EPTHotS Beta to be Released Weeks After MLG Anaheim - Page 12
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
zazone
Romania460 Posts
| ||
|
carloselcoco
United States2302 Posts
On April 29 2012 18:27 zazone wrote: I recall I read somewhere that the beta for the expansion will actually be 3 months. If this is the case then I don't have any hopes that blizzard will actually fix this game. Wow! Why the negative attitude? If anything, Blizzard always shows they care... | ||
|
FLuE
United States1012 Posts
On April 29 2012 18:27 zazone wrote: I recall I read somewhere that the beta for the expansion will actually be 3 months. If this is the case then I don't have any hopes that blizzard will actually fix this game. Blizzard has a great track record of having great first expansions. If you look back at all Blizzard games, they seem to follow a pattern where the initial release is a bit of an incomplete product(usually a year delayed). But they get it out there and it is satisfactory. They then use the next expansion to more or less complete the game as intended. It is actually a pretty smart business ploy, they basically get us to pay $80-90 for what should have been the initially released and complete game. I feel like people are always forgetting that Brood War was an expansion for SC, and that the original SC was a pretty big pile of shit, at least from a multiplayer standpoint. Brood War really cleaned the game up and added a lot of needed features that launched the game to a new level. So in my opinion, SC2 is pretty much following on line with how Blizzard works. Big release, lots of hype, not a bad product but not great, $40 expansion to "clean it up" followed by what ends up being a pretty nice final product. | ||
|
PresenceSc2
Australia4032 Posts
| ||
|
Josh_rakoons
United Kingdom1158 Posts
On April 30 2012 09:09 FLuE wrote: Blizzard has a great track record of having great first expansions. If you look back at all Blizzard games, they seem to follow a pattern where the initial release is a bit of an incomplete product(usually a year delayed). But they get it out there and it is satisfactory. They then use the next expansion to more or less complete the game as intended. It is actually a pretty smart business ploy, they basically get us to pay $80-90 for what should have been the initially released and complete game. I feel like people are always forgetting that Brood War was an expansion for SC, and that the original SC was a pretty big pile of shit, at least from a multiplayer standpoint. Brood War really cleaned the game up and added a lot of needed features that launched the game to a new level. So in my opinion, SC2 is pretty much following on line with how Blizzard works. Big release, lots of hype, not a bad product but not great, $40 expansion to "clean it up" followed by what ends up being a pretty nice final product. One can hope you're correct. | ||
|
acrimoneyius
United States983 Posts
On April 30 2012 09:09 FLuE wrote: Blizzard has a great track record of having great first expansions. If you look back at all Blizzard games, they seem to follow a pattern where the initial release is a bit of an incomplete product(usually a year delayed). But they get it out there and it is satisfactory. They then use the next expansion to more or less complete the game as intended. It is actually a pretty smart business ploy, they basically get us to pay $80-90 for what should have been the initially released and complete game. I feel like people are always forgetting that Brood War was an expansion for SC, and that the original SC was a pretty big pile of shit, at least from a multiplayer standpoint. Brood War really cleaned the game up and added a lot of needed features that launched the game to a new level. So in my opinion, SC2 is pretty much following on line with how Blizzard works. Big release, lots of hype, not a bad product but not great, $40 expansion to "clean it up" followed by what ends up being a pretty nice final product. People keep falling into this trap of comparing SC2 to broodwar, as if each game existed in a vacuum with the same developers. Neither case is true. Originally, their lack of understanding for what good multiplayer was stemmed from the industry having a lack of RTS games in general. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with sc1's design (it was just missing roles in each race). Blizzard can't even acknowledge that the colossus is a bad unit and are too afraid to shake things up in the expansion. They're even dancing around putting in BW units missing from SC2 by making silly variations of essentially the same concepts, just so they can be 'original' with the creative process. | ||
|
monitor
United States2408 Posts
| ||
|
IamMagic
Canada53 Posts
| ||
|
BamBam
745 Posts
On April 30 2012 10:24 acrimoneyius wrote: People keep falling into this trap of comparing SC2 to broodwar, as if each game existed in a vacuum with the same developers. Neither case is true. Originally, their lack of understanding for what good multiplayer was stemmed from the industry having a lack of RTS games in general. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with sc1's design (it was just missing roles in each race). Blizzard can't even acknowledge that the colossus is a bad unit and are too afraid to shake things up in the expansion. They're even dancing around putting in BW units missing from SC2 by making silly variations of essentially the same concepts, just so they can be 'original' with the creative process. What I want to know is where people got the idea that vanilla SC was a "Pile of shit." Did the game have some competitive flaws? Sure... but so does every game that is released initially, that's why there are patches. Besides, when Starcraft was released it was THE best RTS of its time, all the others were vying for second place (though granted it wasn't a crowded market). | ||
|
Abort Retry Fail
2636 Posts
SC2 going from (bad but improving) WOL to (still bad) HOTS will definitely be a deal breaker. But yeah, cant wait. | ||
|
cactusjack914
United States183 Posts
| ||
|
onedayclose
United States1145 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On April 30 2012 11:32 Abort Retry Fail wrote: I hope they listen to the community. SC2 going from (bad but improving) WOL to (still bad) HOTS will definitely be a deal breaker. But yeah, cant wait. It's quite a stretch to say that the SC2 community thinks WOL is "bad". | ||
|
SDream
Brazil896 Posts
On April 30 2012 11:45 onedayclose wrote: So silly this is not featured! Is TL waiting for the official announcement that is never going to come? Yes. There is a reason this isn't official and that is, nothing is set in stone, Blizzard do have internally some time frames, but that doesn't mean that they will force everything into these dates. That's why they will try to not say a thing till the beta actually kicks and it will also be difficult for TL or any other site to "announce" it like this. On April 30 2012 11:38 cactusjack914 wrote: Just wondering, How were sc2 beta keys given out / how are people chosen to participate in the beta? First of all, they give the keys to their friends/family and high collaborators (forum's MVP, owners of fan sites like TL, gaming media etc). In SC2 case, I'd bet that most pros will get one in this first wave as well. Then they have promotions (sometimes random, sometimes you have to do something creative), opt-in (random), they give keys to sites like TL so TL make their own promotion, but outside of the first wave, it feels somewhat random I guess. | ||
|
pallad
Poland1958 Posts
On April 30 2012 11:32 Abort Retry Fail wrote: I hope they listen to the community. SC2 going from (bad but improving) WOL to (still bad) HOTS will definitely be a deal breaker. But yeah, cant wait. If you write WoL is bad ... what the hell you do in WoL TL section ? Get a life or something. I hate people that just say something is bad , but they still follow it etc , its funny. | ||
|
Rumpus
United States136 Posts
I also find it astonishing the units we have gotten to see that they plan on adding (and thankfully some have been cut) are actually being taken seriously. And completely horrified(!) that they don't seem to be finding all that much wrong with Battle.Net 2.0, Roaches, Marauders, Colossus, Hydralisks, Ultralisks, Carriers, Battle-cruisers, Ravens, clumping, Deathballs, coin-flippy-like potential for match-ups. Oh and I don't see much in their Reaper changes. Or the Ultralisk one, or the Baneling one,........or the Hydralisk one. They need to gut their SC2 team, I just see nothing that appealing coming from them. | ||
|
BalanceFx
United States72 Posts
The transforming hellion idea is cool and kinda gets a firebat like unit in the game. (Personally I l'd like to see it split back to add the firebat and eliminate the hellion and add the vulture back but Transforming hellion seems cool) Terran seems like the transforming race... Command center can transform, siege tank can deploy (Kind of transform), the Viking obviously... Maybe they will take that idea forward and let all mech/fliers transform. The medivac could land and transform into a healing bunker... not sure about the raven... I like the raven but I think the HSM is kinda gimmicky... Personally I see no need for the Thor... its too big and doesn't fit imho with terrans... I did like it in the campaign but even there it seemed kind of a big hero unit... Goliaths were fine but you could always eliminate the thor and let a landed viking serve as a goliath like unit.... (They seem similar already) who knows.... Zerg overall seems fragile... I think the hydra needs work... Change it from a light unit to an armored unit? Beef up its hps? both? Speed? Not sure... but the hydra seems very weak and not cost effective... Mutalisks are fun but they seem lately like a unit you can fool around with if you are already winning... I just feel mutas are too weak... Maybe an upgrade for their attack would be enough? (Extra bounce?) I do like where blizzard is going with Zerg... the Swarm host over the lurker looks interesting... different but cool. Tunneling banelings? (I just think that might be OP but it looks interesting... it would definitely change games) Everything else blizzard is doing so far looks great. I would say I find the baneling late game to be a near useless response to mass marines and fungal seems OP but if it wasn't I'm not sure how zerg would win games... There is something really strange there where I think micro plays just too much of a factor in the outcome compared to say a siege tank or a collosus. Granted an infestor requires micro to be useful at all... Last the queen spitting is too often... it is a fine mechanic but very boring... (Could we double the energy cost, the larva produced and the time it takes work?... just a suggestion but its a fine mechanic, just boring) Protoss... I love playing toss but I don't like the carrier.... It seems every cast I watch the casters comment that the carrier has the highest DPS but is that true? I like that pro players are using carriers more but I miss the old carriers and not sure how to fix them. I would be sad to see them go in the next XP. Warp gate seems fine to me and I think I kind of understand what some people are saying regarding its balance... But if it gets changed than all protoss is going to need to change a lot. The warping in units thing makes total sense since they can warp in buildings... why not units? If anything is done with this ability it will affect everything and will require a lot of balance changes... I like where blizzard is going with toss but am not sold on the mineral-shield unit harass... It sounds awesome though. I would like to see different archons depending on how you made the archon... two dark temps equal one kind of archon vs 2 high templars vs 1 of each. (Cloaked archon? Spell caster Archon? Regular Archon?) Lately I play random and like playing all the races... | ||
|
DyEnasTy
United States3714 Posts
On April 30 2012 12:58 BalanceFx wrote: I am willing to see what blizzard delivers. The transforming hellion idea is cool and kinda gets a firebat like unit in the game. (Personally I l'd like to see it split back to add the firebat and eliminate the hellion and add the vulture back but Transforming hellion seems cool) Terran seems like the transforming race... Command center can transform, siege tank can deploy (Kind of transform), the Viking obviously... Maybe they will take that idea forward and let all mech/fliers transform. The medivac could land and transform into a healing bunker... not sure about the raven... I like the raven but I think the HSM is kinda gimmicky... Personally I see no need for the Thor... its too big and doesn't fit imho with terrans... I did like it in the campaign but even there it seemed kind of a big hero unit... Goliaths were fine but you could always eliminate the thor and let a landed viking serve as a goliath like unit.... (They seem similar already) who knows.... This truly disappoints me to the core. "Terran the transformer race..... hellion idea cool.....landed viking serve as a goliath like unit...." So many things wrong with this. First 1) Terrans are not transformers in the Starcraft universe. 2) the battle hellion is a transformer. 3) landed vikings are transformers... See where im going with this? Blizzard is obsessed with trying to "remake SC" so they can be "original". But they went a complete 180 degrees the wrong direction with at least 1 race + Show Spoiler + Terran duh I think they are on the right track with Zerg, although the macro mechanics of the game prevent the power of this race from truly shining. Their units are supposed to be weak and throwaway. But either change mechanics, or buff the race. And Blizzard is proud of their mechanics, so only one option there. | ||
|
akaname
United Kingdom599 Posts
| ||
|
MrStabby
United States24 Posts
| ||
| ||
