expansion) at once? Why/why not? - Why must every race have its own dragoon? - In a past conference, Sen relayed you the question of units clumping in sc2 compared to BW. Your response was "just play BW." Would you not consider doing anything to unit clumping in starcraft 2 in the future? Why or why not? Is it a matter of pride? - Why has the Hydralisk been relegated to such a secondary role? It's the most iconic Zerg unit, so why did you not work on making it a staple once again? - Why are Protoss units designed for forming a death ball? Was this intentional? If not, then is Protoss getting a less gimmicky/specialized unit in the future? - Was the dps to cost ratio of Terran units deliberate? (It currently exceeds that of other races across the board.) - There is a unit in the game that does 20 damage on armored, automatically slows when it hits, has 6 range, comes with 125hp, and costs only 100-25. In addition, it can stim for increased dps and movement speed. Can you explain why such a unit is not overpowered in the early stages of the game? - Shouldn't hellions cost gas to produce their fire? - Given that Ghost tech is cheaper, faster and less of a commitment than Templar tech, how do you justify Ghost abilities directly outranging other casters' abilities? - How do you justify EMP being unavoidable, dealing 100 damage, removing 100 energy, requiring no research, and having larger range and area than other similar spells? (not to mention it reveals cloak and affects buildings) | ||
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
| ||
|
Trumpstyle
Sweden114 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On October 21 2011 05:29 Trumpstyle wrote: In tournament play Terran has been overpowered every month since release according to statistic, why haven't you addressed this? That was common in broodwar (where one race was seemingly dominant for an extened amount of time) , they will just say that the best players are playing terrran. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
| ||
|
Faggatron
United Kingdom65 Posts
| ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:59 Roxy wrote: that would definitely be a cool custom map, but i dont think this has a place in SC2 multiplayer perhaps would be more suitable for WC4?? Uuum...that was a joke about how Activision Blizzard also happens to own the Call of Duty franchise, which has made the media's perception of gaming what it is today, for good or for ill. | ||
|
sunman1g
United States334 Posts
sigh | ||
|
Vansetsu
United States1454 Posts
TLDR- After SC2 being out for a year, what aspect do you consider more important for a successful game (lore single player graphics vs game balance online experience), and if the focus becomes more of an ESPORTS purist one, would you consider putting more manpower into making that a reality asap? | ||
|
Brotocol
243 Posts
On October 21 2011 05:39 sunman1g wrote: oh god so many people complaining about ghosts and mules, it's getting so SO boring. sigh The game's getting SO boring to watch right now because of those things. These are boring times! | ||
|
Spuick
Norway357 Posts
On October 21 2011 05:32 Chocolate wrote: That was common in broodwar (where one race was seemingly dominant for an extened amount of time) , they will just say that the best players are playing terrran. And they'd be right too. | ||
|
Nazza
Australia1654 Posts
I really like the fact that you have tried to put in/tried to make viable drop play for all three races. However, is it possible to make all three races viable "macro races"? Although playing a macro game is a solid strategy for all three races, their seems to be some races that focus more on harassment than others. In a previous interview, you said that you didn't play much Brood War and don't understand it. I understand that SC2 is a different game, but would you be willing to try out BW to get a better perspective? What about just reading battle reports? | ||
|
IMBAkorean
Canada835 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 21 2011 05:17 Deleuze wrote: This is indeed one of the smarter questions in the thread and I'd be grateful to hear it asked. Yes, i would ask this exact question, but make sure to use the actual word 'excitement' in there somewhere. | ||
|
carloselcoco
United States2302 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 21 2011 05:28 Osmoses wrote: OK serious question: there are issues with the defender's advantage when using warpgates. What is your reasoning for having warpgate cooldown actually be shorter than regular gateways? I remember hearing you speaking out against "non-choice" upgrades, but why would you NOT get warpgate tech? Exactly. Please ask this, as it hold them to their states goals of strategic options and relates directly to current issues with Protoss. | ||
|
TrickyGilligan
United States641 Posts
-Assuming that this interview takes place after the new units have been revealed, what gaps in a race's overall abilities do you see these new units filling? -From a design perspective, what do you see the "theme" of each race as being? What units fit with this overall theme? What units don't? | ||
|
Flossy
United States870 Posts
Where are ma lurkers? And reavers? | ||
|
XRaDiiX
Canada1730 Posts
Why are Hydra's the Most Awful Unit in the Game except for ZvZ in some situations( Whenever Zerg is forced to make them against Air Toss-- They Tech into Robo(Colossus) And they become Useless.) Also When you Commit with an attack with Hydralisk in 90% of Situations its an All-In Attack because your creep spread in Real situations is not all the way to the enemy base; so by the time you attack with them a retreat with Hydralisks is unrealistic. They will get left behind when an Army Retreats. (Fix the Hydralisk Its Awful) P.S( Buff Ultra (So it gets more use) , Nerf Ghosts. EMP (It seems OP vs Toss) ) | ||
|
Ksyper
Bulgaria665 Posts
Also will we get the hydra speed upgrade for hots? Are they planning on a new way for spearing creep? Seriously JP you have to ask about the hydras, so many people care. It's the most iconic zerg unit and has been turned one of the least used units. Can't we go back to the old hydra :D? | ||
|
Brotocol
243 Posts
On October 21 2011 05:57 Ksyper wrote: As a zerg player I want to ask how would DB view the idea of nerfing the roach or the hydra, but also making them cheaper and cost 1 food, that way zerg can go back to the swarm feel it used to have, because right now lategame the zerg army is the same size as the toss and terran ones. I like this idea. Maybe if it's too specific, it can be reworded into a "preserving racial identity" question. Hope this question gets selected! | ||
|
tsuxiit
1305 Posts
| ||
|
psteeleneg
48 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
TheGlassface
United States612 Posts
On October 21 2011 05:42 Nazza wrote: What is your stance on the time it takes for battles to occur? It seems that a lot of units do alot of damage with little or no micro and/or people are willing just to their units die in exchange for the amount of damage they do. Any plans for changing this? I really like the fact that you have tried to put in/tried to make viable drop play for all three races. However, is it possible to make all three races viable "macro races"? Although playing a macro game is a solid strategy for all three races, their seems to be some races that focus more on harassment than others. In a previous interview, you said that you didn't play much Brood War and don't understand it. I understand that SC2 is a different game, but would you be willing to try out BW to get a better perspective? What about just reading battle reports? Lmao..? Seriously? Man, that suddenly explains so much to me... | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 05:38 PraetorialGamer wrote: Uuum...that was a joke about how Activision Blizzard also happens to own the Call of Duty franchise, which has made the media's perception of gaming what it is today, for good or for ill. My bad, i just read the first couple words thought "NO" and responded sorry | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 21 2011 05:58 psteeleneg wrote: Ask him Why they can't just change the ladder maps to NOT HAVE CLOSE POSITIONS allowed? It wouldn't be hard to do, and they could make their own blizzard official ladder maps like that...they wouldn't need to like take MLG maps or anything. Because the problem is small and bad maps, not close positions. Having close positions possible is a good thing, but only if the map is big enough. | ||
|
rockerman101
United States85 Posts
| ||
|
Timerly
Germany511 Posts
Did you create a unit with a certain role that has now changed significantly? What was the most surprising usage you have seen so far? | ||
|
gurrpp
United States437 Posts
| ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
| ||
|
Datum
United States371 Posts
| ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:00 TheGlassface wrote: Lmao..? Seriously? Man, that suddenly explains so much to me... This has to be the NUMBER ONE QUESTION ASKED: HAVE YOU PLAYED BW!? | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
Did you create a unit with a certain role that has now changed significantly? What was the most surprising usage you have seen so far? Id be very interested to know this I doubt they knew about the magic boxing on thors Honestly, to me, it seems like they designed this game not knowing units could kite | ||
|
kuroshiro
United Kingdom378 Posts
| ||
|
Swwww
Switzerland812 Posts
How do you feel that the statement that "the biggest problem with sc2 and game balance is due to the game engine being too good." Do you have any plans to change unit pathing and especially clumping in the future to fix this issue? | ||
|
zhurai
United States5660 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:09 amazingxkcd wrote: This has to be the NUMBER ONE QUESTION ASKED: HAVE YOU PLAYED BW!? follow up question if it's no "WHY THE HELL NOT" | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
Would you consider making DLC for Starcraft 2, which a general theme on "party game" content, such as variations on the popular Left 2 Die custom map. Much of the community would be very willing to spend $8 a month to purchase DLC. Also, can you take colossi and other boring units that we all obviously hate and replace them with units from Brood War? Have you considering firing the devs if they don't begin a port of Starcraft 2 to the Xbox? With regards, Praetorial Seems to be the general sentiment... | ||
|
daliLlama
Sweden25 Posts
What are your thoughts on the need for more "skill elements" to further the validity of SC2 as an esport? Are you at all concerned that the game might be to easy at a top level and that leads to a wacky variance factor that might serve to invalidate it as an eSport? | ||
|
TheGlassface
United States612 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:14 PraetorialGamer wrote: Dear Mr. Dustin Browder, Would you consider making DLC for Starcraft 2, which a general theme on "party game" content, such as variations on the popular Left 2 Die custom map. Much of the community would be very willing to spend $8 a month to purchase DLC. Also, can you take colossi and other boring units that we all obviously hate and replace them with units from Brood War? Have you considering firing the devs if they don't begin a port of Starcraft 2 to the Xbox? With regards, Praetorial Seems to be the general sentiment... Quit signing your posts, your name is visible less than 3 inches up on the screen. I think DLC is an atrocious idea. Just because BNET 2.0 can't manage to have a decent UMS system doesn't mean we should have to pay for mods the community would gladly make if they could actually play them. | ||
|
Hikari
1914 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
However, I want a new game, not an old game. Personally I think colosus is fine. If you remove colosus what are you going to put in? reavers with prisms? like that isnt a huge target for range 9 vikings. You can play brood war custom games Having said that, if they just remade BW on the SC2 engine and had ranked ladder games of broodwar (using the SC2 engine) that would be wicked. Probably wouldnt work though with teh new UI etc (clumping, smart casting). Might also dilute their users | ||
|
Isaac
United States810 Posts
| ||
|
Mortal
2943 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:14 PraetorialGamer wrote: Much of the community would be very willing to spend $8 a month to purchase DLC. With regards, Praetorial lol, no. this is the worst idea i've ever heard and i don't think anyone in the community wants this to be wow the rts. also, you have a "SIGNATURE" for a reason | ||
|
intotheheart
Canada33091 Posts
Is it because they wanted someone who wasn't a total fanboy/girl running the show? Or was it just because he knew what the hell he was doing? PS. DLC is a dreadful idea. | ||
|
labbe
Sweden1456 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:22 Mortal wrote: lol, no. this is the worst idea i've ever heard and i don't think anyone in the community wants this to be wow the rts. also, you have a "SIGNATURE" for a reason He's obviously not serious lol | ||
|
Itrees
United States59 Posts
| ||
|
Crappy
France224 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:14 PraetorialGamer wrote: Dear Mr. Dustin Browder, Would you consider making DLC for Starcraft 2, which a general theme on "party game" content, such as variations on the popular Left 2 Die custom map. Much of the community would be very willing to spend $8 a month to purchase DLC. Also, can you take colossi and other boring units that we all obviously hate and replace them with units from Brood War? Have you considering firing the devs if they don't begin a port of Starcraft 2 to the Xbox? With regards, Praetorial Seems to be the general sentiment... WTF, is this a troll ? Sc2 on Xbox ? DLC ? Worst idea you could ever have... | ||
|
TheGlassface
United States612 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:24 IntoTheheart wrote: Why would Dustin be in charge of SCII if he didn't play BW? Is it because they wanted someone who wasn't a total fanboy/girl running the show? Or was it just because he knew what the hell he was doing? PS. DLC is a dreadful idea. I'm assuming relative experience in the field from other companies? I don't think they gave 2 shits about fanboyism, they gave every bit of their care to $$$. And if you're implying that shit eater has any idea what he is doing, I am going to have to go ahead and say no to that, laughing all the while. DB has no business in gaming. He's the Rob Liefield of video games. | ||
|
wolfe
United States761 Posts
Why can't different leagues have slightly different map pools? | ||
|
TERRANLOL
United States626 Posts
| ||
|
RedDragon571
United States633 Posts
There's a certain magic and excitement that I experience playing brood war that is a bit lackluster when playing sc2. There is a rush you get when holding of a swarm of fast one supply hydras (trolling hard) and zerglings using just a few units defensive structures and your high ground advantage. Also micro seems to be much more outcome changing in Brood war relative to sc2. I think the lack of micro dynamics in addition to a almost non-existent high ground terrain advantage really takes out the important of positioning and the outcome of each area of space controlled. So Dusty, in upcoming balance patches or HOTS will we see any changes to the space control, terrain advantage or micro aspects from the game. | ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
| ||
|
BushidoSnipr
United States910 Posts
Are there destructible rocks in the office at Blizzard HQ? Also-What race do you play Dustin? | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:29 TERRANLOL wrote: Let's not suggest requiring sc2 users to spend more money? Thanks. I'm not going to volunteer to spend more money, but I am willing to spend more if it means a better quality game This is the only game I play, and honestly I have averaged down the cost of WOL probably to $0.25 per hour. | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:30 BushidoSnipr wrote: You guys have taken quite a bit to make this epic expansion for SC2, and I was just wondering.... Are there destructible rocks in the office at Blizzard HQ? Also-What race do you play Dustin? lol.. dustin doesnt play this game... pssshaw | ||
|
Drake
Germany6146 Posts
i really dont know what to do in my time xD ah and obvious the 2nd question, how does it feel come from an rts thats only multiplayer strategy is TANKPUSH vs TANKPUSH to a game like sc2 (yes c&c is no esport !)and his thinking about the new c&c 4 and how long did he laught about the crap they did xD | ||
|
fuzzayy
United States99 Posts
On October 21 2011 04:36 trGKakarot wrote: "Dear Mr. Browder, Currently, Terran has very powerful early game all-in attacks; mostly due to the high DPS of Marines and early expansion builds by their opponent. Don't you think that a reasonable solution to this would be to simply put destructible rocks at every natural expansion in order to encourage one base play until later in the game?" You have no brain. Get out of here | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:14 PraetorialGamer wrote: Dear Mr. Dustin Browder, Would you consider making DLC for Starcraft 2, which a general theme on "party game" content, such as variations on the popular Left 2 Die custom map. Much of the community would be very willing to spend $8 a month to purchase DLC. Also, can you take colossi and other boring units that we all obviously hate and replace them with units from Brood War? Have you considering firing the devs if they don't begin a port of Starcraft 2 to the Xbox? With regards, Praetorial Seems to be the general sentiment... As a note, I was writing that question to illustrate the prevailing attitude that Blizzard just cares about money, and that removing boring units is a good idea. In reality, I would ask a more general question as, "What do you see Starcraft 2 becoming as an Esport in relation to Brood War and League of Legends, are there any plans in development to host large-scale Blizzard-sponsored tournaments to boost the playerbase?" | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
He does have a point though. Perhaps every base should have destructible rocks to get out of it. Every choke on the map should probably have destructible rocks on it.. you know.. to balance rushes/late game play | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:26 TheGlassface wrote: I'm assuming relative experience in the field from other companies? I don't think they gave 2 shits about fanboyism, they gave every bit of their care to $$$. And if you're implying that shit eater has any idea what he is doing, I am going to have to go ahead and say no to that, laughing all the while. DB has no business in gaming. He's the Rob Liefield of video games. Get the fuck over yourself. LMAO shiteater? way to be classy. DB has no business on gaming? He designed 3 positively received (by both critics and saleswise) RTSs. He probably has more experience in game design than all the armchair designers in TL combined. You might not agree with his design decisions but don't undermine a man's career on your manchildnes. Maybe you should stop being a callous nerd and learn that you are not as big shit as you think you are.LOL | ||
|
SpoR
United States1542 Posts
This is especially bad when you have exhibition tournaments (like blizzcon) and everyone just groans at the map pool selection (most specifically shattered temple). Also, what's the deal with just changing the drocks around or removing close spawn positions on maps? That seems really lazy to me, get to work on some map balance and then you will have a far easier time balancing the races. PS- stop making worthless changes to the UI and battlenet and actually make some improvements that people want.. | ||
|
Imperfect1987
United States558 Posts
| ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:44 usethis2 wrote: I would like to ask what his thought on balancing the game in an underhanded manner, under the guise of "bug fixes". There were a couple that I remember, but most prominent one is when they tried to force users to tab keys as many times in order to create units, instead of pressing and holding down the key. (Baneling drop "bug fix" is a similar one as well as no warp-in on ramp) Everyone knew that it was not a bug, but rather a "quick fix" that they attempted to slow down Zerg's mid-late game macro. Of course it was retracted because it was not right - you shouldn't balance the game by chancing the mechanic or harming users' physical well-being. Ask him what he thinks of these secret/quiet "bug fixes" that do not appear on balance change notes but nonetheless affects the balance or game play. How often do they have done it, and whether he feels guilty on these opaque balance changes that players may not recognize. As much as I despise politics and hidden agendas, it is no surprise that big companies and politicians use these things to avoid the masses complaining about crap they don't understand fully. It may be wrong and despicable, but they all eventually do it. Think of it this way, if you want to be a snob. The average bnet forum poster won't notice the changes, but the average TL poster will not. Now who overall has a better grasp on the game? Probably TL, you would think... although I suspect half the users on here are truly affected by their favorite pro heroes' opinions. And who would be more likely to freak out on public Blizzard forums and cause embarrassment when it is uncalled for? | ||
|
TrickyGilligan
United States641 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:18 Hikari wrote: Will you be willing to show up for a team liquid attack? Seconding this one, would be fucking awesome. | ||
|
sixfour
England11061 Posts
| ||
|
Patarach
United States13 Posts
| ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
1. Does the majority of the balance team study high level tournaments? I keep hearing rumors they don't much and hope that is just a bad joke. 2. Can we get some more difficult to perform but high reward micro units/abilities? Those units sort of help balance the lower and higher players quite a bit. | ||
|
Clonze
Canada281 Posts
1) Will we get an extra account with HotS or will we only be able to upgrade our WoL account? (a lot of us really want a secondary account to offrace and mess around with) 2) Are the HoTS units necessary for starcraft to evolve into a more entertaining and balanced game? Will the HoTS units be added in to help with the weaknesses within each race or are they added in for the lack of strategies with specific production facilities? ps. we HATE 50% answers... like, "Oh they're added in for a little of everything" that completely destroys any thought put into making the question -.- | ||
|
Brotocol
243 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:34 PraetorialGamer wrote: As a note, I was writing that question to illustrate the prevailing attitude that Blizzard just cares about money, and that removing boring units is a good idea. In reality, I would ask a more general question as, "What do you see Starcraft 2 becoming as an Esport in relation to Brood War and League of Legends, are there any plans in development to host large-scale Blizzard-sponsored tournaments to boost the playerbase?" That was your second hipster sarcasm post which you had to explain. How about sticking to the "in reality" part, lest someone take your DLC suggestion seriously? | ||
|
Pwnographics
New Zealand1097 Posts
Can destructible rocks fight back and spread like creep? Many regards. | ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:48 intrigue wrote: phoenix autoattack ruins the potential to trick opponents into thinking it's a hallucination. can we make this a toggle? such an ez change. more reasons: to sneak past overlords to harass while your opponent is distracted, and not having a "units under attack" alert come up. might make precision dart in dart out snipe micro better, as no shots would be wasted on closer units on approach to a specific target. I'll second this. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9376 Posts
I have a question regarding the PvT matchups. At high level play all we see from the terran players are heavy bio play, and the problem with bio play is that its most of the time not very interesting to watch as a spectator. Most of the time nothing major has happens (except a few drops) for 15 minutes before a big clash happens, and then one of the players wins the game. Compared to ZvT there are small battles all the time, and its possible to make comebacks with the use of counter attacks for the zerg and through the strong defensive unit (siege tank) for the terran player. This is probably why this match up is genereally considered the most entertaining. So I wonder if there is any plan in HOTS to make siege tank play (mech) more viable vs protoss? | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
I think this would be awesome too!! dont forget to give us the toggle option on the hallucination pheonix as well :D Also, it would be nice to be able to hallucinate observers or something. Whenever we send an observer to an enemy base, it tells them just as much about us as it tells us about them. If they see an obs at the 9 minute mark. yes that means we went robo. yes, prepare for colosus. | ||
|
Shootemup.
United States1044 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:50 Hider wrote: Dear Mr. Dustin Browder. I have a question regarding the PvT matchups. At high level play all we see from the terran players are heavy bio play, and the problem with bio play is that its most of the time not very interesting to watch as a spectator. Most of the time nothing major has happens (except a few drops) for 15 minutes before a big clash happens, and then one of the players wins the game. Compared to ZvT there are small battles all the time, and its possible to make comebacks with the use of counter attacks for the zerg and through the strong defensive unit (siege tank) for the terran player. This is probably why this match up is genereally considered the most entertaining. So I wonder if there is any plan in HOTS to make siege tank play (mech) more viable vs protoss? Seconded, if we can make TvP as entertaining as TvZ, that would be great! | ||
|
Turbo.Tactics
Germany675 Posts
| ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
| ||
|
Alokiya
United States648 Posts
Mr. Browder, Several months ago, the Starcraft 2 team added it's first map to the ladder pool not made by Blizzard, Tal'Darim Alter (albeit a modified version). How likely is it that in the near future Blizzard will add another non Blizzard map to the ladder pool? | ||
|
Iatrik
Germany159 Posts
I know, that this idea of a hard counter already existed in BW (in form of a Firebat) , but it just seems to be silly. In TvZ (SC1) , the Firebat was strong against a 'swarm' of units. This seems logical. You'll have less units than your opponent, so you need some kind of hard counter to deal with this problem. In TvP (SC2) , the Marauder is strong against a 'handful' of protoss units. You have more units than your opponent, have a lower unit cost and are still able to have a very strong hard counter. It just doesn't seems logical. 2) Why do Protoss Upgrades scale so bad? Protoss is supposed to be the 'slow' and powerful race. So why does our slow building race have to become weaker and weaker as the game progresses? A 1-1 Roach will be stronger in a fight against a 1-1-1 Stalker, in comparison to a 0-0 Roach against a 0-0-0 Stalker. So , my 0-0-0 Stalker are way stronger early game, compared to the late game with 3-3-3. I do know, that we have chronoboost, but at the same time, we also need a shield upgrade to stay even in upgrades. It's just not logical. 3) Why is Terran the only race, that gets money for free, while Zerg & Protoss are only able to waste their money faster? 4) Why is Terran designed to counter everything so easily? They counter ground-armored(+massive), ground-light, air-armored(+massive), air-light and even buildings... You only have to swap tech labs. 5) Since Gateway Units are very weak and your opponent will always be able to counter your tech very fast, will there ever be a mechanic to do a better/more easy tech switch? Like a Stargate transforming into a robotics? 6) Will Protoss ever get more viable detection? I want to see more SAFE!! Stargate/Templar Play. 7) Since a Ghost can EMP/Cloak AND Launch Nukes, when will see a cloaked high templar for protoss? 8) A Protoss doesn't have any ways to get back into a game after he lost all his probes. Zerg is able to get a risky (but strong) drone-timing and Terrans have mules... Can we hope to ever get a macro-mechanic that equals the grounds? ex.: A Zerg can 6-Pool and still win A Protoss can never really win a base race with a Terran. A Terran can fail any kind of all-in and still win. A Protoss that does any all-in and fails, will just lose. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
In the name of e-sports, we would like the game clock and actions per minute to match real life units of measure. Can we toggle APM between true APM and 'effective' APM. Having APM be as high as possible is good when trying to impress people about the game. The clock one is just common sense. I'd like to know how much actual time has elapsed. We honestly haven't had this issue since the days of super nintendo. Will you consider these suggestions for the 'final' version of SC2? | ||
|
Rasun
United States787 Posts
| ||
|
Divergence
Canada363 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On October 21 2011 01:12 ZAiNs wrote: I'll answer this for you: pros don't play on the PTR, or post on the PTR forums. Then why have the PTR forums? And why implement changes suggested on them nearly a half a year later? | ||
|
tecthe4th
Canada16 Posts
oh wait.... | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
I would also love it if the unit build time of all units was displayed in real time as well | ||
|
NoScary
United States151 Posts
Why are low skill strategies viable at high levels of play? | ||
|
tzenes
Canada64 Posts
1. We all know that win rates from ladder have a heavy sampling bias because of the design of match making. However, at a pro-tournament level Terran have consistently shown good win rates since release. Why has this been allowed to persist? source: http://i.imgur.com/cGzPj.png 2. Why do Zerg have significantly fewer combat units than other races? | ||
|
Highways
Australia6103 Posts
With HotS do you plan to add higher skill ceiling on units? For example many people consider roach and marauder a unit where you just mass up and attack move. | ||
|
Demonhunter04
1530 Posts
On October 21 2011 03:02 0neder wrote: Spell Animations and Spectating Excitement In Wings of Liberty, a decision was made to omit attack animations from casted spells (excepting the infested terran). One PTR tested fungal having an animation, but it was not implemented. What was the reasoning behind this decision? Was it mainly lag/lack of LAN latencty, or were there other reasons? Many fans feel that a lack of spell animations (EMP/Fungal/etc) is bad for two reasons: 1 - It's confusing for new spectators since they don't know who is doing what 2 - It reduces the excitement when a spell successfully lands because a. It's too easy to anticipate/micro a spell to land and thus it happens often and is not exciting b. Because it is easy to land, the spell's power must be nerfed, making it less exciting even when damage is maximized. In light of this reasoning, would you consider giving spells animations in the 'final' version of professional, spectated SC2? Why or why not? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about exactly...EMP has an animation (you can see the round flying through the air)...do you mean a delay between cast and the spell landing? | ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:17 Demonhunter04 wrote: I'm not quite sure what you're talking about exactly...EMP has an animation (you can see the round flying through the air)...do you mean a delay between cast and the spell landing? Why is EMP instant? (or neigh on instantaneous anyway) Why doesn't snipe have some sort of animation? | ||
|
Spicy_Curry
United States10573 Posts
What do you think has been the balance teams greatest failure and greatest triumph in this last year? Do you think that the viking, a 9 ranged air unit, is too much considering that it deals with two of protoss's tier 3 units, Collosus and Carrier. Would it be a more interesting unit if it was a ground unit rather than an air unit? Currently the ghost is superior to the high templar because of the increased range, cloak, movespeed and the ability to remove energy in an aoe. Is this unit being looked at in the future, even with perfect micro you depend on the terran not paying attention in order to land the feedback. Thanks! | ||
|
carloselcoco
United States2302 Posts
Also, what is the current status on replay watching with someone else online? | ||
|
SkimGuy
Canada709 Posts
| ||
|
yOiyuK
United States108 Posts
Q1: Why do you neglect additional hydralisk upgrades? I feel having a speed upgrade that makes hydralisks viable off creep is really healthy for the game. Q2: Will the corruptor be removed/or rather replaced? Q3: Will we ever see a return of the dark archon? Particularly the maelstrom ability. | ||
|
Horse...falcon
United States1851 Posts
| ||
|
johnnywup
United States3858 Posts
| ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
| ||
|
PPTouch
99 Posts
| ||
|
Sueco
Sweden283 Posts
"Your stated design intent with removing overlord detection is that it allowed Zerg to survive cloaked units with little to no preparation. Why wasn't the same philosophy applied to scans?" "Many BW abilities were removed or redesigned due to their high DPS or utility against only one race, yet EMP still gives anywhere from 60 to 100 instant AoE DPS against one specific race. Why was EMP kept untouched?" "Considering the dramatic results that things like 2-port banshee can yield against Zerg and crucially, only against Zerg, do you regret the design decision a few months before beta that switched the tech-tree places of roaches and hydralisks?" "Dark pylons were tested and then removed due to the economy-warping cascade effects that higher gathering rates gave. The MULE recreates this very same problem. How do you intend to solve this?" | ||
|
arbitrageur
Australia1202 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:42 Sueco wrote: A few just off the top of my head: "Your stated design intent with removing overlord detection is that it allowed Zerg to survive cloaked units with little to no preparation. Why wasn't the same philosophy applied to scans?" "Many BW abilities were removed or redesigned due to their high DPS or utility against only one race, yet EMP still gives anywhere from 60 to 100 instant AoE DPS against one specific race. Why was EMP kept untouched?" "Considering the dramatic results that things like 2-port banshee can yield against Zerg and crucially, only against Zerg, do you regret the design decision a few months before beta that switched the tech-tree places of roaches and hydralisks?" "Dark pylons were tested and then removed due to the economy-warping cascade effects that higher gathering rates tend to give. The MULE simply recreates this very same problem. How do you intend to solve this?" Q1: Turret. Q3: 2 port is easy to hold off. Scout gas timing, rax timing, number of marines out of rax, lack of reactor hellion or reaper, move out timing. If not, overlord suicide or gas steal. There are some spots where you can't scout it in principle because it's cross positions metalopolis and you've sent overlord close air, but in most cases you can stop it. If you're that concerned, steal his gas so he can never 2 port. | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
You have tried to delay the efficiency of Terran all-ins by delaying bunker time and barracks time builds. Given that marines are the damage-dealers in almost all of the early-game Terran all-ins, have you considered making marines have less base HP (say, 10-15 less) and having Combat Shield give 10-15 more HP than it does now? Marines wouldn't change in the mid/lategame, but Combat Shield would become a necessary upgrade for all-ins, slowing down a lot of 6 naked rax/2 rax/1-1-1/etc. strategies that offer some of the least skill-intensive viable win options for Terran. | ||
|
Blizzard_torments_me
Romania199 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:42 Sueco wrote: A few just off the top of my head: "Your stated design intent with removing overlord detection is that it allowed Zerg to survive cloaked units with little to no preparation. Why wasn't the same philosophy applied to scans?" "Many BW abilities were removed or redesigned due to their high DPS or utility against only one race, yet EMP still gives anywhere from 60 to 100 instant AoE DPS against one specific race. Why was EMP kept untouched?" "Considering the dramatic results that things like 2-port banshee can yield against Zerg and crucially, only against Zerg, do you regret the design decision a few months before beta that switched the tech-tree places of roaches and hydralisks?" "Dark pylons were tested and then removed due to the economy-warping cascade effects that higher gathering rates gave. The MULE recreates this very same problem. How do you intend to solve this?" God, how can you complain about MULEs with that so powerful zerg economy you have. The hypocricy of some of you zergs is simply astonishing... | ||
|
Pgbz
Canada55 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:52 Blizzard_torments_me wrote: God, how can you complain about MULEs with that so powerful zerg economy you have. The hypocricy of some of you zergs is simply astonishing... I play protoss Can I complain about MULE? | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
From a design philosophy, Terran appears to be defensively-oriented with bunkers, siege tanks and planetary fortresses. Yet they also have the most mobile offensive units in the game in the form of cloaked banshees, medivac drops, hellions, etc. What would you say is the trade-off of playing Terran? Zerg, for example, rely more on numbers than powerful units to win, while Protoss units are very expensive and relatively immobile, though powerful. | ||
|
tnud
Sweden2233 Posts
Because of the 111 I give you permission dear sir. If you rage too hard mods might take action but I will stay passive. :D | ||
|
Blizzard_torments_me
Romania199 Posts
No, not until Terran get's a reactor on CC | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
and if you remove the planetary fortress i'll love you forever, thanks | ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:55 Blizzard_torments_me wrote: No, not until Terran get's a reactor on CC Seriously? i'm going to have to wait until LOTV to complain? | ||
|
NineteenSC2
Canada117 Posts
I) How do you feel about mules carrying on in the late game? Terrans can be an expansion or two behind but make up for it by sending down 9-10 mules at one expansion and be AHEAD of their opponent. II) How do you feel about scans? They give terrans the perfect mechanic for positioning late game, and since you have 5-6 orbitals, it doesn't hurt to use a few in a maxed out battle. III) Do you think ghosts make or break a TvP maxed out battle? Many people think it comes down to whether a terran carpets his emps or a protoss gets his storms on. Isolating the two units, isn't the ghost much easier to use and much more efficient? Moreover, Terran has full map vision through scans, and if a bad engagement does occur a terran can stim and run, whereas a protoss would drop a lot of supply if he were to do the same IV) In Starcraft I terran had its tech fairly spread out like the other two races. Meaning, if you were to get all your tech on one base you wouldn't win a high level game. This is rather the opposite in starcraft II. Terran tech is very convenient to get, and you can get it all on one base, yet still do very strong timing pushes. Do you feel terran tech needs to be a bit more widespread? Maybe addons for barracks' and addons for starport should not be the same? V) What's the story with the season 4 ladder map pool not changing? Is there a good reason for this? There was a recent Poll on teamliquid and over 94% people voted they were looking forward to new maps. VI) Another question carrying on from the previous. Blizzard says GSL maps aren't taken into the ladder pool because they're too big and casual players would not like it. Maybe for a season we can take a few GSL maps and see if the casual players are okay with it? In its entirety the ladder system is meant to improve a player, so why not help them learn that scouting is important? Who knows, maybe they'll like the new maps. That's all. Yes, I am protoss and yes all of my questions are regarding terran. | ||
|
Artosis Mermaid
United States34 Posts
Considering the GSL has devolved into TvT for most of its televised matches, do you think there was an error in designing the Terran race, or is it that the other races were simply underdeveloped/too weak? Also why were mules made to be so forgiving compared to something like Larvae Injecting, yet are still the most powerful of the macro mechanics? | ||
|
Fungal Growth
United States434 Posts
Specifically for the more mindless tedious tasks. eg Auto-inject larvae, auto-spread creep tumor, better ways of chrono boosting and warp-gating without having to divert attention from the battle? Will there be more hot key options? eg The ability to hotkey the toggle keys (make the spacebar shift which is very ergonomic) or add more selection options (like a hot-key to cycle back through your recently selections). This game can be made VERY ergnomic with some clever design. Are Browder and company worried about the number of pro players contracting premature carpal tunnel? | ||
|
Tezzick
Canada187 Posts
Cake or pie? | ||
|
Everhate
United States640 Posts
Has there been consideration to redesign or remove any of the abilities, and what effects would that have on the other units the race(s) have access to? | ||
|
TheStonedGuest
United States19 Posts
1) Do you ever plan on making mech-play viable versus Protoss? 2) Would you ever consider making the Ghost's EMP a carbon copy of the Science Vessel's in BW (i.e. requiring research and fired as a vaguely quick missile that, if you're good enough, you can possibly dodge with good micro)? 3) When will Carriers stop being a joke unit? A month or two from now? A year from now? Three years from now? Never? 4) Would you ever consider replacing the Infestor with the Defiler, as well as bringing back the Lurker? Sorry if this one's a tad delusional, but I like to dream | ||
|
TutsiRebel
United States172 Posts
Which matchup(s) do you enjoy watching most, and which matchup(s) do you enjoy watching least? What do you think your team can do to enrich all the matchups? | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
Even Google wants to know: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/U8Qxa.jpg) | ||
|
Snaphoo
United States614 Posts
Even Google wants to know | ||
|
Highways
Australia6103 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:54 Snaphoo wrote: Dustin-- From a design philosophy, Terran appears to be defensively-oriented with bunkers, siege tanks and planetary fortresses. Yet they also have the most mobile offensive units in the game in the form of cloaked banshees, medivac drops, hellions, etc. What would you say is the trade-off of playing Terran? Zerg, for example, rely more on numbers than powerful units to win, while Protoss units are very expensive and relatively immobile, though powerful. Tradeoff to playing Terran is Idra doesn't respect you and demands an apology. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
Let's face it. Hydras are terrible, you'd think they'd be good for anti-air defense due to the creepspread not going very far and their speed on creep (and off of it is incredibly slow), but they die fast, are terrible against nearly all match-ups, even in high numbers and their intended use is shrouded by every other unit. They don't compliment roaches because their mineral to gas cost is just an upgrade from the roach. | ||
|
Ryder.
1117 Posts
On October 21 2011 07:53 Pgbz wrote: Ever thought about making the Khaydarin Amulet upgrade only work with gateway? Would even make a use to transform a Warp Gate back into a Gateway, as it have no use to do it right now. Not a big change at all but it's kind of unfair protoss doesn't have this energy update. This is what should have been done instead of removing it. What exactly would be the point of that? Current situation: you warp in HT anywhere you want, wait 40 seconds for enough energy to storm, after which you have a functioning warpgate you can use for your next unit (after cooldown). In the mean time you can use HT for feedback or archon Your suggestion: spend 150/150 on upgrade, wait 50 seconds for HT to build in gateway, where you have no choice where it spawns, can't use for feedback or archon, and after which you gotta waste 10 seconds + effort to turn in back into warpgate if you wanna use it for different unit... Some good questions though, hopefully a lot will be answered during their presentation of HOTS anyway... | ||
|
Wr4ith_Bl4d3
Australia27 Posts
Have you considered employing progamers to help with the balancing of SC2? To my understanding the current methodology uses internal testers as well as statistics and some external feedback to drive balance. However what I'm proposing is the recruitment of progamers in the long term for the development and balancing of the game. Thanks. | ||
|
rift
1819 Posts
On October 21 2011 09:57 Wr4ith_Bl4d3 wrote: Dustin, Have you considered employing progamers to help with the balancing of SC2? To my understanding the current methodology uses internal testers as well as statistics and some external feedback to drive balance. However what I'm proposing is the recruitment of progamers in the long term for the development and balancing of the game. Thanks. Impossible for them to be unbiased. | ||
|
hobosrus
United States99 Posts
| ||
|
PPTouch
99 Posts
On October 21 2011 08:17 TheStonedGuest wrote: Dear Mr. Browder, 1) Do you ever plan on making mech-play viable versus Protoss? 2) Would you ever consider making the Ghost's EMP a carbon copy of the Science Vessel's in BW (i.e. requiring research and fired as a vaguely quick missile that, if you're good enough, you can possibly dodge with good micro)? 3) When will Carriers stop being a joke unit? A month or two from now? A year from now? Three years from now? Never? 4) Would you ever consider replacing the Infestor with the Defiler, as well as bringing back the Lurker? Sorry if this one's a tad delusional, but I like to dream i think your #4 is the least delusional of that group brah | ||
|
WillDerBeast
United States4 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12387 Posts
| ||
|
sitromit
7051 Posts
According to TLPD map stats from the highest level of play however, the opposite of this is true, and in tournament games, both maps are Terran favored, with Tal'darim having a >60% win rate for Terran in TvZ, and Metalopolis having a 57% bias. Both maps are much closer to 50% in PvZ. Does this mean, that you consider ladder the highest level of play, and completely ignore professional games and tournament play when making your balance decisions, as your statements would appear to indicate? | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
On October 21 2011 10:17 WillDerBeast wrote: Which was the more imbalanced, game breaking Protoss upgrade, Flux Vanes or Khaydarin Amulet? Khaydarin Amulet, of course. While Flux Vanes made Void Rays significantly better for a cost, Amulet pretty much forced any opponent into extreme caution when approaching a pylon, as high templars could just warp in and obliterate armies. | ||
|
Peleus
Australia420 Posts
| ||
|
Treble557
United States221 Posts
On October 21 2011 00:26 Kanil wrote: Why was the Colossus made so forgiving compared to other units with similar functions (Siege Tank, Brood Lord, Reaver, Lurker, etc) Most of these units have clear weaknesses that offset their immense strength, forcing the player to use the unit skillfully to get the maximum out of it, but the Colossus tends to be incredibly forgiving with it's reasonable movespeed, ability to walk over other units (or even up a cliff!) to escape an attacker, lack of minimum range, no need to deploy it's weapon, and large amount of hitpoints. Was the unit designed to be more forgiving, or are it's ease of use advantages supposed to be countered by it's vulnerability to AA fire? Are you happy with the current forgiveness (or lack thereof) in the Colossus? This is another really solid question | ||
|
mordk
Chile8385 Posts
As the game has evolved, we've seen many things change. However, I feel like there's a real problem with Protoss as a race. I feel you intended Protoss to have a certain feel, but in the end, it played out a complete different way. Why do you think this happened? Why do you think the void-ray ended up being a harassing unit instead of a truly solid damage dealer? Why do you think the Immortal is mainly used as a DPS unit instead of a Tank like it was probably meant to? Why do you think Warp-gate technology backfired and ended up weakening protoss as a race, even if it makes it somewhat more versatile? The point is, protoss has passed from being a "strong" race in BW, with powerful individual units which are rather cost effective, into this, sneaky race, which must rely on gimmicky stuff working in order to succeed, or rather, to increase the cost effectiveness of its units enough to make them viable. This holds particularly true for gateway units. I have the feeling protoss is a completely different product than intended. What do you think about this? Why did this happen? And most importantly (if true), what do you plan to do about it? Another question, about warp-gate: It seems to me the warp-gate tech forces gateway units to be significantly weaker. What do you think about modifying warpgate tech and making gateways viable as the main army constructing building? Right now the warpgate is a truly powerful tech which demands absolutely no decision making. You might as well eliminate the gateway completely, it doesn't really matter. What about reducing the power of warpgates, so it's useful in specific situations, so the player has to make a decision as to when and why he wants to activate warpgates? This probably would have to be about building times, increasing build times through warpgates, while reducing them through gateways and making the units stronger seems viable, to me at least. | ||
|
hawliet
Mexico112 Posts
| ||
|
Lom
54 Posts
| ||
|
Toastmold
Canada207 Posts
Has your outlook towards feedback changed the way handle it for Heart of the Swarm? | ||
|
Champi
1422 Posts
you already have your fingers in all the pies in terms of money because all the tournaments are platformed on b.net. you hide behind the argument that you cater your maps to meet the requests of players from every league (i.e rush maps for bronze players who wanna improve their rushes) i see no evidence of this, as far as i am aware, everyone of all skill levels by the majority, watch GSL, MLG, DreamHack, and other tournaments of the like, all these tournaments either use a map pool with maps NOT made by blizzard, or EDIT maps made by blizzard to balance it (e.g removing close positions) sc2 players watch tournaments for entertainment, but also to LEARN, by watching their favourite players, and the best players in the world compete on these maps. lower level players do not want your bad imbalanced maps to play on, they want to learn how to play like their idols, and play on the maps they play on. why cant you at least consider hiring map makers to make your ladder maps for us if your greed is the issue? at least we dont have to put up with your horrible map designs that make the game less fun to play | ||
|
phathom321
United States1730 Posts
Also what were the reasons behind using those maps for Blizzcon when you have said before in interviews that ladder maps are not necessarily designed for tournament play? | ||
|
xdividebyzerox
34 Posts
they're all sarcastic right? | ||
|
Moldwood
United States280 Posts
Why? | ||
|
onemanlan
United States13 Posts
Are there any plans to change the space around units so they don't clump so damn tight? In SC1 you could reasonably assalt a tank line without losing your entire army, but still taking losses. In SC2 units clump so poorly that if you charge a tank line, even when attempting to spread your units out, they clump back together only to get slaughtered, same vs AOE spells Are there any projected changes(reduced time, increased energy cost, etc) to forcefield in the future? | ||
|
simansh
257 Posts
On October 21 2011 08:36 Torte de Lini wrote: Please explain the role of the Hydra and if you believe it's use is as intended and you think it should be. Let's face it. Hydras are terrible, you'd think they'd be good for anti-air defense due to the creepspread not going very far and their speed on creep (and off of it is incredibly slow), but they die fast, are terrible against nearly all match-ups, even in high numbers and their intended use is shrouded by every other unit. They don't compliment roaches because their mineral to gas cost is just an upgrade from the roach. To be honest it isn't SC2's worst problem right now, I mean hydras have seen a resurgence in ZvP. Look at Idra going good ole hydra roach corrupter in iem and mlg games. I think Ive also seen losira do it in the gsl once. | ||
|
zodde
Sweden1908 Posts
First one could very well be serious, though +2 atk for each upgrade might make blink stalkers the only protoss build ^^ The second could also pass for a serious question I guess (nothing I'd want to lower though). The third is definately sarcastic/troll. The fourth is outright ridiculous xD I think he's trying to hide his trolling/sarcasm by starting out with a semi-serious question and then go down hill from there. | ||
|
Mycl
Australia1370 Posts
| ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
Why do you hate TvP Mech so much? Are their plans to make it viable in HOTs? | ||
|
rave[wcr]
United States1166 Posts
| ||
|
drcatellino
Canada346 Posts
When you ask a question, you should be interested in the answer the person can give you, you don't want to make a full statement and turn it into an unanswerable sarcastic arrogant "Why don't you respond to this criticism ?" You guys sounds like children having their parents make a press conference after christmas to be able to trap them into admiting how bad their gifts were. | ||
|
Lobotomist
United States1541 Posts
1) But more seriously, this: On October 20 2011 23:48 Predguin wrote: A slight nerf to marine attack animation would be the perfect way to take a little potency from terran's early game, which seems to be a problem for Protoss, and a huge problem for zerg, especially considering close positions on ladder.Do you have any thoughts on the Marine's attack animation? They are incredibly easy to animation cancel/stutter-step, and even more so when stim-packed. (The muzzle flash is still visible on their guns when they kite!) It makes them incredibly efficient DPS dealers and melee-kiters, much more so than in SC1 or Brood War. Do you think a slight adjustment should be made to their animation to make them harder to stutter-step? Because it seems that a lot of their use and cost-efficiency comes from their ability to be easily micro'd. Edit: a couple more. 2) Have you considered removing or significantly delaying Protoss warpgate tech? The current balance situation with warpgates requires gateway units to be balanced around possible mass-warpgate timings attacks (4-gate, 6-gate, etc) yet if one is not doing such a timing (and thus will necessarily have less units) Protoss has a very slim defenders advantage to rely on (forcefields and cannons, though cannons are sometimes not an option, as forge is off the normal tech-path early game). This issue could be alleviated with the removal/delay of warpgates so that Protoss also has a reinforcement proximity defenders advantage. Overall this could lead to much less death-ball style play, as gateway units could be stronger, tech units could be weaker and the need to keep the army grouped (relying on the DPS of tech units) would lessen. 3) Why is the hydra so bad? I have no problem with some units being absent from standard play in some matchups, but the hydra is absent from standard play in every matchup. the gas to mineral ratio seems high for a unit that is extremely fragile and has limited mobility. Have you considered re-adding the speed upgrade? Edit 2: and this one! 4) Have you heard this joke?: A marine walks into a bar and asks, "where's the counter?" | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
Here's are my questions: 1: Looking at the publicly available information on SC2's development, we see that some units had pretty substantial changes. Most notably, the Colossus went from dealing damage to a single unit to having an AoE attack. This particular change gave Protoss an AoE unit, but it also gave us something new: an AoE unit with lots of mobility and high Hp. Granted, it could be attacked by air. Usually, one might think that radically altering the nature of a unit would mean scrapping the unit and building a new one for that specific purpose. Was this ever considered for the Colossus? Did Blizzard think to create a new AoE unit for the Protoss rather than grafting AoE to a mobile unit like the Colossus? 2: Terran Bio-play in TvP is centered primarily around mobility and harassment. It typically ends in a single, large clash of two armies, where one wins and the other loses. The match tends to be over at this point: the one who won the engagement wins the match, though it might linger on for 5+ minutes after. This is primarily due to a lack of units on both sides that become stronger when immobile (or are simply not very mobile but are powerful). The common refrain from the community is to buff Mech play for Terrans and/or drop the Colossus in favor of the Reaver. Has Blizzard considered giving Bio play options, such as a Barracks unit that becomes stronger while sacrificing mobility? Not as potent as a Siege Tank or some such, but something that is more positional than Marauders. 3: The current latency in multiplayer reduces some of the possible precision for the players involved and overall lowers the effective skill ceiling. Has Blizzard investigated networking models and/or code that would allow them to reduce latency further? After all, SC1 networking was viable over long distances even with so-called "LAN-latency". Is Blizzard making steps to improve this issue? Oh, and just in case it gets lost in the shuffle: On October 21 2011 00:00 Ribbon wrote: What would you consider your biggest mistake in designing SC2? What would you consider your greatest success? This. | ||
|
Doko
Argentina1737 Posts
- Why banshees have cloak when the other 2 races require drops/high ground vision to circumvent terrain chokes reinforced with detection to make their cloaked units pay off in the early game. If a terran wants to be sneaky early game why not force him down the ghost route just like protoss and zerg are forced to? - Why haven't you moved warp gate research to twilight council? It would fix so many of the problems you keep trying to band aid in PvP, it would allow you to buff gateway units for the early game without breaking the other race's defenses, or reduce the need for protoss aoe that keeps delivering games of 200/200 stalemates until that AoE is removed by ghosts or anti air or the AoE goes off and the other army is wiped out. | ||
|
IamPryda
United States1186 Posts
| ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
is there any chance of adjusting the terran tech tree in regard to the helion? it crushes all other tier 1 units so soundly that it forces the t+z comp in every game. will you ever bring in the 'overlays' in to team games. to show the work supply in pretty bars and stuff, its just a nice bonus. you could break it down by player then use a larger divider in the middle to show the seperation of teams, its not so hard will there ever be grandmaster for team leagues? either you support them competitively (theres a ranked ladder) or you dont. all the arguments against XvX grandmaster leagues also hold true for 1v1 can guardian shield be looked at? it makes such an insane difference in early game tvp that balancing the units is a lot harder, and adds even more value to the already expensive sentry. are blizzard bothered at all by the vulnerability of zerg and protoss detection? mothership plays that involving targetting overseers or just vortexing them, 1/1/1s just removing the obs then trolling with banshees isnt fun gameplay. its too easy to cripple them against stealth. i could go on | ||
|
necrOtix
81 Posts
when will we get name changes? | ||
|
drcatellino
Canada346 Posts
Instead of : "OMG Marauder so imba, cost nothing, lots of HP, lots of damage, stim, why you don't nerf it and how can you sleep at night !?!?" Most of you would make terrible journalists. | ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On October 21 2011 11:18 drcatellino wrote: If you guys hate the marauder, ask "So far, are you satisfied with the usage and role of the Marauder ? If you could step back, what would you change about it ?" Instead of : "OMG Marauder so imba, cost nothing, lots of HP, lots of damage, stim, why you don't nerf it and how can you sleep at night !?!?" Most of you would make terrible journalists. Were not here to be journalists, we are here because stuff is wrong with the game, esp no LAN and unit clumping | ||
|
NuclearJudas
6546 Posts
As far as I understand you have a deal with GOM, that makes them the only company to Broadcast SC2 in Korea in the near future(maybe I'm wrong since OGN broadcasts the WCG qualifiers, but my point still kinda stands). What do you think about GOM being the only entity with the approval to broadcast SC2? Do you think it hurts the Starcraft 2 scene in Korea, and would you like to make Kespa a part of SC2 in Korea somehow (you know, competition makes both companies want to do better and such)? Or would you rather GOM being the sole broadcasters for the years forward. Also, thanks for making the game! | ||
|
Remb
United States190 Posts
| ||
|
hitpoint
United States1511 Posts
This question would be amazing also. On October 20 2011 23:48 Predguin wrote: Do you have any thoughts on the Marine's attack animation? They are incredibly easy to animation cancel/stutter-step, and even more so when stim-packed. (The muzzle flash is still visible on their guns when they kite!) It makes them incredibly efficient DPS dealers and melee-kiters, much more so than in SC1 or Brood War. Do you think a slight adjustment should be made to their animation to make them harder to stutter-step? Because it seems that a lot of their use and cost-efficiency comes from their ability to be easily micro'd. | ||
|
Dhalphir
Australia1305 Posts
| ||
|
bittman
Australia8759 Posts
On October 21 2011 11:22 amazingxkcd wrote: Were not here to be journalists, we are here because stuff is wrong with the game, esp no LAN and unit clumping Right. Most of you would also make terrible lawyers, managers, sales reps, teachers, anythinginvolvingyourvoice. We aren't here because stuff is wrong with the game, that is the completely wrong approach and anyone with such a benign approach to their questions will hopefully simply be flat out ignored by the interviewer when choosing his questions for Dustin. If I read the interviewer asking something heavily along the lines of blame, accusation or ignorance the interview would be a sham. So sir "We're not here to be journalists", don't give a journalist a question a journalist won't ask. Try to actually get a reasonable answer you are looking for, don't just put a whine and hope Dustin hasn't somehow heard it before and goes: "Oh that's such a good idea! Oh! How blind I've been as a game designer and had ignored all the whiners who've already said it before, but now that I've heard it in a 20 minute interview full of actually interesting questions which are thought provoking! Well! It is now that I will both become a producer instead of designer so I can implement LAN, and then change roles again to programmer to fix unit clumping!" Sorry...people in this thread u________________u ---- My question: "It has been said in previous interviews that Terran, as a race, has met it's goal of being flexible and balanced, whilst Protoss and Zerg include 'boring' units, or even units which did not end up working as expected from design and testing. To step back from the units themselves though and look at the big picture: - What are the high concept goals of each race from your personal perspective? - And then to step back into the finer details, what do you think might be hindering any of the races from so far achieving these goals? As a Game Developer myself, be curious to hear this sort of design analysis, though it's often hard to critique your own work. | ||
|
Chubbaluphigous
United States25 Posts
Also, why do you make it so easy for T and P to take a fast 2nd, but make it extremely difficult for Z to respond with a quick 3rd? | ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On October 21 2011 11:37 bittman wrote: Right. Most of you would also make terrible lawyers, managers, sales reps, teachers, anythinginvolvingyourvoice. That is not the point. Many people are frustrated with certain aspects of the game, and frustrated that blizzard is doing nothing to achieve those goals. That is why the questions proposed have been directly aggressive | ||
|
Whole
United States6046 Posts
| ||
|
Bango
United States106 Posts
| ||
|
Dusty
United States3359 Posts
| ||
|
Shewklad
Sweden482 Posts
I'd like to ask dustin what he thinks of IPLZvZ and MLGPvP :-) | ||
|
BushidoSnipr
United States910 Posts
On October 21 2011 06:31 Roxy wrote: lol.. dustin doesnt play this game... pssshaw Sadly, you're prolly right lol | ||
|
TyrantPotato
Australia1541 Posts
they state that they wish to take things slow regarding balance. only to then chop and remove things completely from the game, this such as flux vanes (which is a whole different issue with 2v2 vs 1v1 balance) and HTS amulet. then turn around and justify these constant 5 second build time increases stating they are approaching balance in a slow manner. as well as their answer to this i would like to ask them why do they find the need to nerf units. they have stated them selves that they wish for a dynamic game.yet they insist on removing options rather then adding new ones. an analogy for what im trying to explain is. imagine two guys in a sword fight. with a judge who is making the rules of the fight. the judge says he wants a fair a good fight for the crowd. but then he notices that one guy has a bigger sword. so the judge chops his sword down, only to now find that the other guys sword is sharper. so he dulls that sword only to find its now shorter then the other one. on and on till both men are standing with no swords and its now a fist fight. and now all the crowd has left because they wanted to see a sword fight. so the fight is called off and the crowd moves on to the next sword fight. all the judge could have done is go get the men another sword instead of try to change things like the length, weight and sharpness. | ||
|
bittman
Australia8759 Posts
On October 21 2011 11:39 amazingxkcd wrote: That is not the point. Many people are frustrated with certain aspects of the game, and frustrated that blizzard is doing nothing to achieve those goals. That is why the questions proposed have been directly aggressive Yes, Blizzard don't do patches. They don't try new things. They're not making expansions to solve any problems. They haven't answered a tonne of interviews regarding balance already. They aren't even real humans! I honestly don't see your point? Are you talking about a snowstorm? Because snowstorms do nothing to help certain aspects of the game. =( Perhaps you're saying they should do much more? In which case make a question asking why they don't do more. Whining isn't a question. Being aggressive isn't a question either. Putting a question mark or a "Why" at the top of your question doesn't make it a good question. | ||
|
Ghola
United States55 Posts
Dustin is a diamond random player. | ||
|
ZeromuS
Canada13389 Posts
A serious Question though: How do you feel about there being 20 some odd terrans in the most prestigious Starcraft league currently in the world (GSL)? Do you feel that it is the result of the skill level of the players involved, the strategies being used, the format of the GSL or something else entirely? | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
hydras also need to be looked at. | ||
|
kofman
Andorra698 Posts
| ||
|
kef
283 Posts
On October 21 2011 11:27 Remb wrote: I thought this was a [Bacon] thread? That's exactly what I thought. For Browder: "Can we have lurkers back?" | ||
|
Thebbeuttiffulland
Brazil288 Posts
| ||
|
nAgeDitto
United States428 Posts
On October 21 2011 12:18 Thebbeuttiffulland wrote: make FFA ladder , it wont hurt anyone!!!! This reminds me of Wc3 ffa ladder... IF you're lucky enough to actually get a que (which could take hours) and you lose.. you'd be placed at top 200 ladder rank because noone played it :D Of course, this is more due to wc3 ladder games being wildly unpopular (compared to UMS) | ||
|
Ballistixz
United States1269 Posts
| ||
|
Thebbeuttiffulland
Brazil288 Posts
On October 21 2011 12:20 nAgeDitto wrote: This reminds me of Wc3 ffa ladder... IF you're lucky enough to actually get a que (which could take hours) and you lose.. you'd be placed at top 200 ladder rank because noone played it :D Of course, this is more due to wc3 ladder games being wildly unpopular (compared to UMS) top 200 ladder or top 10 it wont hurt anyone if someone is placed high in FFA ladder, and i dont know about que i played at northrend and i always had ladder FFA game after 3-5 min wait.Its more fun to play ffa with more equal opponents | ||
|
TexasToast
United States82 Posts
| ||
|
OptimusYale
Korea (South)1005 Posts
Are you a geologist? second question Why you no buff carriers and hydras | ||
|
Dazer
239 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
Hell, I don't blame him. God knows if it was my job to work 12 hours a day making a game, the last thing I would want to do when I got home was spend my precious few off-work hours playing that game. | ||
|
Brotocol
243 Posts
On October 21 2011 12:15 kofman wrote: What are you going to do about zealots, they cost 100 minerals and tank way too good, plus have insane damage with charge. They need to get fixed. Actually, a zealot does less dps than 2 marines, and spends most of its time walking, not dpsing. | ||
|
Reapher
Peru131 Posts
| ||
|
Darksoldierr
Hungary2012 Posts
I would love to hear the first 3 or 5 priority on that list, what is more important than replay watching together, clan support or automatic tournaments on bnet. | ||
|
ilbh
Brazil1606 Posts
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! | ||
|
SurHorse
United States13 Posts
On October 21 2011 12:24 Ballistixz wrote: if day9 made a funday monday revolving around FFAs then FFAs would become popular overnight no doubt. Day 9 Daily #200 | ||
|
pirates
United States701 Posts
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. | ||
|
Ravnemesteren
224 Posts
What I am wondering is if Blizzard is aiming to raise the skill ceiling with HoS? | ||
|
ilbh
Brazil1606 Posts
On October 21 2011 17:12 pirates wrote: 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... | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
| ||
|
Bodzilla
Australia472 Posts
sigh. Dustin Browder: "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." | ||
|
WesleyLok
Canada99 Posts
"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. | ||
|
Tumor
Austria192 Posts
| ||
|
aFganFlyTrap
Australia212 Posts
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. | ||
|
Piski
Finland3461 Posts
On October 21 2011 17:50 WesleyLok wrote: 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? | ||
|
acrimoneyius
United States983 Posts
On October 21 2011 17:31 ilbh wrote: 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. | ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
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? | ||
|
Fadetowhite
Korea (South)302 Posts
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.) | ||
|
Tumor
Austria192 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12387 Posts
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. | ||
linduxed
Sweden111 Posts
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. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
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? | ||
|
Selkie
United States530 Posts
| ||
|
Zooper31
United States5710 Posts
On October 21 2011 17:59 aFganFlyTrap wrote: 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. | ||
|
dragonsuper
Liechtenstein222 Posts
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 | ||
|
Imalengrat
Australia365 Posts
| ||
|
malaan
365 Posts
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. | ||
|
Bodzilla
Australia472 Posts
On October 21 2011 18:03 Piski wrote: 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." | ||
|
Mantraz
Norway119 Posts
--- Do you still plan on making the colossus work in HOTS? Or did balancing it snowball a lot of other balance? | ||
|
17Sphynx17
580 Posts
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. | ||
|
kusto
Russian Federation823 Posts
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. | ||
|
deadmau
960 Posts
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. | ||
|
dapierow
Serbia1316 Posts
| ||
|
Masayume
Netherlands208 Posts
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? | ||
|
ilbh
Brazil1606 Posts
On October 21 2011 18:05 acrimoneyius wrote: 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... | ||
|
aFganFlyTrap
Australia212 Posts
On October 21 2011 20:17 Masayume wrote: 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, where you could maintain certain formations/spread? only a player who was new to the game had that turned on and its only because they didnt know better. not a single pro had it on and would be horrible in sc2 | ||
|
Deleted User 124618
1142 Posts
| ||
|
courtpanda
866 Posts
| ||
|
elKaDor
Sweden376 Posts
It took many years just to master sending probe/scv/drone to mineral when u had many bases and now it is auto which makes it very noobfriendly. Why do u show mineral patches on the maps where you haven't scoutet in sc2? it was so gosu in sc:bw when u took hidden expo on new maps that everyone didn't know much about. Why no Scourge in sc2? should Z users just make 9 mutas and place them around his base just in case of drops? | ||
|
xlep
Germany274 Posts
Are we getting some community made maps in the 1on1 pool (Map of the week or sth similar)? Why was is possible to get local tournament servers for WoW but it seems to be asking too much for SC2? Considering SC2's huge impact at MLG, IEM, etc that's pretty weak... Will Blizz ever manage to get us LAN-Latency and worldwide play like ICCUP managed years ago with BW? | ||
|
Imalengrat
Australia365 Posts
| ||
|
Jetaap
France4814 Posts
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. | ||
|
NexCa
Germany954 Posts
Is Protoss getting finally an early harrass Unit ? Just like speedlings / reaper or whatever ? | ||
|
Goibon
New Zealand8185 Posts
Ask him how he feels about the Warp Gate mechanic and its impact on balancing Protoss. Ask him about intelligent siege tank targetting and whether or not he thinks having tanks require micro but do more damage (or something) would have been better game design. Ask him if he's happy with the Infestor's ability to both lock down and kill groups of units with no ability to cleanse or prevent this. Ask him about the state of Protoss air units, noting that Terran and Zerg fleets generally get a lot of standard use in many many builds, compared to Protoss whose units feel very niche. Ask him if he agree that DTs are in fact better than Banshees. *high fives PainUser* Ask him why the Marauder. | ||
|
Zoraque
Canada120 Posts
Why do terrans have 4 defensive structures (bunkers, turrets, silo, planetary) when protoss has only ONE (cannon)? how come ghosts are 200/100... tier2... and have cloak, snipe, emp, and nuke (4 spells)whereas high templars have only 2 spells only... infestors have only 3 as well. Not to mention you dont have to upgrade to get EMP whereas infestors have to upgrade to get neural and HTs have to upgrade for storm. Shouldnt you make EMP a research spell? Why do you think emp should not only drain mana but do 75 AOE dmg to all protoss shields .______. | ||
|
MotherOfRunes
Germany2862 Posts
On October 21 2011 20:27 Imalengrat wrote: I think you have to bring up LAN. He will respond with the default answer but they NEED to hear it 10000 times before they do anything apparently. jesus christ...people like ypu will never understand it....it DOESNT MATTER how many people will ask for it. the reason is simple. when lan would be implemented, there would be a raise of 3rd party platforms like GG-client where you can play with illegal copies of sc2. there would be az huge number of people starting sc2 without even buying it, and it would hurt blizzard. and dont start this "then do a tournament version with lan only aviable for tournaments" BULLSHIT...if there is ever a single verison installed on a pc even if its at a tournament it will 100% LEAK... the internet nowadays is that fast, that we dont even need lans....tournaments dont need lan, they need solid providers and a backup plan... stop this lan bullshit finally | ||
|
kvmetternich
Italy35 Posts
Can yuo explain why there are so few statistics in starcraft 2? Do you think the removal of the loses led to an improvement in game? | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On October 21 2011 20:58 gwaihir wrote: Then Blizzard should bring their own tournament servers to a high profile LAN event, guarded by big black bald bodyguards.jesus christ...people like ypu will never understand it....it DOESNT MATTER how many people will ask for it. the reason is simple. when lan would be implemented, there would be a raise of 3rd party platforms like GG-client where you can play with illegal copies of sc2. there would be az huge number of people starting sc2 without even buying it, and it would hurt blizzard. and dont start this "then do a tournament version with lan only aviable for tournaments" BULLSHIT...if there is ever a single verison installed on a pc even if its at a tournament it will 100% LEAK... the internet nowadays is that fast, that we dont even need lans....tournaments dont need lan, they need solid providers and a backup plan... stop this lan bullshit finally | ||
|
grappasc
Belgium86 Posts
you sure? I thought it was sigaty. metzen is in development and sigaty the lead producer. | ||
|
Stiluz
Norway688 Posts
I am not asking for LAN. However, ICCUP managed to have LAN-like latency and worldwide play. Why has Blizzard, a much larger organization with far more money and resources available, not been able to provide low-latency across servers so far? It would without a doubt raise the level of the players significantly if EU and NA players would be able to practice with Koreans with low latency. This could only help grow the non-Korean community and such, make the Starcraft 2 more popular. If you're concerned about selling more copies, make players pay for cross-server play. Just let us have the opportunity. | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
Will we ever see a balance change aimed at the marine? | ||
|
ETisME
12387 Posts
On October 21 2011 20:58 gwaihir wrote: jesus christ...people like ypu will never understand it....it DOESNT MATTER how many people will ask for it. the reason is simple. when lan would be implemented, there would be a raise of 3rd party platforms like GG-client where you can play with illegal copies of sc2. there would be az huge number of people starting sc2 without even buying it, and it would hurt blizzard. and dont start this "then do a tournament version with lan only aviable for tournaments" BULLSHIT...if there is ever a single verison installed on a pc even if its at a tournament it will 100% LEAK... the internet nowadays is that fast, that we dont even need lans....tournaments dont need lan, they need solid providers and a backup plan... stop this lan bullshit finally have you been following sc2 tournaments? Did you see how many games suffered from lags in MLG? Did you see how ipl3 delayed for a few hours simply because there was no internet and the players went to play BW instead? It is damaging the core fans and progamers who make their living off the game | ||
|
zeru
8156 Posts
| ||
|
Snettik
Finland186 Posts
Do you plan having new map features in HOTS (rocks, xel'naga watchtowers... etc)? Are you going to reduce the power of all-ins/rushes in general (and randomness of the game) in Hots? Have you thought about maybe giving a third addon for terran to make terran less flexible? Will there be a way to get protoss health back somehow in hots? Are you going to give zerg more aggressive earlygame/midgame options? | ||
|
twiitar
Germany372 Posts
| ||
|
optical630
United Kingdom768 Posts
| ||
|
FreeGiraffeRides
5 Posts
Have you considered new terrain types in HotS (like swamps that slow down ground units, etc) | ||
|
FrostedMiniWheats
United States30730 Posts
On October 21 2011 21:21 zeru wrote: They're still not gonna add it no matter how much people cry about it. It's a waste of time to ask about it. And it's sad that there's so much balance whine in this thread, it's not even subtle either. Considering Kennigit is pretty much condoning it in the op, I don't see why this comes as any surprise. A flood of shitty balance whine joke questions was inevitable. | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
| ||
|
RogerX
New Zealand3180 Posts
| ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
| ||
|
Jakkerr
Netherlands2549 Posts
''Ghosts, really?'' Not a balance whine I just wanna see his reaction xD That's about it. | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
| ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
EDIT: Is it wrong that when I read the thread title, I thought it was about Bacon questions for Dustin Browder? | ||
|
gulshngill
Malaysia140 Posts
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? | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
| ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
| ||
|
Shebuha
Canada1335 Posts
Why do close spawns exist at all? Why not just add destructible rocks everywhere? | ||
|
zeru
8156 Posts
| ||
|
Xgorden
Sweden24 Posts
| ||
|
pedduck
Thailand468 Posts
| ||
|
forumtext
575 Posts
| ||
|
HypernovA
Canada556 Posts
1. QQ about Terran 2. QQ about Zerg/Protoss being up/op 3. Destructible rocks/maps/LAN Ask him if he reads team liquid and or redit. | ||
|
PresenceSc2
Australia4032 Posts
On October 21 2011 18:14 Tumor wrote: 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 yes!!!! Then they might actually be worth making. | ||
|
mr_tolkien
France8631 Posts
| ||
|
SpurvL
Sweden345 Posts
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? | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On October 21 2011 20:37 Jetaap wrote: 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? | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On October 21 2011 22:06 Umpteen wrote: 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'. | ||
|
deadmau
960 Posts
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 | ||
|
deadmau
960 Posts
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 | ||
|
DirtBag
7 Posts
2. Any plans to change "neutral" gameplay mechanics? Such as highground(Make it like BW pretty please), watchtowers and line of sight blockers. | ||
|
forumtext
575 Posts
| ||
|
Mawn
Sweden13 Posts
| ||
|
forumtext
575 Posts
On October 21 2011 22:06 Umpteen wrote: 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 | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
| ||
|
Avan
Brazil121 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Frozenhelfire
United States420 Posts
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. | ||
|
YourMom
Romania565 Posts
| ||
|
diverzee
Sweden992 Posts
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! | ||
|
Genesis128
Norway103 Posts
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 | ||
|
petro1987
Brazil374 Posts
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. | ||
|
Avan
Brazil121 Posts
On October 21 2011 22:35 petro1987 wrote: 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. | ||
|
petro1987
Brazil374 Posts
On October 21 2011 22:46 Avan wrote: 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? | ||
|
JonnyLaw
United States3482 Posts
On October 21 2011 22:55 petro1987 wrote: 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. | ||
|
Hoon
Brazil891 Posts
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. | ||
|
See.Blue
United States2673 Posts
| ||
|
petro1987
Brazil374 Posts
On October 21 2011 23:01 JonnyLaw wrote: 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. They are certainly not imba in an objective sense. They might be so in the hands of MVP or another great player, but not in my hand or yours. That's why my question addressed exactly this point. Why not make more Protoss units that actually scale well with players' skill? In BW you could see Bisu actually owns so much in PvZ while most lesser Ps struggle so much. About Koreans liking T. If you compare the KR and NA regions (see sc2ranks.com) you will see that in masters there are more P players in NA and more T players in KR. They do like more T, for whatever reason (you would say because T is imba). You actually didn't answer while most foreigener top players are Z and P. Do they rather playing UP (as you claim) races? | ||
|
Avan
Brazil121 Posts
On October 21 2011 23:01 JonnyLaw wrote: 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. Well, JonnyLaw pretty much said it all. I think people who are stupid enough to believe that Terran dominance is due to 'cultural differences' or 'players' preferences' don't quite understand how this scene works. They are professionals, are they not? So, unlike guys like you, who probably 'play just for fun', they make a living out of this game. They are paid to win. If a race has obvious advantages (marines and mules? anyone?) why not use it? Anyway, the point is simple: Protoss is useless at the moment. One CANNOT use foreign tournaments where 2 players have a skill level way above that of all the others to say a race is fine. To put it simply, in case you don't understand what I'm saying: in terms of balance no tournament matters but the GSL, where the BEST PLAYERS IN THE WHOLE WORLD compete against each other. Got it? Good. | ||
|
petro1987
Brazil374 Posts
On October 21 2011 23:17 Avan wrote: Well, JonnyLaw pretty much said it all. I think people who are stupid enough to believe that Terran dominance is due to 'cultural differences' or 'players' preferences' don't quite understand how this scene works. They are professionals, are they not? So, unlike guys like you, who probably 'play just for fun', they make a living out of this game. They are paid to win. If a race has obvious advantages (marines and mules? anyone?) why not use it? Anyway, the point is simple: Protoss is useless at the moment. One CANNOT use foreign tournaments where 2 players have a skill level way above that of all the others to say a race is fine. To put it simply, in case you don't understand what I'm saying: in terms of balance no tournament matters but the GSL, where the BEST PLAYERS IN THE WHOLE WORLD compete against each other. Got it? Good. Ok. So Protoss is useless at the moment. Then why professional players like Huk and MC still use it if they could use a race that is clearly imba with marines and mules (as you claim)? Please enlight us with your brilliant answer. | ||
|
Termit
Sweden3466 Posts
On October 21 2011 23:17 Avan wrote: Well, JonnyLaw pretty much said it all. I think people who are stupid enough to believe that Terran dominance is due to 'cultural differences' or 'players' preferences' don't quite understand how this scene works. They are professionals, are they not? So, unlike guys like you, who probably 'play just for fun', they make a living out of this game. They are paid to win. If a race has obvious advantages (marines and mules? anyone?) why not use it? Anyway, the point is simple: Protoss is useless at the moment. One CANNOT use foreign tournaments where 2 players have a skill level way above that of all the others to say a race is fine. To put it simply, in case you don't understand what I'm saying: in terms of balance no tournament matters but the GSL, where the BEST PLAYERS IN THE WHOLE WORLD compete against each other. Got it? Good. Your attitude is really bad. You should reformulate your posts or just stop posting your crap here. This isn't a balance discussion thread. -_-; | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
I know you have tested around with photon cannons for example being able to teleport (I think alpha had something like this) and spines and spores being able to walk around uprooted. Are ideas like this still being discussed? There are so much talk going around new units but are there new building ideas that you are experimenting with?, and if so can we expect some new building on HotS? 2: Is there any more map features going to be added? You have high grass, xel naga watch towers and destructible blockers and a special high ground mechanic. Are there any interesting ideas that you toss around in the office and if so could something new come up in the new expansion? 3: Is high skill/high reward in gameplay something that worries you to turn out to become imbalanced when players become better at the game? For example marines are balanced perfectly at the current moment but the potential for this unit for micro seems alot higher than people are actually able to pull off at the moment, is this an issue you look at right now and planning to balance or do you prefer to wait until players to become better before you get worried or think about it? Another one that comes into mind is creep spread, we have never seen perfect creep spread or even close to it and the importance of creep is becoming higher as players are learning the game more and we even start seeing people get up to 2 queens just for creep spreading. But in 1-2 years people might be able to hit all creep spread timings and there should be a big chance in my opinion a balance change will be needed, what are your thoughts in general on the high skill/high reward units? 4: Ever since starcraft 2 came out you talked general flaws that scouting was too hard or that people werent using enough different types of units. And recently you talked about some units being too underused or too uninteresting. Are there anything in like this right now that you are not happy with and are there any issues that are becoming "fixed" in HotS and lastly are there any problems or concerns that you wont address in the new expansion, maybe some problems that you havent find an answer for that you are happy with? 5: There are units in starcraft 2 who are pretty general and works well in most situations, might not be core units or low tier at all, just look at the units themselves here. For example one of these units could be ghost or infestor, satlker or marine. And there are other units that are more shallow and "uninteresting" that doesnt have as many purposes. For example the corruptor comes into mind that is mainly used to shut down stargate harass, take down massive units such as colossus. And ofcourse the ability to morph to broodlord. Is this something you want in starcraft 2?, that some units are more universal and used more and fill more purposes than other units who seem to be more of an anti-something or be used in this specific situation of the game? Or do you want to make all units to be as "important" in the game? Does the game not feel abit too simple or shallow when you need to make unit X to counter unit Y? At the same time it is also too simple and shallow to have units being generally great in all situations? Is it hard to find a perfect balance for how many situations a unit should be effective? my questions are kinda milked and too long but just wanted you to understand the points of the questions so feel absolutely free to cut them shorter | ||
|
VTPerfect
United States487 Posts
| ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
| ||
|
iky43210
United States2099 Posts
On October 21 2011 23:17 Avan wrote: Well, JonnyLaw pretty much said it all. I think people who are stupid enough to believe that Terran dominance is due to 'cultural differences' or 'players' preferences' don't quite understand how this scene works. They are professionals, are they not? So, unlike guys like you, who probably 'play just for fun', they make a living out of this game. They are paid to win. If a race has obvious advantages (marines and mules? anyone?) why not use it? Anyway, the point is simple: Protoss is useless at the moment. One CANNOT use foreign tournaments where 2 players have a skill level way above that of all the others to say a race is fine. To put it simply, in case you don't understand what I'm saying: in terms of balance no tournament matters but the GSL, where the BEST PLAYERS IN THE WHOLE WORLD compete against each other. Got it? Good. Name 3 BW high ranking Protoss. Now try Terran, you could probably name 10. And lol @ huk and MC have skills way above rest of others. There were 5 or so code S players there and 3-5 code S material players.If anything Huk and MC was far from favorite to win MLG | ||
|
Hellbourne
Germany63 Posts
| ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
On October 21 2011 22:46 Avan wrote: 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. anyone with half a brain would realize that the reason there are so many terrans in Code S has more to do with the structure of the tournament and *gasp!* player skill. People are seeing way too much "balance" in Code S and don't seem able to take the context of the tournament into consideration. Also, Orlando was a very competitive tournament -- Huk played really well, but him winning wasn't by any means a given. | ||
|
CptGrackSparrow
United States278 Posts
Is this due to the overall design/lore concepts of the races? Does Blizzard plan to add to the other races or subtract from terran to make them more balanced when it comes to this aspect? | ||
|
Nemuru
Canada19 Posts
| ||
|
CptGrackSparrow
United States278 Posts
On October 21 2011 23:44 Nemuru wrote: Why are marines a much more effective anti air unit compared to the corruptor whose SOLE job is to be anti air. (and becoming a brood lord). corruptors are anti-collosus units not anti-air. | ||
|
Warfie
Norway2846 Posts
Dear Dustin, why isn't there more bacon in the game? | ||
|
carloselcoco
United States2302 Posts
No you can... P.S. I play Random and Terran needs mules to keep up in economy with the rest of the rest. | ||
|
taldarimAltar
973 Posts
| ||
|
Rylaji
Sweden580 Posts
2. What happend in your childhood that caused you to love Destructible Rocks so much? | ||
|
diverzee
Sweden992 Posts
On October 21 2011 23:38 iky43210 wrote: Name 3 BW high ranking Protoss. Now try Terran, you could probably name 10. And lol @ huk and MC have skills way above rest of others. There were 5 or so code S players there and 3-5 code S material players.If anything Huk and MC was far from favorite to win MLG This. I'm so tired of all this protoss whining in every single thread, be it LR, fanclub or others. Not even when Huk - a foreigner goes and wins MLG do people stop whining. I remember back when MC dominated and you saw zergs lose to deathball every single game what happened to zergs whining. They were banned! Balance complaints in LR threads were rewarded with a temp ban, and there sure were no qq-fanclubs like the ridiculous "sad zealot" one around. As for the topic of this thread I want to repeat myself and say that Blizzard should never get to have question answering sessions without them having to apologize for the lack of LAN. Goddamnit. | ||
|
TheQforce
United Kingdom48 Posts
| ||
|
Blacklizard
United States1194 Posts
On October 21 2011 00:49 Daralii wrote: Many people seem to be of the opinion that the warp gate is a failed mechanic: the original intent seemed to be giving protoss a variety of harassment options and to keep up with the added production capabilities of the reactor and Inject Larvae, but for the sake of balancing early aggression, gateway units were made incredibly weak unless together in large numbers. This forced protoss to rely on their higher tier units, namely the colossus and high templar while at the same time limiting aggression due to how weak the units produced at the warp gate are. Despite this, the highter tier units have been nerfed constantly, and Mr. Browder implied a while ago that you had plans for the colossus as well, while not having any intention of buffing the zealot or stalker to compensate. At this point, would it not be better to simply remove the warp gate? Besides the PvP situation prior to the ramp vision nerf, I don't think Warp Gate is a problem. And Blizzard is certainly not going to delete one of the main themes of the race. Instead of killing warpgate, boosting gateway unit,s and breaking the feel of Protoss, they just need to add better options to deal with the current problems. Questions: What are Blizzard going to do about these Protoss problems: Problems that need addressing: - Like early game small Protoss armies are so easily trapped and killed out on the map by speedling surrounds or whatnot. =A solution could be hallucinations that last much longer so Protoss are more map aware, or a way to temporarily give these groups of units an escape mechanism. A miniature recall, speed boost, or something if it could be balanced that early on. - Protoss dealing with multi drops from Terran. =A solution could be start observers with the speed upgrade or larger vision to spot better. Or allow players to move the resources options over the minimap so it's easier to keep in view. - Make Protoss tier 3 AOE (or tier 3 in general) more nimble and microable. Right now they are just kinda slow and clunky, with obvious (boring?) uses if the enemy walks into them, and with very definite counters. Slow and clunky means that there is no room for improvement from the players. =A solution may be a reaver mode for the colossus, so that it transforms into a slower but harder hitting unit. No longer able to traverse cliffs or walk over units. - EMP vs Protoss. =Give Protoss some option to make a unit or two immune to EMP. Maybe if you cast a 75 energy chrono on an immortal or sentry, he is now immune to EMP for 60 seconds or something. That way to allow some options for early defense and then options for the ball vs ball fights that seem to be swinging in the favor of EMP too often lately. | ||
|
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
On October 21 2011 23:43 Quotidian wrote: anyone with half a brain would realize that the reason there are so many terrans in Code S has more to do with the structure of the tournament and *gasp!* player skill. People are seeing way too much "balance" in Code S and don't seem able to take the context of the tournament into consideration. Also, Orlando was a very competitive tournament -- Huk played really well, but him winning wasn't by any means a given. No, there were a lot of issues with the game that are only now starting to get better. bo1 does favor terran, but having such a glut of terran in code s really indicates that somethings amiss at the highest level. | ||
|
Unhallowed
Canada171 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 22 2011 00:31 Blacklizard wrote: Instead of killing warpgate, boosting gateway unit,s and breaking the feel of Protoss, they just need to add better options to deal with the current problems. Umm, they 'broke the feel of Protoss' when they made zealots and stalkers weak. They need to 'get back to where they once belonged.' | ||
|
eXwOn
Canada351 Posts
2. Starcraft 2 is a faster paced game than sc1/BW, is this what you were looking for? If not, how would you slow it down (be it removal of injects/mules, changing the damage system ect)? 3. What is the length of a perfect game, that you as developers aimed for? | ||
|
jinixxx123
543 Posts
If they actually played the game and faced off against protoss, all these whines about how under-powered the protoss race is complete garbage. There is a reason there is not a single foreign terran that is good enough to hang with the korean terrans in terms of skill, whereas with other races( Protoss and Zerg) the players are right up there with the best of the best and can take games off the best korean terrans , names such as huk/idra/dimaga/sen/stephano, all these guys are capable of raping a tournament and winning it for the foreign scene, yet whereas for terran, what terran player does the foreign community really have that you could definately say, he has a great shot at taking an MLG, or an IPL, i will be waiting to hear. I will tell you what the hard facts of the matter is, Terran takes the most amount of mechanics /multitasking /micro and speed to play, The same foreigners we have that are at the top of their game ( idra/huk/stephano )etc would be complete garbage at playing terran. They play mechanically easier races thus are able to compete at the top. It takes a Code S terran to beat a average protoss, it takes a code S terran to compete with medicore zergs... Just look at bomber, this guy practices day in and day out in the startale house ( go check the video recently posted)... and he then looses to guy called idra who admit-tingly only played for 3-4 hours a day, Idra on inside the game stated he did not know how he won.. Do we really believe that idra is just magically "better " than all these players? Look at stephano, the guy plays basically 3 hours a day and can compete with the best. Name me a fucking terran that can compete at the top with so little practice, I seen select say he's been practising day in and day out at times just so that he can beat a protoss. all this whining has got to stop, Its just retarded, i wouldnt be surprised if blizzard cuts short Q& A panel for sc2 because its full of garbage questions . User was warned for this post | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
| ||
|
Firesilver
United Kingdom1190 Posts
On October 22 2011 00:45 jinixxx123 wrote: It seems like there are 100% protoss players on team liquid nowadays , but you know what? im smarter than that, there is no way there are 100% protoss players on this site, However what can be concluded is that this site has a huge AMOUNT of people that don't actually play the game , They see a whine, and they jump on bandwagon because they want to be part of the "inn crowd"., whining about terran is the "in" thing to do because there are more terrans in code S. And yet a certain GSL player in Code S said that he feels terran is OP (his words) and that alot of those Terrans don't deserve to be there? On October 22 2011 00:45 jinixxx123 wrote:If they actually played the game and faced off against protoss, all these whines about how under-powered the protoss race is complete garbage. Seems like you're basing this off your own ladder experience, the game is balanced around pro-level, not your skill level. On October 22 2011 00:45 jinixxx123 wrote:I will tell you what the hard facts of the matter is, Terran takes the most amount of mechanics /multitasking /micro and speed to play How far up your ass did you manage to pull this from? Where is your evidence to say that Terrans have the "hardest" everything in the game, If anything it's considered that Terran have the most basic of micro and that appeals to new players. On October 22 2011 00:45 jinixxx123 wrote:all this whining has got to stop, Its just retarded, i wouldnt be surprised if blizzard cuts short Q& A panel for sc2 because its full of garbage questions . Yes but most people actually back up their "whining" with evidence, not just post like yours with no facts to back it up and complete bias of one race. | ||
|
taldarimAltar
973 Posts
On October 22 2011 00:45 jinixxx123 wrote: It seems like there are 100% protoss players on team liquid nowadays , but you know what? im smarter than that, there is no way there are 100% protoss players on this site, However what can be concluded is that this site has a huge AMOUNT of people that don't actually play the game , They see a whine, and they jump on bandwagon because they want to be part of the "inn crowd"., whining about terran is the "in" thing to do because there are more terrans in code S. If they actually played the game and faced off against protoss, all these whines about how under-powered the protoss race is complete garbage. There is a reason there is not a single foreign terran that is good enough to hang with the korean terrans in terms of skill, whereas with other races( Protoss and Zerg) the players are right up there with the best of the best and can take games off the best korean terrans , names such as huk/idra/dimaga/sen/stephano, all these guys are capable of raping a tournament and winning it for the foreign scene, yet whereas for terran, what terran player does the foreign community really have that you could definately say, he has a great shot at taking an MLG, or an IPL, i will be waiting to hear. I will tell you what the hard facts of the matter is, Terran takes the most amount of mechanics /multitasking /micro and speed to play, The same foreigners we have that are at the top of their game ( idra/huk/stephano )etc would be complete garbage at playing terran. They play mechanically easier races thus are able to compete at the top. It takes a Code S terran to beat a average protoss, it takes a code S terran to compete with medicore zergs... Just look at bomber, this guy practices day in and day out in the startale house ( go check the video recently posted)... and he then looses to guy called idra who admit-tingly only played for 3-4 hours a day, Idra on inside the game stated he did not know how he won.. Do we really believe that idra is just magically "better " than all these players? Look at stephano, the guy plays basically 3 hours a day and can compete with the best. Name me a fucking terran that can compete at the top with so little practice, I seen select say he's been practising day in and day out at times just so that he can beat a protoss. all this whining has got to stop, Its just retarded, i wouldnt be surprised if blizzard cuts short Q& A panel for sc2 because its full of garbage questions . Cool story bro, did you really just whine about whiners? And it's ironic how you're whining how terran's hard and zergs easy Dustin, why is the marauder so boring, it a great strong unit, but ok anti-armour massable = boring even jinro said it | ||
|
Jenia6109
Russian Federation1612 Posts
Hello, Dustin! Don't you think that battles flow too fast that players almost cannot micro properly to show their skill and it bring much of a luck to the result? Also don't you think that it can be because of unit clumping too much? Thanks. | ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
Hey dustin, how many times have you lagged out of a game in a tournament? Have you ever felt that having LAN would help you in this situation a lot? What about BLizzcon having internet failure? how do u accomodate for not having bnet up to play? Do you then give us LAN? | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
On October 21 2011 23:38 iky43210 wrote: Name 3 BW high ranking Protoss. Now try Terran, you could probably name 10. And lol @ huk and MC have skills way above rest of others. There were 5 or so code S players there and 3-5 code S material players.If anything Huk and MC was far from favorite to win MLG wut top 32 players who are code s worthy: HuK MC MKP Bomber That's it dude. Who else do you think is Code-S worthy? Why did this also turn into a balance whine thread? | ||
|
Broodie
Canada832 Posts
I would really like to know how Clan support is coming along! when will we be able to link ourselves to friends/teams and will clan support go beyond a simple tag? (team stats, best Zerg/Terran/Protoss, Clan [insert name here] Multiple teams?) On the topic of maps, how do you see the opportunity of holding a map contest every season for players to get their maps in ladder? There are many people who remain dedicated to the map making community | ||
|
ShatterZer0
United States1843 Posts
On October 21 2011 22:21 Frozenhelfire wrote: 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. 1. Khaydarin question was about having the Khaydarin spawn with +10 energy or with +energy regen or with +50 maximum energy.... He obviously understands that warp in storms were too powerful... He's asking why they didn't replace it with something instead of removing it and makin the Templar Archives the "building you get psistorm from". 2. If you think the Mothership is a good unit you're insane. It's a STRONG unit with POWERFUL capabilities... but it's not a GOOD unit. It takes 4 minutes without chrono to build one. You can build only one. Arbiters do EVERYTHING a mothership does, and does it better and more often.... Except that Archons would no longer be able to insta kill mass broodlord... 3. The problem with the Carrier is not the Colossus per se... if it were then Zealot Templar PvT would have crazy good transitions into Carriers because no anti-armored/massive air would be out for the Terran... it's more that the Carrier is hella expensive and only works as a final nail in the coffin... much like the Ultralisk used to work. | ||
|
petro1987
Brazil374 Posts
On October 22 2011 01:09 taldarimAltar wrote: Cool story bro, did you really just whine about whiners? And it's ironic how you're whining how terran's hard and zergs easy Dustin, why is the marauder so boring, it a great strong unit, but ok anti-armour massable = boring even jinro said it Although I don't fully agree with everything he said there's definitely some truth in the second and third paragraphs. You don't see foreigner terrans that actually have a shot at beating a big tournament like MLG and IPL while there are foreigner zergs and protoss that actually can (huk/stephano/idra comes to mind). The training part is somewhat true too. Bomber trains way more than Idra and still Idra could beat him. The same thing can be said about White-ra beating MMA at IPL3. What I'm trying to say is not that Terran is definitely not OP. It might even be so. It's just that people only look at GSL Code S numbers and conclude T is COMPLETELY OP, without actually looking into the games and players. | ||
|
Reithan
United States360 Posts
| ||
|
Frozenhelfire
United States420 Posts
On October 21 2011 23:38 iky43210 wrote: Name 3 BW high ranking Protoss. Now try Terran, you could probably name 10. And lol @ huk and MC have skills way above rest of others. There were 5 or so code S players there and 3-5 code S material players.If anything Huk and MC was far from favorite to win MLG That's easy. Bisu, Stork, and Jangbi. Terran used to be the underdog back before boxer's era. Your post is half retarded because bringing up BW Protoss has no relevance to SC2 Protoss as far as success is concerned. HuK and MC were definitely not far from favorites, but given the players at MLG Orlando they weren't the only ones capable of taking the tournament. | ||
|
Ideas
United States8091 Posts
----- Do you still watch professional Korean BW at all? | ||
|
jinixxx123
543 Posts
On October 22 2011 01:06 Firesilver wrote: And yet a certain GSL player in Code S said that he feels terran is OP (his words) and that alot of those Terrans don't deserve to be there? Seems like you're basing this off your own ladder experience, the game is balanced around pro-level, not your skill level. How far up your ass did you manage to pull this from? Where is your evidence to say that Terrans have the "hardest" everything in the game, If anything it's considered that Terran have the most basic of micro and that appeals to new players. Yes but most people actually back up their "whining" with evidence, not just post like yours with no facts to back it up and complete bias of one race. i love how you like to quote players that say something and use it as facts, if you want to go with quotes , lets see -Sase (who beat bomber at the most recent mlg ) says terran is not overpowered , go to 10:10 in the video clip -puma at IEM was asked by bitter about terrans doing well, Puma replies that the reason is because Alot of good terran players came together to discuss the game and share ideas -SlayersTaeja comments after advancing in his Up and Downs Q: What did you think of there being 3 Terrans in your group? A: There were no Protoss so I was happy. Protoss seems overpowered . After they're up to 3 attack upgrades, Colossus melt marines in an instant. Facing them is really demanding, -polt who said its the race and not the players then proceeded to get knocked out in the first round of GSL by Killer, I guess hes 3 times as bad then right if its the race? -mc is on record numerous times saying Phenix imba, should we nerf them cause he says that? and thats just the stuff i dug up from recently, i can dig up more if you want.. you say i dont back up my post with evidence, there is it, what you have to say now? | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:43 Papulatus wrote: Why is close spawn Shattered Temple on the ladder? This. and the ladder map / tourney map question on first page. | ||
|
Spicy_Curry
United States10573 Posts
On October 22 2011 01:46 petro1987 wrote: Although I don't fully agree with everything he said there's definitely some truth in the second and third paragraphs. You don't see foreigner terrans that actually have a shot at beating a big tournament like MLG and IPL while there are foreigner zergs and protoss that actually can (huk/stephano/idra comes to mind). The training part is somewhat true too. Bomber trains way more than Idra and still Idra could beat him. The same thing can be said about White-ra beating MMA at IPL3. What I'm trying to say is not that Terran is definitely not OP. It might even be so. It's just that people only look at GSL Code S numbers and conclude T is COMPLETELY OP, without actually looking into the games and players. Actually startale is known as a very laid back training environment | ||
|
Firesilver
United Kingdom1190 Posts
On October 22 2011 01:53 jinixxx123 wrote: i love how you like to quote players that say something and use it as facts, if you want to go with quotes , lets see -Sase (who beat bomber at the most recent mlg ) says terran is not overpowered 10:10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdf-6LSF6Qg -puma at IEM was asked by bitter about terrans doing well, Puma replies that the reason is because Alot of good terran players came together to discuss the game and share ideas -SlayersTaeja comments after advancing in his Up and Downs Q: What did you think of there being 3 Terrans in your group? A: There were no Protoss so I was happy. Protoss seems overpowered . After they're up to 3 attack upgrades, Colossus melt marines in an instant. Facing them is really demanding, -polt who said its the race and not the players then proceeded to get knocked out in the first round of GSL by Killer, I guess hes 3 times as bad then right if its the race? -mc is on record numerous times saying Phenix imba, should we nerf them cause he says that? and just from recently, i can dig up more if you want.. you say i dont back up my post with evidence, there is it, what you have to say now? Not sure where you got me claiming they were facts from; basically showing that pro players have differing opinions, something you seem to miss. 1. SaSe may not think T is OP, again, this is an opinion of a pro player, not fact, same as my Polt quote, this is the same for Taeja. 2. Loosing one series does not class a player as bad, that's just plain stupid, IdrA winning against Bomber for example is not a "Idra > Bomber" solid statement. 3. Again, Pro's opinion, not fact but does hold some weight. Well you backed up every point that was a quote and therefore an opinion of the player, you didn't back up the main things in your arguement that says that Terran is the hardest of all races mechanically/macro/micro/speed etc, and by produce facts I mean give me some results, not just some player saying "Terran is hard". That is an opinion, not a fact, stop treating them as such. | ||
|
Joruto
Germany39 Posts
| ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On October 21 2011 21:08 grappasc wrote: you sure? I thought it was sigaty. metzen is in development and sigaty the lead producer. Yeah, read the OP, the questions that need to go to Metzen are about things like LAN etc, things that haven't been developed yet. | ||
|
petro1987
Brazil374 Posts
On October 22 2011 01:59 Spicy_Curry wrote: Actually startale is known as a very laid back training environment Maybe comparing to other korean teams. But would you actually say that Bomber trains less then Idra? Besides, you don't really refute the point that there is pretty much no foreigner terran that actually have a shot at taking a big tournament. | ||
|
Zrana
United Kingdom698 Posts
| ||
|
Elean
689 Posts
| ||
|
P0ckets
United States430 Posts
| ||
|
J.E.G.
United States389 Posts
| ||
|
Frozenhelfire
United States420 Posts
On October 22 2011 01:44 ShatterZer0 wrote: 1. Khaydarin question was about having the Khaydarin spawn with +10 energy or with +energy regen or with +50 maximum energy.... He obviously understands that warp in storms were too powerful... He's asking why they didn't replace it with something instead of removing it and makin the Templar Archives the "building you get psistorm from". 2. If you think the Mothership is a good unit you're insane. It's a STRONG unit with POWERFUL capabilities... but it's not a GOOD unit. It takes 4 minutes without chrono to build one. You can build only one. Arbiters do EVERYTHING a mothership does, and does it better and more often.... Except that Archons would no longer be able to insta kill mass broodlord... 3. The problem with the Carrier is not the Colossus per se... if it were then Zealot Templar PvT would have crazy good transitions into Carriers because no anti-armored/massive air would be out for the Terran... it's more that the Carrier is hella expensive and only works as a final nail in the coffin... much like the Ultralisk used to work. 1. Yea, I answered why. Unless he should also ask why infestors and ghosts don't start with 85 energy or get +50 max energy. Herp derp. 2. I would consider a strong unit with powerful capabilities to be a good unit. Arbiters are generally irrelevant. With the new unit clumping it is pretty easy to see that a carbon copy of the arbiter would not be fair. 3. Maybe you should re-read my statement. I didn't say that carriers suck because someone already made a corrupter. I said it sucked because vikings and corrupters have to deal with colossi so quickly to prevent ground armies from being completely melted. Already having the units is only part of the reason. BW carriers were often good because the standard terran army in PvT had very weak anti-air so a surprise switch could give the protoss a lot of momentum. A lot of that is lost now because the infrastructure is needed to deal with colossi. | ||
|
FeUerFlieGe
United States1193 Posts
| ||
|
Paperplane
Netherlands1823 Posts
Dustin Browder... What changes for the bunker in HOTS? THE PEOPLE MUST KNOW! | ||
|
Peanutbutter717
United States240 Posts
This would make it unfair for probe/drone vs scv scouting, but is there a way this can be like I think it was in BW? I can't remember the thread name, it was really well done though if someone can help me find it | ||
|
green.at
Austria1459 Posts
Dear DB; we get a "lurker" a "defiler" a "goliath" etc. but no "reaver"? why? | ||
|
Yamulo
United States2096 Posts
| ||
|
Darkren
Canada1841 Posts
| ||
|
Stiver
Canada285 Posts
Will we see more variety in HOTS? I would love to see some limestone, sandstone or Syenite destructible rocks. Any plans to increase the variety in mineral formations blocking attack routes? | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
also, 2)WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY CARRIER!!!!!!! | ||
|
operwolf
United States324 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
Air Cloaking and Recall have now been removed as well. Are you considering re-introducing these Protoss paradigms in LotV, or have they been removed for racial identity reasons, or because you didn't want to fix Carrier Micro or Rework Arbiters? | ||
|
Syracuse
United States31 Posts
| ||
|
Capped
United Kingdom7236 Posts
Seriously. At what point do you realise TvT is lame and actually remove tanks. | ||
|
StarGalaxy
Germany744 Posts
(That would explain why terran is and always has been OP.) | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On October 22 2011 03:19 Capped wrote: Why do you torment us so. Seriously. At what point do you realise TvT is lame and actually remove tanks. What? No, go the other direction, mech vs. mech is awesome. | ||
|
followZeRoX
Serbia1449 Posts
| ||
|
Hexxed
United States202 Posts
I am very interested in their reasoning behind the protoss introductions. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
| ||
|
Paladia
802 Posts
| ||
|
Node
United States2159 Posts
| ||
|
cristo1122
Australia505 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:38 Sanchonator wrote: why are ghosts still in this game? a fairer question is why did u change ghosts | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
| ||
|
FT.aCt)Sony
United States1047 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On October 22 2011 05:02 Node wrote: One of the most brilliant characteristics of fights in Brood War was the way space on the map was controlled. Units such as siege tanks, spider mines, lurkers, and arbiters emphasized this control of space, and led to battles that could range across entire maps. Look at nearly any Terran game in Brood War, and the tank line that inevitably stretched for miles. In SC2, one of the primary criticisms is the way battles often come down to "ball vs ball", instead of these epic fights over large swaths of space. Is there any desire to bring back this old style of battle, and if so, what is being done to do so? This. | ||
|
Snusdosa
Sweden112 Posts
On October 22 2011 05:16 FT.aCt)Sony wrote: With the inclusion of "Collapsible" rocks, what are the direct intentions of this, (aside from being used towards a opponent to separate armies like the force field), per se, will they do additional damage if destroyed on top of an army? Please dont give them any ideas. | ||
|
[N3O]r3d33m3r
Germany673 Posts
they have the bunker but you need units in it P it'd be nice if they'd get that, with very low attack of course^^ | ||
|
Bibdy
United States3481 Posts
| ||
|
Leviance
Germany4079 Posts
Why did you not remove the Collosus? Do you realize that StarCraft II need exciting units both for the players and the audience? The models for the new Terran units are still alpha, right? right? and will turn into something cool? | ||
|
chax
United States18 Posts
| ||
|
drcatellino
Canada346 Posts
Sounds right for protoss matchups, but so wrong for other ones. ZvT, deathball vs deathball ? Yeah, right. | ||
|
Peanut Butter
Canada155 Posts
| ||
|
Ultimea
United States25 Posts
Agree also. Please ask that question!! | ||
|
NuclearWINtr
United States125 Posts
| ||
|
Kal_rA
United States2925 Posts
On October 22 2011 04:05 Nawe wrote: DO you plan to implement all collours into a ladder play? Red vs blue become rly boring Hahahaha you can change it to green vs red if you want (you green, him red) | ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
THIS ^^ | ||
|
ZaaaaaM
Netherlands1828 Posts
Please, ask this!!! | ||
|
ffadicted
United States3545 Posts
YES PLEASE! | ||
|
SaLaYa
United States363 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:42 Jameser wrote: what do you think of Girls' Generation's new track "the boys"? | ||
|
Antares777
United States1971 Posts
| ||
|
Ksi
357 Posts
| ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
On October 22 2011 07:05 Antares777 wrote: Why was the Thor changed to be a "Mothership"-style unit for Terran? Why bother keeping the thor if your just going to make it mothership-esqe? I swear that's gotta be so LotV can be perfect or something :/ I suppose what I'm saying is "Can you take the thor out?" On October 22 2011 04:00 Whitewing wrote: What? No, go the other direction, mech vs. mech is awesome. I second this! | ||
|
ktimekiller
United States690 Posts
| ||
|
Superouman
France2195 Posts
On October 22 2011 07:53 ktimekiller wrote: Why is HOTS giving so much Command and Conquer vibe Dustin previously worked on a previous C&C, don't know which one though.This maybe comes from there. | ||
|
4of8
Germany256 Posts
| ||
|
GhostFall
United States830 Posts
In Starcraft 1, all 3 races had very well defined racial narrative. You had Protoss: Strong pound for pound best units with psionics. Zerg: The aggressors and set the tone of the matches. They also had the swarm feeling as well as spreading across the map. Terran: The defenders with weak infantry but a strong entrenched positions. They had to sit turtled into their base meaning they didn't have map control. In Starcraft 2, Zerg's racial narrative is pretty consistent, but Protoss and Terran are not. Terran have pound for pound the strongest units, and they have map control with marauders and marines as they waddle around in the center of the map. Protoss no longer have the strongest spellcasters. Please ask him, what is the racial identity/narrative of each race in Starcraft 2? Is it different? Is it the same? If it is different ask him why he changed the racial narrative to be as it is. And if it is the same as Starcraft 1, ask him why units such as the marauder and marine completely go against that racial narrative? | ||
|
zev318
Canada4306 Posts
On October 22 2011 07:59 4of8 wrote: Why is the tournament plan for the invitainal so stric?. Or more specific why do we have to miss Naniwa vs Nestea when there is actually no live game planned for about 50 Minutes ? yes can you ask why the sc2 tournament is basically a piece of shit for people who can't afford the plane ticket to blizzcon? | ||
|
Ramuh
Germany238 Posts
| ||
|
Carbonthief
United States289 Posts
| ||
|
Sajaki
Canada1135 Posts
Ask this pretty please! | ||
|
Lumire
United States607 Posts
On October 22 2011 05:02 Node wrote: One of the most brilliant characteristics of fights in Brood War was the way space on the map was controlled. Units such as siege tanks, spider mines, lurkers, and arbiters emphasized this control of space, and led to battles that could range across entire maps. Look at nearly any Terran game in Brood War, and the tank line that inevitably stretched for miles. In SC2, one of the primary criticisms is the way battles often come down to "ball vs ball", instead of these epic fights over large swaths of space. Is there any desire to bring back this old style of battle, and if so, what is being done to do so? If any question gets asked please please let it be this. | ||
|
JLew
Canada353 Posts
I'm not saying that this would be indicative of anything, I'm just curious because I can't see any player over Platinum being in favor of close positions on a map like shattered or thinking that the new Zerg units Death Grip ability is balanced. | ||
|
Proof.
535 Posts
What was the reason for burrowed moveable banelings? | ||
|
BadWithNames
United States441 Posts
While it is all late game gas heavy tech is there any worry that when worked together these abilities might all combine to break any possible defense set up by an enemy. It seems Zerg may go from having a few tools to break lines (mainly the infestor fungal/neural) to have more options than a defensive race like Terran can withstand. How are defensive minded map splitting Terran's managing with these new siege line breaking tools? | ||
|
goDrop_
Poland43 Posts
do you guys mind removing them in order to make game more hard? | ||
|
galivet
288 Posts
| ||
|
JoeAWESOME
Sweden1080 Posts
| ||
|
Thezzy
Netherlands2117 Posts
Why are air armor upgrades more expensive than ground attack/armor and air attack? | ||
|
skindzer
Chile5114 Posts
On October 22 2011 09:21 Thezzy wrote: Why does baneling splash have no falloff? Why are air armor upgrades more expensive than ground attack/armor and air attack? Edit: WHOOPS misread :3 | ||
|
Noxblood
Norway374 Posts
| ||
|
anilusion
Sweden247 Posts
| ||
|
Kare
Norway786 Posts
| ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20285 Posts
On October 22 2011 08:16 JLew wrote: I'm actually curious, of all the people that work on balance and/or adding new units or maps..Who has the highest ladder rank on Bnet. I'm not saying that this would be indicative of anything, I'm just curious because I can't see any player over Platinum being in favor of close positions on a map like shattered or thinking that the new Zerg units Death Grip ability is balanced. Dustin was quoted as saying he was low diamond while he gave his speech about game balance and the new units | ||
|
chrissummers
243 Posts
| ||
|
Warble
137 Posts
Omg I want this so much! | ||
|
SpiZe
Canada3640 Posts
On October 22 2011 09:27 anilusion wrote: What will happen to the Collectors Edition Thor now that the Thor is being removed? It's not being removed, just moved up some tiers. Also, when does this interview is being held? | ||
|
galivet
288 Posts
| ||
|
Daniri
387 Posts
On October 23 2011 14:24 galivet wrote: According to the OP it was supposed to be recorded and posted on Saturday (yesterday). Oh well. It's still Saturday in California. | ||
|
Shade_FR
France378 Posts
| ||
|
Dimenus
United States157 Posts
On October 23 2011 20:59 Shade_CsT wrote: According to Kennigit's Twitter, he uploaded the video 4 hours ago and went to bed. Does anyone knows his Youtube channel ? Yeah, I would also like to know where this interview ended up. | ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
I want to get more of DB's input. | ||
|
GiygaS
Canada1043 Posts
On October 23 2011 20:59 Shade_CsT wrote: According to Kennigit's Twitter, he uploaded the video 4 hours ago and went to bed. Does anyone knows his Youtube channel ? It also said it had 1345 minutes remaining there. >.< | ||
|
kofman
Andorra698 Posts
On October 22 2011 09:28 Cyro wrote: Dustin was quoted as saying he was low diamond while he gave his speech about game balance and the new units I doesn't feel right to have the game designer be only low diamond... Perhaps thats why the new units look so stupid. | ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
| ||
|
Raiznhell
Canada786 Posts
On October 24 2011 13:25 kofman wrote: I doesn't feel right to have the game designer be only low diamond... Perhaps thats why the new units look so stupid. The new units look epic, assuming Marauders and Infestors are removed the game seems like it's going to be so reminiscent of BW which despite what a lot of people might think, is a very good thing as BW was Epic. Mech TvP Dark swarm plus Zerg siege tactics Protoss in general still looks like it's gunna be a dumbed down EZ mode race for low levels that won't be very competitive at pro level but we can only wait and see. | ||
|
kofman
Andorra698 Posts
On October 24 2011 13:31 Raiznhell wrote: The new units look epic, assuming Marauders and Infestors are removed the game seems like it's going to be so reminiscent of BW which despite what a lot of people might think, is a very good thing as BW was Epic. Mech TvP Dark swarm plus Zerg siege tactics Protoss in general still looks like it's gunna be a dumbed down EZ mode race for low levels that won't be very competitive at pro level but we can only wait and see. Nah, the new units are too gimmicky and cutesy. I mean, an oracle whose only purpose is to forcefield mineral patches and slow down production for a little while? That's really stupid. | ||
|
phiinix
United States1169 Posts
if that's accurate, it'll be 17 hours from now, 3pm pst | ||
|
Tektos
Australia1321 Posts
On October 20 2011 23:37 Karellen wrote: Are you going to include "higher skill cap" units in future expansions? If not, whyyy????? Until you can micro like the Automaton 2000 I don't think you need to worry about how high the skill cap is.... | ||
|
Kid-Fox
Canada400 Posts
| ||
|
kofman
Andorra698 Posts
On October 24 2011 14:27 Tektos wrote: Until you can micro like the Automaton 2000 I don't think you need to worry about how high the skill cap is.... Um... no, there needs to be more units in the game that can be microed like the automatan 2000, atm its only marines. | ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
Why was the new harass caster for protoss placed at the stargate? Protoss have a problem with harass in early midgame in WoL but the new harass unit is being placed at the only part of the protoss tech tree that already has many harass options. | ||
|
Brotocol
243 Posts
On October 24 2011 14:23 phiinix wrote: http://twitter.com/#!/Kennigit if that's accurate, it'll be 17 hours from now, 3pm pst Good catch. Thanks! | ||
|
ArcLiTe
62 Posts
| ||
|
tztztz
Germany314 Posts
On October 24 2011 15:16 kofman wrote: Um... no, there needs to be more units in the game that can be microed like the automatan 2000, atm its only marines. and lings, and blink stalkers, and any kind of fancy medivac drop micro | ||
|
Nizzy
United States839 Posts
As a high RT player in 2v2 & 4v4 RT. I 100% match the highest team searching 90% of my games. I just can't take it anymore. In 4v4 its a set team of strategys/cheesers vs 4 randoms. | ||
|
puffel
Germany19 Posts
When will you stop making units "cool", rather than actually making them useful? (Examples here: - Zerg: Infestor good, but most of the other Zerg units suck in one way or another(cost, supply, w/e) - Protoss: Bringing Replicator unit in HotS to compensate lack of useful units by being able to "steal" those from another race (Viper, Infestor, Ghost) - The list goes on) | ||
|
suejak
Japan545 Posts
On October 24 2011 16:15 puffel wrote: Here is a simple question: When will you stop making units "cool", rather than actually making them useful? (Examples here: - Zerg: Infestor good, but most of the other Zerg units suck in one way or another(cost, supply, w/e) - Protoss: Bringing Replicator unit in HotS to compensate lack of useful units by being able to "steal" those from another race (Viper, Infestor, Ghost) - The list goes on) I don't understand you at all. Most zerg units suck? Protoss also lacks useful units, and so it must copy other races' units...? So every race sucks? What? | ||
|
puffel
Germany19 Posts
This thread is about posting questions and my question is about the way they design units and it makes me go full rage if they are explaining something about new or existing units where the main goal is to make single units "cool" (so they said earlier), rather than making different units synergize with each other better and stop balancing around single units (most likely caster or "hero" units). I hope David "will do some" about it.. but I guess its all good for them, since most matches are "even". | ||
|
Loodah
335 Posts
Terran's OP. Close positions are unfair. /cry | ||
|
Wren
United States745 Posts
On October 24 2011 14:23 phiinix wrote: http://twitter.com/#!/Kennigit if that's accurate, it'll be 17 hours from now, 3pm pst update: http://twitter.com/#!/Kennigit/status/128370572500537344 | ||
|
KDot2
United States1213 Posts
On October 24 2011 16:01 Nizzy wrote: Any plans to break up AT vs RT (arranged/group teams vs random teamed players) in ladder? As a high RT player in 2v2 & 4v4 RT. I 100% match the highest team searching 90% of my games. I just can't take it anymore. In 4v4 its a set team of strategys/cheesers vs 4 randoms. I'm sorry to say this but team games aren't balanced .... and they really shouldn't be taken serious | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  43659EffOrt  1334Shuttle 780Hyuk 742Larva 661Stork 657actioN 504firebathero  463Barracks 459Light 243[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games B2W.Neo1242 hiko872 DeMusliM482 Scarlett`394 Fuzer  229ArmadaUGS73 elazer69 ROOTCatZ56 Happy36 QueenE29 Trikslyr28 |
|
Big Brain Bouts
sebesdes vs SpeCial
Harstem vs YoungYakov
GgMaChine vs uThermal
CranKy Ducklings
Epic.LAN
CSO Contender
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Online Event
Esports World Cup
ByuN vs Astrea
Lambo vs HeRoMaRinE
Clem vs TBD
Solar vs Zoun
SHIN vs Reynor
Maru vs TriGGeR
herO vs Lancer
Cure vs ShoWTimE
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
Esports World Cup
|
|
|
EPT
