|
I am actually happy that blizzard doesnt listen all that much to the community.
All you guys are whining about new units, which arent tested, patched of abused yet...
The most confusing part is that nearly the whole community whines together about HotS, but bring controversial arguements...
Although all players think that they have such a great understanding of the game, they only complain about the 2 races they dont play...but i didnt read a single post about thoughts of a new meta game change or possible dynamics in matchups. Did anyone expect me think about the chance that pvp might get a safe expand build with MS core/oracel?
What did you guys expect that HotS gives to Terran? New Rax unit with high micro potential ? All terrans would complain that there is a new component to MMMVG you have to micro.
|
On June 16 2012 07:17 DrunkenHomer wrote:
I am actually happy that blizzard doesnt listen all that much to the community.
All you guys are whining about new units, which arent tested, patched of abused yet...
The most confusing part is that nearly the whole community whines together about HotS, but bring controversial arguements...
Although all players think that they have such a great understanding of the game, they only complain about the 2 races they dont play...but i didnt read a single post about thoughts of a new meta game change or possible dynamics in matchups. Did anyone expect me think about the chance that pvp might get a safe expand build with MS core/oracel?
What did you guys expect that HotS gives to Terran? New Rax unit with high micro potential ? All terrans would complain that there is a new component to MMMVG you have to micro.
Not listening to the customers feedback is so bad for company that even words are not enough to describe it.
|
But in this case the customers are extremly biased.
If someone has a 80% winrate in tvz before the patch, then everything is fine.
If his winrate drops to 20 % in tvz after the patch, then the game is imbalanced...because you cant win games with hellion runbys anymore.
|
On June 16 2012 07:02 blackhole12 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 06:22 c0sm0naut wrote:
am i the only one who though dustin browder seemed a little out of touch with the community?
atm i can think of two big concerns almost everyone around high masters level has
1. mothership vs BL/infestor dynamic
2. recent changes to tvz
and blizzard is focusing on mass roach?? because na protoss can't deal with na zergs massing roach?
you have to be joking me
blizzard should be focusing on the gstl, where terrans are getting stomped on by 6+ queen into early hive. how can he NOT know about mother ship vs infestor / brood late game issue now at this point? how many freaking games have come down to this? Has he been watching at al?
they should be focusing on high level tournaments, not their own internal winrates, this is exactly why blizzards changes are so "laggy" and they seem to lag behind what us players think
my 2 cents Mass roach is very strong for something that's essentially a degenerate strategy. You go for pure economy and then for a composition with only one type of unit, a T1 unit at that and you can win most of the time. Even if at a pro level you can deal with this, it's not a bad thing for builds like this to be a bit weaker.
On low level it is devastating to loose to something like this you make a nice composition and then bam mass roach - gg.
This is what makes people rage on low levels. And they will play less then get less interested in the game and bam you loose viewers...
Very well to think of this from blizzard.
Ofcourse it has nearly no impact on high level GSL play becouse you can get a better edge with other moves but especially then why not change some stuff?
<3 blizzard they deserve some love.
Dusty is not my fav game developer but david is now :D
|
Why do people think that casual players will not have fun playing a perfectly balanced game?
|
i hate the warhound. it is a dumb slow a-move unit. basically another anti-micro unit like the collosus.
|
I'm surprised he didn't know about the NP on the Mothership. People have always talked about that happening. I also agree with the reason he wants to take out the carrier. I rarely see it used and they can just get focused down so easy by Vikings and Corruptors.
Nice interview I really like how they take time to give us interviews like this.
|
Maybe I'm wrong, but has anyone ever though of this small change to the Carrier?
What if they decided that you didnt have to pay for interceptors to use it? That way carries wouldn't bankrupt you so hard if you ever decided to build them. I remember watching gualzi playing against a terran who was turtling with missile turrets, and he spent the entirety of his bank on interceptors. The minerals up more than you think. Maybe if you didnt have to lose minerals to use interceptors it would be a better unit.
|
thanks R1CH, this proves blizzard is pretty ignorant of high level metagame. mothership/neural/vortex is game changing end game PvZ and is pretty boring/ coinflippy... IMO much more important than the bunker-changing-metagame he is so experienced at.
that or he just plays terran (likely) and doesn't pay close attention to endgame PvZ
|
Dustin Brwoder contiues to make a good impression with the game community.
|
On June 13 2012 12:55 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 12:04 Kennigit wrote:On June 13 2012 12:03 stormchaser wrote:
Only 12 minutes, what took so long to upload x.x Editing. It was supposed to be 20 but we got cut off (they counted set up time as interview time without us knowing). We couldn't edit properly till we got home. You didn't realize they set in the interview on "Faster", and 20 minutes interview time is actually 12 minutes real time huh?
Hahahahah, good one.
|
On June 17 2012 15:49 SEA KarMa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 12:55 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 13 2012 12:04 Kennigit wrote:On June 13 2012 12:03 stormchaser wrote:
Only 12 minutes, what took so long to upload x.x Editing. It was supposed to be 20 but we got cut off (they counted set up time as interview time without us knowing). We couldn't edit properly till we got home. You didn't realize they set in the interview on "Faster", and 20 minutes interview time is actually 12 minutes real time huh? Hahahahah, good one.
Ugh blizzard minutes. How about actual minutes? =)
|
United States1169 Posts
On June 16 2012 08:24 BronzeLeague wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong, but has anyone ever though of this small change to the Carrier?
What if they decided that you didnt have to pay for interceptors to use it? That way carries wouldn't bankrupt you so hard if you ever decided to build them. I remember watching gualzi playing against a terran who was turtling with missile turrets, and he spent the entirety of his bank on interceptors. The minerals up more than you think. Maybe if you didnt have to lose minerals to use interceptors it would be a better unit.
That doesn't exactly fix the carrier. The problem isn't that interceptors are too expensive; any protoss who can afford to build carriers can afford to build interceptors. Gaulzi's game only occurred the way it did because terran was on an island, and they don't really exist on any other maps (not to mention some tournaments would rather run metropolis without the islands). The problem with the carrier is that it doesn't fill a role that can't be done better by another unit (or combination of units that are cheaper) and that even though it has potential, it's damage output isn't the greatest, plus it's slow and not very micro friendly. Cost isn't really the issue.
|
On June 13 2012 12:17 destian wrote:
i've never seen neural parasite on a mothership. can someone please link a pro game where this happened?
This game is of Snute, a pro Norwegian Zerg, and arguably the best Norwegian.
http://postimage.org/image/7c131wjjr/
|
|
|
On June 16 2012 00:33 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 00:30 Roarer wrote:On June 16 2012 00:04 Shiori wrote:On June 16 2012 00:02 Roarer wrote:On June 15 2012 22:06 1A1A1A wrote:On June 15 2012 21:29 bobucles wrote: A stronger, tougher core army means that the Protoss death ball is that much less effective. It means Terran can say "yeah, well me too" where they would normally die against critical mass.. Why would anyone think that adding to the 1a deathball is a good thing for this game. "Toss have it, so should terran". It's stuff like this that is stunting strategies and player skill. Creep spreading, marine splitting, multi drops, catching a terran army unsieged, the ht/ghost duel off etc etc. It's stuff like this there should be more of and less of 1a friendly units like say the colossus. If the action is more spread out, you'll see more diversity in the gameplay. Honestly I prefer to watch fighting going on all over the map, rather than deathball vs deathball, which allows virtually no comebacks. According to Davaid Kim, it will allow players other than micro-base players to shine with Terran. It is because they can have the option to go for a less micro incentive army. However, the question is if Blizzard can find the right balance sweet spot for the less micro intensive army (may not be 1-A). If they can, David Kim can be right. If not, your worry will become reality. So far, I do not think Blizzard has done a great job in this aspect..... so I am as scepticle as you. This is Starcraft 2, not Caesar 3; people who can't micro should be losing. Macro has an extremely low skill cap (comparatively) especially if you don't play Zerg. Just like I said before, burried somewhere in this thread = =", a better 1-A base army example we have right now is the BroodLords infestor deathball. I am gonna find what I said for you : + Show Spoiler +The best example we had so far is the Broodlord army. Yeah, of course they need fungal support, but the army is still an 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... and I would also add that a positional army should be more interesting in every way. It just add in more elements and factors when evaluating / predicting battle outcome. I am fine with haveing more army compositions options as long as they eventually add in the positional army =﹏= Yeah, we need macro skills to get that up, but there can also be other skill like the scouting. I do not know if you include that into macro but there are still something more than simply micro & macro needed for the army to work. That is what David Kim mean by an option of "less micro intensive army". Anyway, I do agree Blizzard need to put in a lot of effort to make that accepted by the community and E-sports. It is gonna be hard as hell. Simply put, the broodlord army is not even an enjoyable 1-A army. Asking them to make a better "less micro intensive" army? The most we can do is to wish them good luck = = BL/Infestor is one of the biggest things wrong with this game. Besides, BL/Infestor being a-move has nothing to do with surviving in the midgame. That's an entirely separate issue.
The fact that the Broodlord infestor army is A-move base has nothing do to the mid game. Yeah, but the fact that you have to get pass mid-game to go to the Broodlord Infestors requires skills other than micro & macro is what David Kim means. Instead of skills for controlling army, but the skills to get the army up. The A-move army allows a player with great scouting skill to shine/win as much as a player who has great micro & macro.
|
On June 16 2012 07:17 DrunkenHomer wrote:
I am actually happy that blizzard doesnt listen all that much to the community.
All you guys are whining about new units, which arent tested, patched of abused yet...
The most confusing part is that nearly the whole community whines together about HotS, but bring controversial arguements...
Although all players think that they have such a great understanding of the game, they only complain about the 2 races they dont play...but i didnt read a single post about thoughts of a new meta game change or possible dynamics in matchups. Did anyone expect me think about the chance that pvp might get a safe expand build with MS core/oracel?
What did you guys expect that HotS gives to Terran? New Rax unit with high micro potential ? All terrans would complain that there is a new component to MMMVG you have to micro.
Yes you have good points  People say warhound etc. is a move unit! But dude, terran already has units like MMMVG that need soo much micro. So blizzard addresses that and makes sure they don't give any more units that need lots of micro (even makes an easier version of hellion so you don't even need to kite). Then they say it's all a-move and boring ^^
i didn't think of the mothership core helping pvp expand builds... nice!
|
On June 17 2012 16:24 phiinix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 08:24 BronzeLeague wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong, but has anyone ever though of this small change to the Carrier?
What if they decided that you didnt have to pay for interceptors to use it? That way carries wouldn't bankrupt you so hard if you ever decided to build them. I remember watching gualzi playing against a terran who was turtling with missile turrets, and he spent the entirety of his bank on interceptors. The minerals up more than you think. Maybe if you didnt have to lose minerals to use interceptors it would be a better unit. That doesn't exactly fix the carrier. The problem isn't that interceptors are too expensive; any protoss who can afford to build carriers can afford to build interceptors. Gaulzi's game only occurred the way it did because terran was on an island, and they don't really exist on any other maps (not to mention some tournaments would rather run metropolis without the islands). The problem with the carrier is that it doesn't fill a role that can't be done better by another unit (or combination of units that are cheaper) and that even though it has potential, it's damage output isn't the greatest, plus it's slow and not very micro friendly. Cost isn't really the issue.
Wow wow wow calm down now cowboy. The carrier has the greatest damage output in the game. In addition to that, every interceptor shoots twice, rapidly and there are a lot of them, so air upgrades gives it silly damage output. Mind you in BW they only shot once, and the carrier was one of the most powerful units.
What it's lacking is speed, and the ability to shoot while moving. These two things combined make it worthless to micro at all. The fast attack speed of marines and hydras kills the interceptors in a heartbeat as well. The damage output is not the problem.
|
On June 21 2012 11:23 Roarer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 00:33 Shiori wrote:On June 16 2012 00:30 Roarer wrote:On June 16 2012 00:04 Shiori wrote:On June 16 2012 00:02 Roarer wrote:On June 15 2012 22:06 1A1A1A wrote:On June 15 2012 21:29 bobucles wrote: A stronger, tougher core army means that the Protoss death ball is that much less effective. It means Terran can say "yeah, well me too" where they would normally die against critical mass.. Why would anyone think that adding to the 1a deathball is a good thing for this game. "Toss have it, so should terran". It's stuff like this that is stunting strategies and player skill. Creep spreading, marine splitting, multi drops, catching a terran army unsieged, the ht/ghost duel off etc etc. It's stuff like this there should be more of and less of 1a friendly units like say the colossus. If the action is more spread out, you'll see more diversity in the gameplay. Honestly I prefer to watch fighting going on all over the map, rather than deathball vs deathball, which allows virtually no comebacks. According to Davaid Kim, it will allow players other than micro-base players to shine with Terran. It is because they can have the option to go for a less micro incentive army. However, the question is if Blizzard can find the right balance sweet spot for the less micro intensive army (may not be 1-A). If they can, David Kim can be right. If not, your worry will become reality. So far, I do not think Blizzard has done a great job in this aspect..... so I am as scepticle as you. This is Starcraft 2, not Caesar 3; people who can't micro should be losing. Macro has an extremely low skill cap (comparatively) especially if you don't play Zerg. Just like I said before, burried somewhere in this thread = =", a better 1-A base army example we have right now is the BroodLords infestor deathball. I am gonna find what I said for you : + Show Spoiler +The best example we had so far is the Broodlord army. Yeah, of course they need fungal support, but the army is still an 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... and I would also add that a positional army should be more interesting in every way. It just add in more elements and factors when evaluating / predicting battle outcome. I am fine with haveing more army compositions options as long as they eventually add in the positional army =﹏= Yeah, we need macro skills to get that up, but there can also be other skill like the scouting. I do not know if you include that into macro but there are still something more than simply micro & macro needed for the army to work. That is what David Kim mean by an option of "less micro intensive army". Anyway, I do agree Blizzard need to put in a lot of effort to make that accepted by the community and E-sports. It is gonna be hard as hell. Simply put, the broodlord army is not even an enjoyable 1-A army. Asking them to make a better "less micro intensive" army? The most we can do is to wish them good luck = = BL/Infestor is one of the biggest things wrong with this game. Besides, BL/Infestor being a-move has nothing to do with surviving in the midgame. That's an entirely separate issue. The fact that the Broodlord infestor army is A-move base has nothing do to the mid game. Yeah, but the fact that you have to get pass mid-game to go to the Broodlord Infestors requires skills other than micro & macro is what David Kim means. Instead of skills for controlling army, but the skills to get the army up. The A-move army allows a player with great scouting skill to shine/win as much as a player who has great micro & macro.
oov make units, oov attack base, oov win. *audience silently leaves stadium
|
On June 16 2012 07:20 Rokoz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 07:17 DrunkenHomer wrote:
I am actually happy that blizzard doesnt listen all that much to the community.
All you guys are whining about new units, which arent tested, patched of abused yet...
The most confusing part is that nearly the whole community whines together about HotS, but bring controversial arguements...
Although all players think that they have such a great understanding of the game, they only complain about the 2 races they dont play...but i didnt read a single post about thoughts of a new meta game change or possible dynamics in matchups. Did anyone expect me think about the chance that pvp might get a safe expand build with MS core/oracel?
What did you guys expect that HotS gives to Terran? New Rax unit with high micro potential ? All terrans would complain that there is a new component to MMMVG you have to micro. Not listening to the customers feedback is so bad for company that even words are not enough to describe it.
I think DrunkenHomer has a point here. If Blizzard listens too much for feedback, the game could get worse. I claim that the majority of the the players don't have a deep understanding of the game. They feel the game gives other races an unfair advantage and that is why they win less than they should if the game would be fair.
Too often it is argued "but race X has Y, however race Z has not." Reacting to common community criticism would make all races more similar.
Very few of the players who voice their opinion about the state of the game say "I do have some concerns but I don't have the expertise to make an educated balance proposal." or "I do feel strategy X is imbalanced and I lost quite some games because of it, but I know that the best way to overcome this is practice."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
