|
On June 13 2012 12:51 Waxangel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 12:41 ZidaneTribal wrote:
just saw the browder interview, i guess someone needs to make a case to him about why carrier is actually useful in late game pvz if u can get 5 bases? (could be wrong)
also, kerrigan's ass is quite distracting I mentioned crank's recent games casually after we stopped filming, he said that there's no doubt they can be useful in certain situations on certain maps, but they haven't seen anything that suggests they have viability on a wider scale yet
If they keep the Carrier in HOTS, I'll personally steal Stork's Carrier badge and give it to you for being the Savior of Carriers.
Edit: Kennigit asked so many softballs. Wax actually put David Kim's feet to the fire.
|
On June 13 2012 13:00 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 12:40 Bagi wrote:On June 13 2012 12:25 Falling wrote:
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 don't think he ever explicitly said that he want's the terran deathball to function as a-movish that the protoss army tends to become, just that he wants to give terrans a way to play a more passive game instead of the current hyper-aggressive bioplay. If you consider that tanks tend to be the backbone of mech, as well as the inclusion of widow mines, I think we terrans are on the right track for now. It wasn't explicit and he certainly backed away from the idea that they were creating a new deathball. But he was talking about sitting back in your base like Protoss. Sitting back in your base and being passive is very different then mech style play. SC2 Protoss also plays passive and then pushes out with a giant army to destroy. But Protoss passivity is very different then shutting down attack lanes to prevent backstabs and runbys, using defence in depth to seige down everything, and slow creeping across maps to gain positional advantages. I'm probably making too much of his comparison to the Protoss, but that's not a very happy comparison for me. I am looking to see what the widow mines do though. Warhounds and battlehellions don't really add to mech play though as they'r'e pretty interchangeable with an M&M mobile force. Edit. But awesome interviews. I always enjoy TL's interviews with Blizzard and I'm very happy that Blizzard is willing to explain their ideas with us.
It may just be me, but it seems that DKim simplifies things and makes analogies to save time. So I wouldn't look into his statements with that much detail. When he said that he wanted mech to become more Protoss like, I viewed it as him wanting mech to become a viable alternative to the hyper-aggressive Bio. I never thought of his statements as mech becoming the new deathball a-move, but just as "Hey, if you don't want to harass all of the time, we want to make Mech viable." Nothing more, nothing less.
|
WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU NOT MENTION RAVENS???
Goddd i was expecting them to comment on ravens so bad...
Apart from that, decent interviews... "I don't know mommaships were the go-to unit late game PvZ" I guess he's playing BW... -.-
|
I just noticed something weird...
During the Dustin Browder interview I kept looking at his bald head.
During the DKim interview I kept looking at kerrigan's ass.
Wonder what it means Oo
|
Canada11592 Posts
On June 13 2012 13:05 Whole wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 13:00 Falling wrote:On June 13 2012 12:40 Bagi wrote:On June 13 2012 12:25 Falling wrote:
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 don't think he ever explicitly said that he want's the terran deathball to function as a-movish that the protoss army tends to become, just that he wants to give terrans a way to play a more passive game instead of the current hyper-aggressive bioplay. If you consider that tanks tend to be the backbone of mech, as well as the inclusion of widow mines, I think we terrans are on the right track for now. It wasn't explicit and he certainly backed away from the idea that they were creating a new deathball. But he was talking about sitting back in your base like Protoss. Sitting back in your base and being passive is very different then mech style play. SC2 Protoss also plays passive and then pushes out with a giant army to destroy. But Protoss passivity is very different then shutting down attack lanes to prevent backstabs and runbys, using defence in depth to seige down everything, and slow creeping across maps to gain positional advantages. I'm probably making too much of his comparison to the Protoss, but that's not a very happy comparison for me. I am looking to see what the widow mines do though. Warhounds and battlehellions don't really add to mech play though as they'r'e pretty interchangeable with an M&M mobile force. Edit. But awesome interviews. I always enjoy TL's interviews with Blizzard and I'm very happy that Blizzard is willing to explain their ideas with us. It may just be me, but it seems that DKim simplifies things and makes analogies to save time. So I wouldn't look into his statements with that much detail. When he said that he wanted mech to become more Protoss like, I viewed it as him wanting mech to become a viable alternative to the hyper-aggressive Bio. I never thought of his statements as mech becoming the new deathball a-move, but just as "Hey, if you don't want to harass all of the time, we want to make Mech viable." Nothing more, nothing less.
Well that's fair enough. Wait and see and hope for the best.
|
On June 13 2012 13:11 xTrim wrote:
WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU NOT MENTION RAVENS???
Goddd i was expecting them to comment on ravens so bad...
Apart from that, decent interviews... "I don't know mommaships were the go-to unit late game PvZ" I guess he's playing BW... -.-
Ye me too, I think that suggested question thread had a healthy amount of folks wanting feedback on raven's state..a unit built less than hydra's or carriers.. sad it got overlooked.
Also Dustin is excited that terran's are losing in tournaments? isn't that pretty biased?
|
On June 13 2012 13:14 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 13:05 Whole wrote:On June 13 2012 13:00 Falling wrote:On June 13 2012 12:40 Bagi wrote:On June 13 2012 12:25 Falling wrote:
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 don't think he ever explicitly said that he want's the terran deathball to function as a-movish that the protoss army tends to become, just that he wants to give terrans a way to play a more passive game instead of the current hyper-aggressive bioplay. If you consider that tanks tend to be the backbone of mech, as well as the inclusion of widow mines, I think we terrans are on the right track for now. It wasn't explicit and he certainly backed away from the idea that they were creating a new deathball. But he was talking about sitting back in your base like Protoss. Sitting back in your base and being passive is very different then mech style play. SC2 Protoss also plays passive and then pushes out with a giant army to destroy. But Protoss passivity is very different then shutting down attack lanes to prevent backstabs and runbys, using defence in depth to seige down everything, and slow creeping across maps to gain positional advantages. I'm probably making too much of his comparison to the Protoss, but that's not a very happy comparison for me. I am looking to see what the widow mines do though. Warhounds and battlehellions don't really add to mech play though as they'r'e pretty interchangeable with an M&M mobile force. Edit. But awesome interviews. I always enjoy TL's interviews with Blizzard and I'm very happy that Blizzard is willing to explain their ideas with us. It may just be me, but it seems that DKim simplifies things and makes analogies to save time. So I wouldn't look into his statements with that much detail. When he said that he wanted mech to become more Protoss like, I viewed it as him wanting mech to become a viable alternative to the hyper-aggressive Bio. I never thought of his statements as mech becoming the new deathball a-move, but just as "Hey, if you don't want to harass all of the time, we want to make Mech viable." Nothing more, nothing less. Well that's fair enough. Wait and see and hope for the best.
Yea, I can't say I'm thrilled for the Battle Hellion or Warhound either lol
|
On June 13 2012 12:24 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 12:18 Goldfish wrote:On June 13 2012 12:15 Vindicare605 wrote:
DONT TAKE OUT THE CARRIER!
ITS COOL! I agree. I mean what's wrong with having so many units? DotA does it (DotA keeps adding more and more heroes while removing very little throughout its whole life) and it's still being a competitive game. I mean, you can make the argument that newbs who don't know better might think the Carrier is an actual good unit and build it (but that's silly, that's like the argument against big maps; newbs won't know where the expansions are or w/e which Blizzard finally let go of recently with all the new big maps). Also, they never tried out giving Carrier BW mechanics (which is somewhat possible in the editor, I posted the instructions in the carrier thread before). and most people who play dota only play a few characters. competitive dota usually has a smaller subset of heros that are used in the current metagame and therefore many characters are considered irrelevant for periods. compare that to sc2, you have to KNOW what every unit does and what counters it etc to play competitively. not to mention, what is good for dota isn't what is good for SC2. They are completely different games, its a little like saying "harry potter games have 20 different spells, why can't HT's have 20 too?"
Of course, I knew that (that few heroes were used on competitive tournament) which is why I made that comment (if carriers aren't used competitive, so what?).
Despite the small hero in competitive play, the rest of the heroes are given to the pubbers to play with.
So what's wrong with letting Carriers stay for some random fun with pubbers or non competive games?
Also DotA is a good argument because it's played competitive.
The fact that only few heroes are used competitively is similar to the situation with the Carrier and it being removed or not in HotS (aka, if no one cares, don't use the carrier; if you do care and want to play around, play with the carrier).
I honestly don't see the problem.
[Edit] I guess there is a problem - more cheeses? Imagine a carrier rush (Why did I forget that unit existed! - A quote from Tasteless).
|
I wish they talked about the warhound and the warpin on high ground 
|
On June 13 2012 12:39 PlosionCornu wrote:
Ok I'm listening to this, and david kim's reasoning behind "warhound and battle hellion being amovy is ok" is moot imo.
Just because protoss is a move based, you don't have to make every other race a move based too, you just have to fix protoss.
Basically it comes down to the the ol' chair with a shorter leg argument, it is better to cut down the other 3, or to make the shorter one longer, by attaching a piece of wood to it?
This way the oly thing they are going to achieve is homogenizing the races even more.
As an example the tempest : just a guardian with double range. Boring. And goes against the concept even himself stated, to make units which achieve a similar role, but differently.
Terran really doesn't have any a-move friendly units and If you consider bio play as a-move friendly then chances are you ahve no idea what you're doing. This is why you basically only see top Korean players utilizing the race to its full potential. With perfect micro, Terran stands to gain the most in engagements over the other races.
In WOL's current state, Terran's ability to sit back and defend is inherently limited without spending resources on static defense (PF, bunkers, build armor upgrades etc). Just because Terran get more defensive options doesn't make the race any 'easier'.
|
Mic needed to be closer for the browder interview
|
Canada11592 Posts
On June 13 2012 13:17 Goldfish wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 12:24 emythrel wrote:On June 13 2012 12:18 Goldfish wrote:On June 13 2012 12:15 Vindicare605 wrote:
DONT TAKE OUT THE CARRIER!
ITS COOL! I agree. I mean what's wrong with having so many units? DotA does it (DotA keeps adding more and more heroes while removing very little throughout its whole life) and it's still being a competitive game. I mean, you can make the argument that newbs who don't know better might think the Carrier is an actual good unit and build it (but that's silly, that's like the argument against big maps; newbs won't know where the expansions are or w/e which Blizzard finally let go of recently with all the new big maps). Also, they never tried out giving Carrier BW mechanics (which is somewhat possible in the editor, I posted the instructions in the carrier thread before). and most people who play dota only play a few characters. competitive dota usually has a smaller subset of heros that are used in the current metagame and therefore many characters are considered irrelevant for periods. compare that to sc2, you have to KNOW what every unit does and what counters it etc to play competitively. not to mention, what is good for dota isn't what is good for SC2. They are completely different games, its a little like saying "harry potter games have 20 different spells, why can't HT's have 20 too?" Of course, I knew that (that few heroes were used on competitive tournament) which is why I made that comment (if carriers aren't used competitive, so what?). Despite the small hero in competitive play, the rest of the heroes are given to the pubbers to play with. So what's wrong with letting Carriers stay for some random fun with pubbers or non competive games? Also DotA is a good argument because it's played competitive. The fact that only few heroes are used competitively is similar to the situation with the Carrier and it being removed or not in HotS (aka, if no one cares, don't use the carrier; if you do care and want to play around, play with the carrier).
Well the Dota argument is no good in the sense that Starcraft has always been about using only a handful of units, but because they require so much skill to use, they're all awesome (even most of the a-move units could also be microed- vultures, dragoons, and muta) Versus other RTS games that have hundreds of redundant units. And so in that sense, I'd agree with trimming the fat if they have useless units. I just think the carrier is unused progaming skill potential that was just designed wrong so it's boring out of the box, but that it's fixable if they know what to change.
|
On June 13 2012 12:39 PlosionCornu wrote:
Ok I'm listening to this, and david kim's reasoning behind "warhound and battle hellion being amovy is ok" is moot imo.
Just because protoss is a move based, you don't have to make every other race a move based too, you just have to fix protoss.
Basically it comes down to the the ol' chair with a shorter leg argument, it is better to cut down the other 3, or to make the shorter one longer, by attaching a piece of wood to it?
This way the oly thing they are going to achieve is homogenizing the races even more.
As an example the tempest : just a guardian with double range. Boring. And goes against the concept even himself stated, to make units which achieve a similar role, but differently.
The Tempest is a different unit than a guardian. The guardian does high burst damage and can be used in front lines (with some support).
The Tempest is more of a long range support attacking unit that can either be used (along with the Oracle) to take out workers or to slowly push away siege lines from afar. (It's DPS is similar to just one Roach AFAIK.)
Of course, I don't understand how much it will apply in practice (haven't played or seen much of HotS yet) but I do understand their thinking behind the Tempest.
|
I always wonder how the whole pro-feedback goes. Who does Blizzard deem "pros", do they ask general advice or specific, do they wait for a pro to speak up? Same thing for the analysers (Imho Nazgul has a big red phone wich dials Browders number automaticly).
As long as they take into consideration what they hear, im all for it by the way.
|
I haven't watched the Browder interview yet, but the David Kim interview was actually pretty cool. Respect.
|
On June 13 2012 12:25 Falling wrote:
I still find it strange they've never across the Carrier argument that SC2 and BW Carriers don't even handle the same and that the BW version allows for skill rather than a boring 1a unit. Because I understand taking out the carrier as the SC2 carrier. But it's missing the key ability from BW that made it interesting.
I agree. I posted this already but - "Also, they never tried out giving Carrier BW mechanics (which is somewhat possible in the editor, I posted the instructions in the carrier thread before)."
Here's what you do in the editor to make BW style Carriers (not exactly the same but close. Also this only takes 2 minutes of using the editor to do).
+ Show Spoiler +To make Interceptors mimic the BW AI - Go to Unit Tab > Interceptors > Combat Tab > Set the "Default Acquire Level" to "Offensive" instead of None.
Then click on the Carrier - Set the "Minimum Scan Range" to 16. Finally go to the rightmost tab on the weapon, and under "Target Sorts" add "TSPriority" (make sure TSPriority is the topmost one) and "TSDistance" (this makes it so the Interceptors automatically go after anything that is attacking, then if there are the same, they go after the nearest target) (Overall what the changes do is make the Interceptors automatically attack every enemy within 16 range. That also means that as long as there are enemies present, the Interceptors will never return to the Carrier unless you move out of the "16 leash" range distance or you press stop.) There you go. Carrier Brood War style! Additionally, if you want to keep SC2 Interceptor AI but allow an upgrade that upgrades the Interceptor into BW AI + Show Spoiler + First give the Interceptors a behavior that has "Passive Flag" on it "after" the above changes are made (give the behavior to the interceptor of course). Passive makes it so the interceptors won't auto acquire (it will still attack anything the Carrier attacks; again this should be done after the above changes).
Once the upgrade is researched, you could have a validator disable the buff and thus enabling BW Interceptor AI for the Carrier. You'd need a Validator that checks if an upgrade is "not" researched.
So - make a requirement that has "this upgrade is complete" under "use", make a Validator that does "not" have "Find" check and make it target that requirement, then add that Validator under "Disable" to the Behavior with the passive flag on it, finally add the behavior to the interceptor. Anyway that's how you can mimic the Brood War Interceptor AI for SC2.
|
On June 13 2012 12:02 INTOtheVOID wrote:
Browder is surprised about Mothership being made in PvZ? WTF? Do these guys even pay attention to the game they are developing? I can't believe NP'ing a Mothership was a foreign concept to him.
On June 13 2012 12:06 Goldfish wrote:
Dustin Browder doesn't know about Mothership being standard in late game PvZ ? Hmm that's odd. Thought that's why they kept the Mothership in HotS.
Well, maybe David Kim knows.
[Edit] NVM, it seems he was talking specifically about not knowing Neural Parasite on Mothership as an issue rather than Mothership in general.
Wow. You guys really have difficulties hearing words. What Dustin doesn't know is that he doesn't know that "mothership getting neural parasite is a big issue". What Dustin said is correct, meanwhile the interview guy kinda didn't know what's the important issues in SC2. Sad. Don't waste these precise opportunities by asking unimportant questions.
|
I was rolling on the floor laughing my ass off in amazement of David Kim's answer to the Thor nerf. Not only was it absolutely bizzare, but it was extremely stupid.
I'm sad you guys didn't bring up the Snipe nerf though and the -25 vs Massive arguement. That's still a pretty strong debate whenever it's brought up.
|
I can see alot of people jumping on DK for what he is saying, but IMO I think he knows exactly what is going on and just doesn't know how too explain it well.
Thanks Kennigit!!
And personally I love how the game looks now, and look forward to what it will be like in the future 
|
On June 13 2012 13:25 Adron wrote:
I always wonder how the whole pro-feedback goes. Who does Blizzard deem "pros", do they ask general advice or specific, do they wait for a pro to speak up? Same thing for the analysers (Imho Nazgul has a big red phone wich dials Browders number automaticly).
As long as they take into consideration what they hear, im all for it by the way.
I would think mostly Koreans. Is DK Korean?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
