|
On June 13 2012 22:59 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 22:34 Rokit5 wrote:
I really want Dustin Browder to go away. I dont trust his knowledge about the game. He is suprised about mothership usage in ZvP? What the fack.... He's surprised that NP on Motherships is a concern, and he should be surprised, because it's not a prevalent concern. Is there a mass of complaints on this forum about NP on Motherships? If it was a prevalent concern, then most Motherships would get NP'ed, making the Protoss lose, meaning that it would be surprising that they build the Mothership in the first place, instead of trying other options to deal with broods, like Archons or blink Stalkers.
I was refering to the instant lose or isntant win issues that the mothership vortex brings.
|
On June 13 2012 22:45 kochujang wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 22:34 Rokit5 wrote:
I really want Dustin Browder to go away. I dont trust his knowledge about the game. He is suprised about mothership usage in ZvP? What the fack.... That is not what he said *sigh*
I realize that *sigh*, im not a complete retard yet. Red between the lines and use logic *sigh*. I was refering to the instant win or lose mechanic when using vortex. It is discussed in the interview.
|
All hail Dustin Browder! HotS is shaping up to be a much better game than WoL. For those who complain about the NP-Mothership situation isn't feedback a solution?
|
On June 13 2012 23:19 Rokit5 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 22:45 kochujang wrote:On June 13 2012 22:34 Rokit5 wrote:
I really want Dustin Browder to go away. I dont trust his knowledge about the game. He is suprised about mothership usage in ZvP? What the fack.... That is not what he said *sigh* I realize that *sigh*, im not a complete retard yet. Red between the lines and use logic *sigh*. I was refering to the instant win or lose mechanic when using vortex. It is discussed in the interview.
He is surprised about NP'ed Mothership being a concern in the matchup, which it is really not. The question was just badly formulated and put Browder on the wrong track. Browder did not say anything about the Vortex mechanism itself; he only answered if NP->Mothership was a problematic issue in the matchup. If you are using some logic, you will see they have addressed the Vortex issue in the expansion.
|
On June 13 2012 16:06 Snowbear wrote:
What I like is David Kim his explanation about terran in HOTS: their goal is to let terran choose between bio, or mech, which is actually great.
Why are they so hellbend on giving Terran the option of having two unique paths? Shouldn't they be forced to optimize production out of all their facilities instead of having one factory or one barracks floating around the map the rest of the game.
On June 13 2012 12:25 Falling wrote:
David Kim's
Ew. As Terran you can play harass based strategy or Protoss style (aka Death ball) Shoot. I don't particulary like Protoss play now and I'd hate to see Terran turn into deathball rather than true mech play of controlling space, creeping forward, creating great siege lines.
I think Thor needs to stay out or they're just adding units to the mech ball instead of changing the shape of it.
|
Didn't like any of David Kim's answers at all
|
Hong Kong124 Posts
The interview with Dustin Browder makes me believe that the Blizzard team(or at least Dustin) is not understanding what kind of game the community wants. When he draw the comparison between Mothership vs Zerg deathball and ghost vs high templar dance, he did not realize that the community likes the high templar battle way more than the mothership one. Even though both situations are affected "by a few clicks", we want a situation where someone can overcome the opponent through skills. The ghost dance can involve positioning from both spell castres , observers positioning, warp prism micro etc while there will only be 1 mothership in the game, making a limited amount of positioning decisions. This allows the ghost vs templar dance to show more skill while the mothership battle feels more luck based.
If Blizzard continue to leave out the skill factor in developing the game, I am worried they will make more and more poor game design decisions.
It makes me happy that David Kim's team is looking at match-ups balance more indepth than I expected, checking early game, mid game up to 45 min mark win rates of the 2 races. I do not know if anyone can ask for more. However, I disagree that oracle will break up the protoss deathball. At current state, the effectiveness of the oracle is not comparable to the robo tech. Moreover, the cloaking field will still encourage deathball composition. I hope they come up with other solutions to encourage the protoss to do more multi-prong attack.
|
On June 13 2012 23:26 Spec wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 16:06 Snowbear wrote:
What I like is David Kim his explanation about terran in HOTS: their goal is to let terran choose between bio, or mech, which is actually great. Why are they so hellbend on giving Terran the option of having two unique paths? Shouldn't they be forced to optimize production out of all their facilities instead of having one factory or one barracks floating around the map the rest of the game. Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 12:25 Falling wrote:
David Kim's
Ew. As Terran you can play harass based strategy or Protoss style (aka Death ball) Shoot. I don't particulary like Protoss play now and I'd hate to see Terran turn into deathball rather than true mech play of controlling space, creeping forward, creating great siege lines. I think Thor needs to stay out or they're just adding units to the mech ball instead of changing the shape of it.
You wouldn't want to float your Barricks since you need it to build more Factories. If you go bio-mech (which I'm assuming will also be more viable in HOTS), then you'll want to keep your production structures alive.
It wasn't that big of an "problem" in BW even though the Barricks was useless past the early game in TvT and TvP.
|
Hearing David Kim say he wants Terran to have less-micro intensive units and, I quote, 'more a-moving friendly stuff' before refuting that he does want to make the game more casual is actually scandalous. What a low-life manipulative little dumbass.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
The question with regard to late game pvz was just worded really badly. It was surprising though that Dustin Browder couldn't infer what was really been asked which is the whole late game pvz scenario boils down to the vortex. Protoss gets off good vortex, toss wins. Zerg neurals mothership and vortex toss or anywhere really other than their own army, zerg wins. Very coin flippy and boring.
|
On June 13 2012 23:39 stylz wrote:
The question with regard to late game pvz was just worded really badly. It was surprising though that Dustin Browder couldn't infer what was really been asked which is the whole late game pvz scenario boils down to the vortex. Protoss gets off good vortex, toss wins. Zerg neurals mothership and vortex toss or anywhere really other than their own army, zerg wins. Very coin flippy and boring.
A cynical person may say he mis-interpreted the question deliberately, to avoid answering the real issue. They are most likely very well aware of the problem, but have no real answer on the problem except for "HotS will solve it".
|
On June 13 2012 22:32 Gosi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 22:08 Madkipz wrote:On June 13 2012 21:53 bokchoi wrote:Thor's suffering from an art issue, hurting eSports. So funny, I don't know if he meant to say that to troll people or it just came out but good interview with David Kim. On June 13 2012 21:49 ZAiNs wrote:
I would have liked some more pressing on the Carrier issue. Kennigit should have asked why the Carrier is one of the few units to literally have never been buffed/nerfed by a patch, and why they haven't tried something as simple as reducing its build cost and/or build time before ditching it. Realistically only one, and the one that we all want... CARRIER HAS ARRIVED. Even worse, if you gave carrier 22 range it could serve the same role as the tempest and do that role in a cooler way.... Yupp, but they just want to make their own units but with the same kind of role because SC2 is their game and HotS is a new expansion so something new and coOo0L has to get in. Just like in WoL, there is units in here that got added over completely fine and loved units because of the reason I stated. What role has Thor in WoL that Goliath couldn't fill? With and without minor tweaks to the Goliath. And now with Warhound coming in to take place in Terran mech compositions, it's like 2 Goliaths in the game. Hellion? I don't mind the Hellion, but why couldn't they have the Vulture and Firebat in SC2? Now we get Hellion and firebat (battle hellion) in HotS but no Vulture or Hellion with Vulture micro pontential. No Arbiter in WoL but Oracle(?) is like an Arbiter in HotS but still not Arbiter. Science Vessel didn't have to be replaced by Raven, just tweak the spells a bit, but no. Changed awesome Reaver for Colossi, I don't think I even have to say anything here since everyone outside of Blizzard HQ understand that this was like the biggest mistake ever. Because they are to proud of their own game they can't even add a fucking normal lurker into the game so they make up their own shit lurker... the same with defiler and the Viper. As you see, they scrap good units that already fill roles to make their own, worse version of that unit and that is what is happening to the Carrier. Why do you think they haven't done shit for the Carrier so far? Oh I forgot about the "widow mine"... just lol. Can't even put in damn spider mines without making them fucking wierd and with a new name. xD
I don't like your attitude. Not going to go into intensive detail, but extensively you assume that all BW units are better and that all units are just copies of BW units(which I believe they are not). As an intensive example, Battle hellions seem almost more convenient then firebats because their robotic nature makes them effected by mech upgrades.
|
Hong Kong124 Posts
On June 13 2012 23:35 FATJESUSONABIKE wrote:
Hearing David Kim say he wants Terran to have less-micro intensive units and, I quote, 'more a-moving friendly stuff' before refuting that he does want to make the game more casual is actually scandalous. What a low-life manipulative little dumbass.
I think David Kim made a good point when he said a A moving army may not require that much micro, but it can be requiring other skills.
The best example we had so far is the Broodlord army. Yeah, of course they need fungal support, but the army is still a A-moving base army(that's why so many zergs get caught in a vortex = =). In a serious note though, you have to get a healthy income, a solid base defense and save enough energy on the infestors. All the supporting factors to allow an A-moving army to work as intended can be hard to get. The army itself is not everything. You may not require heavy micro to use them well, but you may need good economy management and scouting to hold off timing attack to get he army up.
However, I do agree that the A-move deathball of the protoss is not that hard to get = =" so...I think Blizzard has to put in some effort before they release the Terran A-move army to the public...
|
Hong Kong124 Posts
On June 14 2012 00:20 Bippzy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 22:32 Gosi wrote:On June 13 2012 22:08 Madkipz wrote:On June 13 2012 21:53 bokchoi wrote:Thor's suffering from an art issue, hurting eSports. So funny, I don't know if he meant to say that to troll people or it just came out but good interview with David Kim. On June 13 2012 21:49 ZAiNs wrote:
I would have liked some more pressing on the Carrier issue. Kennigit should have asked why the Carrier is one of the few units to literally have never been buffed/nerfed by a patch, and why they haven't tried something as simple as reducing its build cost and/or build time before ditching it. Realistically only one, and the one that we all want... CARRIER HAS ARRIVED. Even worse, if you gave carrier 22 range it could serve the same role as the tempest and do that role in a cooler way.... Yupp, but they just want to make their own units but with the same kind of role because SC2 is their game and HotS is a new expansion so something new and coOo0L has to get in. Just like in WoL, there is units in here that got added over completely fine and loved units because of the reason I stated. What role has Thor in WoL that Goliath couldn't fill? With and without minor tweaks to the Goliath. And now with Warhound coming in to take place in Terran mech compositions, it's like 2 Goliaths in the game. Hellion? I don't mind the Hellion, but why couldn't they have the Vulture and Firebat in SC2? Now we get Hellion and firebat (battle hellion) in HotS but no Vulture or Hellion with Vulture micro pontential. No Arbiter in WoL but Oracle(?) is like an Arbiter in HotS but still not Arbiter. Science Vessel didn't have to be replaced by Raven, just tweak the spells a bit, but no. Changed awesome Reaver for Colossi, I don't think I even have to say anything here since everyone outside of Blizzard HQ understand that this was like the biggest mistake ever. Because they are to proud of their own game they can't even add a fucking normal lurker into the game so they make up their own shit lurker... the same with defiler and the Viper. As you see, they scrap good units that already fill roles to make their own, worse version of that unit and that is what is happening to the Carrier. Why do you think they haven't done shit for the Carrier so far? Oh I forgot about the "widow mine"... just lol. Can't even put in damn spider mines without making them fucking wierd and with a new name. xD I don't like your attitude. Not going to go into intensive detail, but extensively you assume that all BW units are better and that all units are just copies of BW units(which I believe they are not). As an intensive example, Battle hellions seem almost more convenient then firebats because their robotic nature makes them effected by mech upgrades.
Totally agree ...... and Thor do serve a different role than goliaths ...they heavily punish ill-microed muta, and can be mass repaired (I did not count stomping FF here)
|
On June 13 2012 23:17 Rokit5 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 22:59 paralleluniverse wrote:On June 13 2012 22:34 Rokit5 wrote:
I really want Dustin Browder to go away. I dont trust his knowledge about the game. He is suprised about mothership usage in ZvP? What the fack.... He's surprised that NP on Motherships is a concern, and he should be surprised, because it's not a prevalent concern. Is there a mass of complaints on this forum about NP on Motherships? If it was a prevalent concern, then most Motherships would get NP'ed, making the Protoss lose, meaning that it would be surprising that they build the Mothership in the first place, instead of trying other options to deal with broods, like Archons or blink Stalkers. I was refering to the instant lose or isntant win issues that the mothership vortex brings.
Vortex isn't an instant win. That would imply that most late games in PvZ is won by P, and that this win rate is near 100% if vortex is used.
|
On June 13 2012 22:28 Torte de Lini wrote:
David Kim interview was good, Dustin Browder seemed better somehow.
Probably because Dustin is a far better at interviews. He never stutters and he always knows what to say. I think the only problem he has is he tends to ramble, but that's just him filling up dead space so he can think of the real answer. It's a common technique used for Q&A.
David doesn't have any of Dustin's techniques and it's obvious that he's pretty nervous about his answers. Wax was being pretty aggressive about his questions as well.
David saying that Zerg can't really crack a Siege tank line is pretty bullshit too. In fact it seems DK and DB have totally different philosophies when it comes to controlling space. DB seems very clear that controlling space and forcing the opponent to move around this is a solid strategy. However DK seems to believe that every defense should be cracked straight up.
Nevermind the fact that Zerg can already do this anyway.
|
I hate these guys. Listening to them makes me depressed.
|
On June 14 2012 00:20 Bippzy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 22:32 Gosi wrote:On June 13 2012 22:08 Madkipz wrote:On June 13 2012 21:53 bokchoi wrote:Thor's suffering from an art issue, hurting eSports. So funny, I don't know if he meant to say that to troll people or it just came out but good interview with David Kim. On June 13 2012 21:49 ZAiNs wrote:
I would have liked some more pressing on the Carrier issue. Kennigit should have asked why the Carrier is one of the few units to literally have never been buffed/nerfed by a patch, and why they haven't tried something as simple as reducing its build cost and/or build time before ditching it. Realistically only one, and the one that we all want... CARRIER HAS ARRIVED. Even worse, if you gave carrier 22 range it could serve the same role as the tempest and do that role in a cooler way.... Yupp, but they just want to make their own units but with the same kind of role because SC2 is their game and HotS is a new expansion so something new and coOo0L has to get in. Just like in WoL, there is units in here that got added over completely fine and loved units because of the reason I stated. What role has Thor in WoL that Goliath couldn't fill? With and without minor tweaks to the Goliath. And now with Warhound coming in to take place in Terran mech compositions, it's like 2 Goliaths in the game. Hellion? I don't mind the Hellion, but why couldn't they have the Vulture and Firebat in SC2? Now we get Hellion and firebat (battle hellion) in HotS but no Vulture or Hellion with Vulture micro pontential. No Arbiter in WoL but Oracle(?) is like an Arbiter in HotS but still not Arbiter. Science Vessel didn't have to be replaced by Raven, just tweak the spells a bit, but no. Changed awesome Reaver for Colossi, I don't think I even have to say anything here since everyone outside of Blizzard HQ understand that this was like the biggest mistake ever. Because they are to proud of their own game they can't even add a fucking normal lurker into the game so they make up their own shit lurker... the same with defiler and the Viper. As you see, they scrap good units that already fill roles to make their own, worse version of that unit and that is what is happening to the Carrier. Why do you think they haven't done shit for the Carrier so far? Oh I forgot about the "widow mine"... just lol. Can't even put in damn spider mines without making them fucking wierd and with a new name. xD I don't like your attitude. Not going to go into intensive detail, but extensively you assume that all BW units are better and that all units are just copies of BW units(which I believe they are not). As an intensive example, Battle hellions seem almost more convenient then firebats because their robotic nature makes them effected by mech upgrades.
So having an opinion that bw units are much more useful than sc2 units is having a bad attitude huh ? .Bio firebats didn't even need upgrades to start frying zergs for breakfast their splash damage is already enough to hurt dozens of zerglings and hold a ramp with a single medic .His point was reasonable though most of the units that are being reinstated in to hots are like a watered down version of the units in broodwar .
|
Some of David Kim's answers were very good, but the stuff about the Terran "A-moving Protoss-esque deathball" option seemed terrible. One of the main problems I see in WoL is the 200/200 massed-up no-micro deathball, and adding another deathball option is only going to make this worse. It isn't fun to watch. It isn't fun to play against. It's just as effective and takes less skill (not as much multi-tasking, positioning, etc).
And this may not be the right place for it, but the Warhound seems like the epitome of a deathball, a-move unit. If I'm right about this (and tell me if I'm not), it has an auto-cast ability that auto-attacks mechanical units? Meaning it essentially target-fires without even being told what to target. To me, that just seems terrible - are we really going to have units that take basic target firing micro out of the game?
That being said - GoOdy is going to be a freaking beast at this game if these new units end up in a similar spot to where they are now.
|
On June 14 2012 00:39 Sawamura wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 00:20 Bippzy wrote:On June 13 2012 22:32 Gosi wrote:On June 13 2012 22:08 Madkipz wrote:On June 13 2012 21:53 bokchoi wrote:Thor's suffering from an art issue, hurting eSports. So funny, I don't know if he meant to say that to troll people or it just came out but good interview with David Kim. On June 13 2012 21:49 ZAiNs wrote:
I would have liked some more pressing on the Carrier issue. Kennigit should have asked why the Carrier is one of the few units to literally have never been buffed/nerfed by a patch, and why they haven't tried something as simple as reducing its build cost and/or build time before ditching it. Realistically only one, and the one that we all want... CARRIER HAS ARRIVED. Even worse, if you gave carrier 22 range it could serve the same role as the tempest and do that role in a cooler way.... Yupp, but they just want to make their own units but with the same kind of role because SC2 is their game and HotS is a new expansion so something new and coOo0L has to get in. Just like in WoL, there is units in here that got added over completely fine and loved units because of the reason I stated. What role has Thor in WoL that Goliath couldn't fill? With and without minor tweaks to the Goliath. And now with Warhound coming in to take place in Terran mech compositions, it's like 2 Goliaths in the game. Hellion? I don't mind the Hellion, but why couldn't they have the Vulture and Firebat in SC2? Now we get Hellion and firebat (battle hellion) in HotS but no Vulture or Hellion with Vulture micro pontential. No Arbiter in WoL but Oracle(?) is like an Arbiter in HotS but still not Arbiter. Science Vessel didn't have to be replaced by Raven, just tweak the spells a bit, but no. Changed awesome Reaver for Colossi, I don't think I even have to say anything here since everyone outside of Blizzard HQ understand that this was like the biggest mistake ever. Because they are to proud of their own game they can't even add a fucking normal lurker into the game so they make up their own shit lurker... the same with defiler and the Viper. As you see, they scrap good units that already fill roles to make their own, worse version of that unit and that is what is happening to the Carrier. Why do you think they haven't done shit for the Carrier so far? Oh I forgot about the "widow mine"... just lol. Can't even put in damn spider mines without making them fucking wierd and with a new name. xD I don't like your attitude. Not going to go into intensive detail, but extensively you assume that all BW units are better and that all units are just copies of BW units(which I believe they are not). As an intensive example, Battle hellions seem almost more convenient then firebats because their robotic nature makes them effected by mech upgrades. So having an opinion that bw units are much more useful than sc2 units is having a bad attitude huh ? .Bio firebats didn't even need upgrades to start frying zergs for breakfast their splash damage is already enough to hurt dozens of zerglings and hold a ramp with a single medic .His point was reasonable though most of the units that are being reinstated in to hots are like a watered down version of the units in broodwar .
Battle hellion doesn't require an upgrade in the current build. Plus, Firebats were bad at fighting Zealots. David Kim mentions in his interview that the primary target of Battle hellion is to cost effectively deal with Charglots.
A buffed-tier1 Firebat that is strong enough to cost effectively fight Chargelots is scary as hell for  . For what they want to accomplish, the Battle hellion is a better approach than the Firebat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
