|
On December 04 2011 06:02 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote:
Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right? New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game.
The defiler did not nullify positional play in BW.
The swarm host can hold ground/siege bases, a role that the Zerg is missing in WOL.
|
On December 04 2011 06:13 Snettik wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 06:02 Mehukannu wrote:On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote:
Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right? New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game. Don't present random theorycrafting and personal opinions as facts. For example idra likes the swarm host and viper sure as hell won't nullify all positional play. What if viper gets sniped by vikings/emp? What if the viper can't get juicy "reverse dark swarms" because of marines/stalkers in front? What if the terran won't keep all his tanks in one clump so a million reverse dark swarms are needed? EDIT: and about the set role thing... So a game becomes better when you don't plan anything and just make random units? right. I could make an RTS like that with the Star editor. Think about how deep strategy it would have
I don't see how there can be other way to talk about the new HotS units than theorycrafting about them and didn't blizzard want to hear the communities opinion about the new units that might or might not get added to the HotS release.
Funny that you start theroycrafting about scenarios where player skill is involved, which pretty much means that the counter argument might as well be not getting your viper sniped/emp or how about go around the marines/stalkers.
Honestly I ain't holding my breath for any of the ''might get add units'' for the HotS.
And your edit just confuses me... since I don't know where I was implying that the game becomes better when you just make random stuff. o.O
On December 04 2011 06:21 SarcasmMonster wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 06:02 Mehukannu wrote:On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote:
Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right? New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game. The defiler did not nullify positional play in BW. The swarm host can hold ground/siege bases, a role that the Zerg is missing in WOL.
Defiler =/= Viper, but only reason why viper is seen as defiler comeback is because it has ''reverse dark swarm''.
That is just what is see weird about the swarm host, it role is to be a ground siege unit, but I don't see how it can hold ground or siege bases that well since it can't be a threat constantly, because when the first wave of swarmlings are killed the swarm hosts become vulnerable to a counter attack because they don't have any other form of attack to protect themselves.
|
So criticism is quite broad here. Sometimes, conflicting and contradictory expectations are thrown out.
For example, one pro doesn't like that units have only certain uses and the fact that they are limited units. The other is complaining about OP units, like heroes from WC3, those which "dictate the game" and are used all the time. Aren't these contradictory in the root?
I agree, too many spellcasters might end up making it like WC3 though. And I am baffled that they add more spellcasters to Protoss as well. Protoss already have a lot of spellcasters, expensive and strong units, which makes Protoss games weird, they either stomp opponents or fail spectacularly. Adding more of those to Protoss could make it even more extreme, and it will be difficult to balance.
In any event, I don't think HOTS is that different than WoL or even BW. Both of the latter had spellcasters which were heavily used. A lot of drama, but in the end, dark archon, arbiter, HTs, Science Vessels etc. were all used a lot in BW.
|
|
|
On December 04 2011 07:35 Mehukannu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 06:13 Snettik wrote:On December 04 2011 06:02 Mehukannu wrote:On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote:
Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right? New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game. Don't present random theorycrafting and personal opinions as facts. For example idra likes the swarm host and viper sure as hell won't nullify all positional play. What if viper gets sniped by vikings/emp? What if the viper can't get juicy "reverse dark swarms" because of marines/stalkers in front? What if the terran won't keep all his tanks in one clump so a million reverse dark swarms are needed? EDIT: and about the set role thing... So a game becomes better when you don't plan anything and just make random units? right. I could make an RTS like that with the Star editor. Think about how deep strategy it would have I don't see how there can be other way to talk about the new HotS units than theorycrafting about them and didn't blizzard want to hear the communities opinion about the new units that might or might not get added to the HotS release. Funny that you start theroycrafting about scenarios where player skill is involved, which pretty much means that the counter argument might as well be not getting your viper sniped/emp or how about go around the marines/stalkers. Honestly I ain't holding my breath for any of the ''might get add units'' for the HotS. And your edit just confuses me... since I don't know where I was implying that the game becomes better when you just make random stuff. o.O Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 06:21 SarcasmMonster wrote:On December 04 2011 06:02 Mehukannu wrote:On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote:
Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right? New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game. The defiler did not nullify positional play in BW. The swarm host can hold ground/siege bases, a role that the Zerg is missing in WOL. Defiler =/= Viper, but only reason why viper is seen as defiler comeback is because it has ''reverse dark swarm''. That is just what is see weird about the swarm host, it role is to be a ground siege unit, but I don't see how it can hold ground or siege bases that well since it can't be a threat constantly, because when the first wave of swarmlings are killed the swarm hosts become vulnerable to a counter attack because they don't have any other form of attack to protect themselves.
The swarm host forces your opponent to react. If they don't, then they'll be slowly widdled away. Of course they will be counter-attacked if you have insufficient support units, that's a given. Blizzard can tweak the cooldown of the locusts if it is too slow.
If you can draw out your opponent because they need to deal with the swarm hosts, then you can surround with positional advantage.
|
On December 04 2011 07:35 Mehukannu wrote:That is just what is see weird about the swarm host, it role is to be a ground siege unit, but I don't see how it can hold ground or siege bases that well since it can't be a threat constantly, because when the first wave of swarmlings are killed the swarm hosts become vulnerable to a counter attack because they don't have any other form of attack to protect themselves.
The rate of spawning/number spawned each wave/etc can be changed. They might undergo further testing and increase the rate of spawn or something, what you saw at Blizzcon is highly likely not set in stone.
Also just because you're using them to siege bases doesn't mean that your army won't be nearby. Brood lords are used to siege bases/armies but absolutely cannot be used without the support of the army, because they're so vulnerable alone. The swarm host attacks in a different way, but most likely army support will be necessary.
|
Whitera....oh whitera.....how my heart flutters when you grace us with your intelligence and wit <3
|
how about winning the gsl or the mlg first before calling all champions bad players that abuse gamble aspects
|
From what I thought people liked the new units from Blizzcon. It really annoys me when a group of people simply assume that everyone agrees HotS will be bad. There's a bunch of people in this thread that completely lack perspective and seem convinced their opinion is the only relevant one. It's fine when Cloud feels negatively about HotS, but I'd rather not have people use it as evidence for HotS being awful. It's just his opinion, not fact.
|
On December 04 2011 02:48 dignitas.merz wrote:
Also progamers mindsets are the complete opposite, you never play greedy vs someone you dont know, or someone whos regarded "worse" than you.
Just wanted to say I disagree with that.
People were always flaming Flash for playing greedy, and that he should just play super safe, since hes better than the opponent.
When the actual truth is that he is so scary and so dominant because he mixes it up and because he does risky stuff (and CC first builds) not that rarely. He never underestimates his opponent and doesnt think "oh im better than this guy, all i need to do is play safe". Thats why hes so freakin good, and i think its an attitude that would help any gamer.
Of course its easier in SC2 for a lesser player to beat a better player, and there might be a few guys around that are successful that arent exactly geniuses but I think that too often people play losses on the game rather than respecting that the lesser player just played well that game.
Its not like a lot of people expected Naniwa when he had his inital success during the beta.
Dreamhack is not a counterexample to me either, the two best players ended up playing in the finals, I think thats about all you should ask for.
|
if these are pros why havent i heard of any of them. call em for what they are, no name nobodies. dont care what their opinion is
User was warned for this post
|
On December 04 2011 09:34 newbcake wrote:
if these are pros why havent i heard of any of them. call em for what they are, no name nobodies. dont care what their opinion is
people do care what their opinion is and they are certainly not as useless as your pointless bashing post so stfu.
|
On December 04 2011 06:21 SarcasmMonster wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 06:02 Mehukannu wrote:On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote:
Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right? New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game. The defiler did not nullify positional play in BW. The swarm host can hold ground/siege bases, a role that the Zerg is missing in WOL.
Dont really see how a swarm host can hold ground. People for some reason think he is like a luker just because he has to burrow to use his ability.
And a "siege base" role is missing in the zeg ? Really ? What are the broodlords for ?
|
On December 04 2011 09:55 Alexstrasas wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 06:21 SarcasmMonster wrote:On December 04 2011 06:02 Mehukannu wrote:On December 04 2011 05:20 SarcasmMonster wrote:
Do you people hate everything about HOTS? The two Zerg units look promising and helps fill missing roles in the current Zerg army. We can all agree that the new Zerg units are great, right? New zerg units definitely are not great or promising. A unit like viper pretty much nullifies all positional play from the game which is essential for both terran and protoss survival in the match up. The whole unit just oozes out BW nostalgia. which is why most people like it, quite frankly it is a defiler that flies. And the swarm host isn't that spectacular. It just spawns free units to attack your enemy every now and then... I am not really sure what blizzard what it's purpose is in the zerg army other than making it look swarmy without adding anything else to the game. The defiler did not nullify positional play in BW. The swarm host can hold ground/siege bases, a role that the Zerg is missing in WOL. Dont really see how a swarm host can hold ground. People for some reason think he is like a luker just because he has to burrow to use his ability. And a "siege base" role is missing in the zeg ? Really ? What are the broodlords for ?
Holds ground because you can constantly pressure/defend a choke with support units.
You're right about the broodlords. Zerg is missing a mid-game siege unit. Sometimes a Zerg can't beat a turtler even with significant advantage without teching to greater spire tech.
|
On December 03 2011 08:40 aTnClouD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2011 08:32 VanGarde wrote:On December 03 2011 07:35 noxn wrote:On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote:
No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments. Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me". it's a bit of a catch 22. anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it. I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement. There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win. By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones.
I am not a pro, but I see a lot of consistency from some players, which points in the direction of a not-so-random game. It may also be that there is a part of randomness due to the fact that the game is still really young and strategies that seem good maybee have really bad points that are not seen at the moment? Anyway, MVP and Nestea are two good example of a consistency that is no in agreement with an exceedling high randomness factor.
But I do agree with too much aoe. And I'm speaking from a viewer point of view.
Last but not least, a point very dear to me: I can't, for the life of me, understand why everybody that really loved SCBW have to cry out loud how the skillcap was higher before...
It's unquestionable that the mechanics in SCBW are harder and to be good at SCBW you have to be better, from the mechanics point of view. But both SCBW and SCII are STRATEGY games.
Skill should be defined as strategic and tactical skill.
If we only had something to control the game only via the mind, what you define the "skill" needed to play the game would be lower, much lower, as you don't need to train the fingers, but would make the games worst? The entertaining value is the battle of decision, it's not the battle of apm.
The better UI in SCII, in respect of a terrible interface for SCBW (12 units in a control group, really? I may be wrong on the number, but it is really small and that's the point), helps move the attention of the player from trying to make every one of his units do something to the more tactical aspect of the game.
If I watch a match of SCBW I can be amazed of how the pro can actually make their units do stuff, but only because I know how hard it is when I played the game. This although, is not something understood by any viewer, but only by those who actively play the game, ergo it's not a plus for an esport as ANYONE should be able to understand the value of what's happening in a match.
SCBW is great, but I have always felt like the lower mechanics requirement from SCII will allow for more tactical matches. That's why I would be curious to see a SCBW pro show what they can do with all the apm they don't need and their really finely tuned strategic and tactical thinking, for whose they would have more time during the game.
|
Seems like everyone is a bit skeptic, the idea that there will be a balance year is daunting and I couldn't stand it last time.
|
I don't think we should give up hope just yet; has any Progamers been able to play HoTS and give feedback to the development team? Probably not.
Let us hope David Kim will be able to make the right changes, now they have WoL and it's progaming scene to look back on when they design the sequel, even before the Beta.
Maybe Blizzard realizes/focuses on how important it is for the game to be successful as an eSport to further sales, longevity and popularity (they do make money from tournaments).
I will be guardedly positive to HoTS.
And to the Progamers in this thread and otherwhere: (try to) talk to Blizzard and give them your view what needs to be done, in a constructive way. You may be ignored but at least you have tried, it is a better shot than this thread.
Remember some things are just worth fighting for.
EDIT: The fact that there is an expansion I think is positive, it's a chance to make things better.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 04 2011 10:12 Dirich wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2011 08:40 aTnClouD wrote:On December 03 2011 08:32 VanGarde wrote:On December 03 2011 07:35 noxn wrote:On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote:
No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments. Sure, but I've seen the same thing before in other games. When someone "at the top" complains, then someone will say "if the game is so bad, then how come nestea and mvp have won so many championships? seems pretty consistent/balanced to me". it's a bit of a catch 22. anyway, there's nothing wrong with what cloud said. you don't have to be amongst the top 5 players in the world to have a valid opinion on the game. plus, as someone who came from wow - I can see why he's concerned. Blizzard is known for having killed the competitive aspect of WoW back in wotlk when they added all kinds of new jazz, realized how broken it was half a year later, and failed to balance it. I think you and several others are vastly missing the point, whether it is true or not that sc2 is really random and bad players can get good results by "throwing the dice" is a different question. Still one I would argue against with passion. Clouds statement puts it like he stopped playing because it is not worth it, you don't have to be good to get good results, which is just sulking when you have not gotten the results you want and saying "whatever this game is stupid, you can win stuff with random shit so I am not going to bother playing anymore". And yes your results actually do matter. If any of the very top players were to go out and say that the game is too random, I could lose to anyone because in every game I have to throw a dice then that would be a huge statement. There is a vast difference between saying there is randomness in the game and suggesting that there is no point competing because the game is so random that anyone can win. By giving up on sc2 I just meant I gave up on my hopes for an exciting sequel of SCBW. I didn't give up playing actually I'm playing more than I ever did in the past 2 months. Still, at least from my level of competence, I can see so many worse players winning by making random moves with no logics behind it, even in big tournaments, against players who actually are overall much better and just got unlucky, didn't watch the right screen for a split second cause any aoe in the game is too strong or they simply couldn't scout what was going on so they had to take a game changing blind decision. This happened in SCBW too but to a much, much, much smaller degree, and the fact the game also required to have good mechanics and multitasking allowed the pro scene to weed out many players that couldn't get at the level of the best ones. I am not a pro, but I see a lot of consistency from some players, which points in the direction of a not-so-random game. It may also be that there is a part of randomness due to the fact that the game is still really young and strategies that seem good maybee have really bad points that are not seen at the moment? Anyway, MVP and Nestea are two good example of a consistency that is no in agreement with an exceedling high randomness factor. But I do agree with too much aoe. And I'm speaking from a viewer point of view. Last but not least, a point very dear to me: I can't, for the life of me, understand why everybody that really loved SCBW have to cry out loud how the skillcap was higher before... It's unquestionable that the mechanics in SCBW are harder and to be good at SCBW you have to be better, from the mechanics point of view. But both SCBW and SCII are STRATEGY games. Skill should be defined as strategic and tactical skill. If we only had something to control the game only via the mind, what you define the "skill" needed to be the game would be lower, much lower, as you don't need to train the fingers, but would make the games worst? The entertaining value is the battle of decision, it's not the battle of apm. The better UI in SCII, in respect of a terrible interface for SCBW (12 units in a control group, really? I may be wrong on the number, but it is really small and that's the point), helps move the attention of the player from trying to make every one of his units do something to the more tactical aspect of the game. If I watch a match of SCBW I can be amazed of how the pro can actually make their units do stuff, but only because I know how hard it is when I played the game. This although, is not something understood by any viewer, but only by those who actively play the game, ergo it's not a plus for an esport as ANYONE should be able to understand the value of what's happening in a match. SCBW is great, but I have always felt like the lower mechanics requirement from SCII will allow for more tactical matches. That's why I would be curious to see a SCBW pro show what they can do with all the apm they don't need and their really finely tuned strategic and tactical thinking, for whose they would have more time during the game.
It's real-time strategy, that means it's important how fast and quickly you can do things.
On December 04 2011 09:25 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2011 02:48 dignitas.merz wrote:
Also progamers mindsets are the complete opposite, you never play greedy vs someone you dont know, or someone whos regarded "worse" than you.
Just wanted to say I disagree with that. People were always flaming Flash for playing greedy, and that he should just play super safe, since hes better than the opponent. When the actual truth is that he is so scary and so dominant because he mixes it up and because he does risky stuff (and CC first builds) not that rarely. He never underestimates his opponent and doesnt think "oh im better than this guy, all i need to do is play safe". Thats why hes so freakin good, and i think its an attitude that would help any gamer. Of course its easier in SC2 for a lesser player to beat a better player, and there might be a few guys around that are successful that arent exactly geniuses but I think that too often people play losses on the game rather than respecting that the lesser player just played well that game. Its not like a lot of people expected Naniwa when he had his inital success during the beta. Dreamhack is not a counterexample to me either, the two best players ended up playing in the finals, I think thats about all you should ask for.
You don't see Flash play against B-Teamer or rookie / trainies either. That's just an assumption that you're making.
|
Does anyone know if they're trying to suggest a 2012 release date with the opening line
Heart Of The Swarm is only a few months away
I'm hoping they wait until at least 2013 to release it. I like WoL the way it is currently. A release date hasn't been announced right?
|
I am in complete agreement with Cloud. The role of skill in SC2 just isn't there. It's mostly nonsense like unit counters and blind risk taking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
