|
On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote:
Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks.
No offense but the best players still win most tournaments, the game isn't a gamble, army engagements are just a lot more important then they were in BW
|
On December 03 2011 11:29 dgwow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote:
Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks. No offense but the best players still win most tournaments, the game isn't a gamble, army engagements are just a lot more important then they were in BW
Are you implying build order wins don't happen? Crazy good players are still getting killed by three four gates in a row in high stakes tournaments. This game has WAY more gambling then BW.
|
On December 03 2011 11:25 renaissanceMAN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2011 07:24 Genie1 wrote:
Hmm a divide in the community could happen if the game isn't balanced enough and I would have to agree with some of the pros about there concerns as it will change the metagame entirely and will have to learn new strategies that work since the old ones won't always work. I'm worried about this coming from the call of duty community, that's exactly what happened to the COD series now I'm not comparing blizzard to activision/infinity ward/treyarch but blizzard really needs to careful about how they go about HoTS, I think it might have been a mistake for them to preview all these new units without really knowing how they will affect the game yet, obviously they wanted to show us something, but it's produced a ton of doubt in the community hopefully they're at least trying to make it as balanced and non-gimmicky as possible
Blizzard is part of Activision now 
|
On December 03 2011 11:37 decemberscalm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2011 11:29 dgwow wrote:On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote:
Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks. No offense but the best players still win most tournaments, the game isn't a gamble, army engagements are just a lot more important then they were in BW Are you implying build order wins don't happen? Crazy good players are still getting killed by three four gates in a row in high stakes tournaments. This game has WAY more gambling then BW.
Early cheese is strong of course, but the game is still in its infancy, new maps and HotS will probably stabilize that to a certain degree. But calling the game itself as a whole a gamble is not very accurate.
|
On December 03 2011 11:45 dgwow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2011 11:37 decemberscalm wrote:On December 03 2011 11:29 dgwow wrote:On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote:
Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks. No offense but the best players still win most tournaments, the game isn't a gamble, army engagements are just a lot more important then they were in BW Are you implying build order wins don't happen? Crazy good players are still getting killed by three four gates in a row in high stakes tournaments. This game has WAY more gambling then BW. Early cheese is strong of course, but the game is still in its infancy, new maps and HotS will probably stabilize that to a certain degree. But calling the game itself as a whole a gamble is not very accurate. In blizzard we shakily trust (no one else to trust).
|
It will probably still go through few larger phases of unit tweaking, inserting and removing as there's still another expansion to publish. Just hope they don't force in units because some fancy extremely situational gimmicks.
|
On December 03 2011 11:37 decemberscalm wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2011 11:29 dgwow wrote:On December 03 2011 07:29 aTnClouD wrote:
Sc2 is already bad enough with all those aoe super powerful no brainer easy to use units (ghost, templar, colo, infestor). Let's add more spellcasting bs on the field so the game gets... worse. This is my opinion and I'm not being a crybaby. If you don't like it don't assume I'm just whining randomly. I'm not blaming my "lack of results" (?!?results that anyway most people who play sc2 all day would love to have) on a bad game since I know it was obviously due to the fact I never liked SC2 for the reasons I stated before so I was never able to enjoy and practice as much as many other tournament winning players. Even if the game is super gamblish and bad players can win against good ones it doesn't mean the very best players in the world are not able to put the results they deserve (and they can still lose to incomparably worse players - watch mlg orlando). Thing is they are gonna add stuff in hots that will probably be sick hard to balance with everything else already and I really wonder if there is any way for units like the oracle or the shredder to not fuck up totally the game. Don't get me wrong, I obviously hope I am just pessimistic and it won't be like this, still it looks pretty grim to me.
edit: and dont call me mid tier foreign player, cause i'm not. thanks. No offense but the best players still win most tournaments, the game isn't a gamble, army engagements are just a lot more important then they were in BW Are you implying build order wins don't happen? Crazy good players are still getting killed by three four gates in a row in high stakes tournaments. This game has WAY more gambling then BW.
And build order wins never happened in BroodWar? His point was that army engagements are way more important in this game. It's a great point, because since the mechanics are easier you have to control what you have better than your opponent or, if you're equally skilled, you'll never recover from too large of a loss. I don't see where there is more gambling, unless you think BW didn't have cheese or build order losses.
I'm pleasantly surprised at the Pro comments. Cloud was the only guy who completely shit on Blizzard, and he was the guy who left because he, I guess from what he's said, felt he was losing games to people he shouldn't have lost to. Everyone else were relatively different in their opinions on the units, but they all came down to "Meh, let's wait and see if Blizzard can do what we believe they can."
Which is, of course, the only reasonable answer. Unless you just want to complain. Then you can just shit on a bunch of units that haven't even entered full scale beat testing yet.
|
On December 03 2011 09:31 aTnClouD wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2011 09:19 D_K_night wrote:On December 03 2011 09:06 aTnClouD wrote:On December 03 2011 08:52 D_K_night wrote: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. Thanks, sorry - my last post just came too late before I saw your response here. Your concern comes from - AoE damage is just too high. That makes sense, and does sound like a valid complaint to take back to Blizz. I recall seeing some very nice templar/shuttle play in BW, where drone lines are devastated. Would you say that templar/infestor/ghost type units in SC2 are just too devastating for their cost? By how much would you say their AOE should be toned down(percentage-wise)? Also a question around your "randomness" complaint. These "worse" players getting lucky due to a blind decision. Also your comment about the "couldn't scout" as well. Was this a factor in BW as well, or does SC2 simply have just too many tech paths that, if not scouted, could spell your doom just too easily? Templars, infestors and ghosts are way too cost efficient and easy to use. These 2 factors together make these units totally dictate how games go in conjunction to the fact everything clumps too much in sc2. They are gonna add more of this so I am not sure where they plan to take the game from the aoe a-move slugfest that is now. About scouting, the main problems in early game are mostly the fact stalkers and zerglings outrun workers and marine has such a strong moving shot against them. The worst part though is that all the new early units and mechanics (roach, baneling, larva inject, marauder, hellion, sentry, warpgates) can make such powerful all ins at times where one of the players simply can't have map control or any kind of scouting informaton that many games just end up being a result of one the players taking a big blind risk early game and somebody got randomly rewarded for it. I am not sure if blizzard even think these are issues but it wouldn't be the first time they just put too much stuff without caring/fixing the rest and it ends up being a total mess afterwards. Would an early baneling bust vs a Terran depot wall-in qualify for your above comments? How about a sudden roach build vs reactor-fac hellions? I can definitely say I've lost outright many a time against those as Terran, in many ways I blame myself for not having scouted better or scanned, but I see even pros lose to those, soooo.... Both are not very effective all ins and they are not the issue I'm talking about. The best example I can find is in PvT fast nexus into 6 gate aggression. Can beat even 4+ bunkers on most maps due to forcefields preventing repair, so terrans have to be prepared for it even if they don't scout, but if protoss goes for fast upgrades and zealots archons he will win easily later cause terran had to invest into defence rather than upgrades, tech and eco. So basically terran has to take a blind decision, either counter 6 gate or double forge, if they are wrong they lose if they get it right they will most likely win a bit later into mid game or be in a really good position. It's a bit simplified but it's pretty much what happens in the matchup right now. I guess it can be entertaining from a watcher perspective to see the unpredictability of a match, but still sucks for a player who invests a lot of time into getting better.
Do you think the problems apply just to protoss-related matchups (usually, shitty blind all-ins work in every matchup sometimes and they worked in BW a little too), or is it a game wide thing?
I definitely understand and agree with the points you're making, but it seems basically a TvP/ZvP issue rather than a game-wide one, and has less to do with the spellcasters IMO. Relative to everyone else, protoss has a ton of hard counters (colossi v marine/zergling/ghost/infestor, marauder v stalker, early-midgame sentries against fucking anything in a single engagement) which lead to a lot more situations where you're like "fuck, I don't want these units" (ie. a roach/hydra max against stalker/colossi, too many vikings against not many colossi/too many marauders and not enough marine/ghost against zealot/archon, etc.).
As long as blizzard avoids more godawful colossi/marauder/sentry (yes the sentry is bad, it forces players to blindly prepare for unscouted all-ins as part of good play rofl) style units, I don't think HoTS will be a step backwards. If you look at it from a role perspective, for terran they're basically trying to replace spider mines and make mech more stable while zerg gets a unit which resembles lurkers for map control and a weird caster that thinks it's a flying defiler. It's just protoss that looks worrying, with a weird hard counter to mass muta (yay), a cute harass unit that's probably unnecessary thanks to buffed warp prisms and some OP/useless nexus spells that won't make release.
Either way, nothing protoss gets should make the timings any stronger (thank god), while zerg/terran might get better tools to deal with them. Honestly, ZvT & the mirrors just look like they'll get more interesting and PvT/PvZ will remain the game of poker and reactive countering that it currently is past the corrosive all-in phase. Not very BW or mechanics based but still a game of skill.
|
On December 03 2011 10:18 awu25 wrote:
Cloud: 'I think the expansion will be a mess and blizzard won't be able to balance and control what they are about to do. I have very little expectations and I gave up on sc2 since it seems so many bad players can have decent results by just abusing the gamble aspect of this game.'
Says this, yet doesn't win any tournaments
He won more tournaments than you thats for sure.
Gotto love this random guys bashing pro players.
Regarding OP we´ll see about dat Hots and what it brings.
From Cloud´s point of view i do see why he thinks that for now it doesnt seem too good, some changes/units seem to be kinda random and just accentuate the bad things in some races, other do seem to be the fix needed for some issues but on paper only, as their actual stats seem to be kinda off.
I mean looking at Viper for example, do zerg really needs another aoe spell ? How will people deal with fungal + banelings + blinding cloud? Just sounds random and doesnt really adds any more complexity to the game as its just another way of allowing players to a-move the main army while just wreaking havoc with casters and mass aoe.
Protoss already has warp-ins. This alone makes its hard to catch a protoss off guard because he can always warp-in units to defend key points. Do protoss really needs on top of that recall AND a summonable cannon ? I mean seriously ? I would love to hear the reasoning behind this ideias.
|
I don't see how anyone that saw the Hots multiplayer preview could have a positive oppinion about SC2.
What was shown at Blizzcon was just utter bullshit.
|
Cloud is basically describing WoL. The best player doesn't always win. We know the skill ceiling is low, but I don't think the expansion will exacerbate it at all.
|
They're proposing new units based on the existing viking/colossus dynamic. This makes me think that sadly SC2 will not reach it's full potential. =(
|
lol cloud's comment.
technically he is right about the low skill ceiling but it's funny that he quit sc2.
|
I think the mechanics skill cap has not been reached yet. Maybe its just me but wait till the BW players come over, then we get to appreciate how far they can push the mechanics in starcraft 2.
|
On December 03 2011 11:56 Jehct wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2011 09:31 aTnClouD wrote:On December 03 2011 09:19 D_K_night wrote:On December 03 2011 09:06 aTnClouD wrote:On December 03 2011 08:52 D_K_night wrote: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. Thanks, sorry - my last post just came too late before I saw your response here. Your concern comes from - AoE damage is just too high. That makes sense, and does sound like a valid complaint to take back to Blizz. I recall seeing some very nice templar/shuttle play in BW, where drone lines are devastated. Would you say that templar/infestor/ghost type units in SC2 are just too devastating for their cost? By how much would you say their AOE should be toned down(percentage-wise)? Also a question around your "randomness" complaint. These "worse" players getting lucky due to a blind decision. Also your comment about the "couldn't scout" as well. Was this a factor in BW as well, or does SC2 simply have just too many tech paths that, if not scouted, could spell your doom just too easily? Templars, infestors and ghosts are way too cost efficient and easy to use. These 2 factors together make these units totally dictate how games go in conjunction to the fact everything clumps too much in sc2. They are gonna add more of this so I am not sure where they plan to take the game from the aoe a-move slugfest that is now. About scouting, the main problems in early game are mostly the fact stalkers and zerglings outrun workers and marine has such a strong moving shot against them. The worst part though is that all the new early units and mechanics (roach, baneling, larva inject, marauder, hellion, sentry, warpgates) can make such powerful all ins at times where one of the players simply can't have map control or any kind of scouting informaton that many games just end up being a result of one the players taking a big blind risk early game and somebody got randomly rewarded for it. I am not sure if blizzard even think these are issues but it wouldn't be the first time they just put too much stuff without caring/fixing the rest and it ends up being a total mess afterwards. Would an early baneling bust vs a Terran depot wall-in qualify for your above comments? How about a sudden roach build vs reactor-fac hellions? I can definitely say I've lost outright many a time against those as Terran, in many ways I blame myself for not having scouted better or scanned, but I see even pros lose to those, soooo.... Both are not very effective all ins and they are not the issue I'm talking about. The best example I can find is in PvT fast nexus into 6 gate aggression. Can beat even 4+ bunkers on most maps due to forcefields preventing repair, so terrans have to be prepared for it even if they don't scout, but if protoss goes for fast upgrades and zealots archons he will win easily later cause terran had to invest into defence rather than upgrades, tech and eco. So basically terran has to take a blind decision, either counter 6 gate or double forge, if they are wrong they lose if they get it right they will most likely win a bit later into mid game or be in a really good position. It's a bit simplified but it's pretty much what happens in the matchup right now. I guess it can be entertaining from a watcher perspective to see the unpredictability of a match, but still sucks for a player who invests a lot of time into getting better. Do you think the problems apply just to protoss-related matchups (usually, shitty blind all-ins work in every matchup sometimes and they worked in BW a little too), or is it a game wide thing? I definitely understand and agree with the points you're making, but it seems basically a TvP/ZvP issue rather than a game-wide one, and has less to do with the spellcasters IMO. Relative to everyone else, protoss has a ton of hard counters (colossi v marine/zergling/ghost/infestor, marauder v stalker, early-midgame sentries against fucking anything in a single engagement) which lead to a lot more situations where you're like "fuck, I don't want these units" (ie. a roach/hydra max against stalker/colossi, too many vikings against not many colossi/too many marauders and not enough marine/ghost against zealot/archon, etc.). As long as blizzard avoids more godawful colossi/marauder/sentry (yes the sentry is bad, it forces players to blindly prepare for unscouted all-ins as part of good play rofl) style units, I don't think HoTS will be a step backwards. If you look at it from a role perspective, for terran they're basically trying to replace spider mines and make mech more stable while zerg gets a unit which resembles lurkers for map control and a weird caster that thinks it's a flying defiler. It's just protoss that looks worrying, with a weird hard counter to mass muta (yay), a cute harass unit that's probably unnecessary thanks to buffed warp prisms and some OP/useless nexus spells that won't make release. Either way, nothing protoss gets should make the timings any stronger (thank god), while zerg/terran might get better tools to deal with them. Honestly, ZvT & the mirrors just look like they'll get more interesting and PvT/PvZ will remain the game of poker and reactive countering that it currently is past the corrosive all-in phase. Not very BW or mechanics based but still a game of skill.
Nothing in the Toss all-in arsenal is as powerful as 1-1-1 which has a 80% chance of succeeding even if the player knows that it is coming or one of its umpteen variations. If anything, Terran timings will get nerfed with the addition of the replicator.
|
On December 03 2011 11:24 decemberscalm wrote:
Face it. BW style is dead. They will not change the fundamental game play. BW style unit movement and army positioning is gone. Highly doubt they'll fix the instant army melt-age either. I stopped watch SC2 games after they lost their fresh appeal. SC2 for me will just be another fun game to play.
I really hope Blizzard reconsiders their stance on unit pathfinding, specifically the control group movement.
I'm not asking for 8 direction movement or retarted AI that need 10 clicks to get down a ramp. I just want the units to not stick together like a blob of magnetic gel when I move them with the same control group. It could be something between WC3 pathfinding and the current one, so units at least maintain a certain space between them without necessarily move in an formation. The engine "can do anything" after all... AOE would be way easier to balance this way too.
|
I saw cloud on another post, the guy is just turning into a biased mess. Idk if he has been having some bad days or something but he first said toss took no skill to play, disregarded any notion of terran all ins and then said blizzard can't balance for crap. He is starting to sound like Idra and aTn is going to suffer for it. Is he even a top level pro? I'm just really confused by all the hate he is spewing around.
|
On December 03 2011 12:08 0neder wrote:
They're proposing new units based on the existing viking/colossus dynamic. This makes me think that sadly SC2 will not reach it's full potential. =(
Have faith in the modding community.
|
A new expansion so soon ... idk just seems to fast.
|
On December 03 2011 12:25 Oradri wrote:
A new expansion so soon ... idk just seems to fast.
BW released like 8 months after vanilla.
Shows how much harder it is to make a game today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
