|
On July 27 2013 01:24 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 01:22 hifriend wrote:Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
lol wtf is up with these questions? this person shouldn't be conducting interviews. Whats so wrong with this question? Imo its a good question, really good
It is not only a bad question but also very rude in my opinion.
To me it is basically as saying "I don't like your product, it is too fast, can you change it to suit me better".
Well don't buy it if you don't like it.
How will they slow down the pace of the game to improve spectating experience without redesigning the game? Also I as a spectator think the game pace is just fine. Who is that guy representing with those questions?
They can't just force players to play on normal speed on tournaments, that would be stupid and anything else would require complete overhaul like making all units dps way lower than it currently is.
I can understand questions that are targeted at specific things that are maybe not interesting as much to viewers but this question doesn't make any sense.
|
On July 27 2013 01:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 01:33 Dirtyharry wrote:On July 27 2013 01:26 DidYuhim wrote:On July 27 2013 01:24 Foxxan wrote:On July 27 2013 01:22 hifriend wrote:Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
lol wtf is up with these questions? this person shouldn't be conducting interviews. Whats so wrong with this question? Imo its a good question, really good It's a way of being a dick, but not a way of asking the question during the actual interview. But it's still a good question... No, its a pretty shitty question. Asking "Why does your game go so fast? Have you thought about slowing it down so its easier to follow?" is not very good.
Hm no, its way different than that question
What he mean is the fights ends so fast, way to fast especially deathball vs deathball, not much micro involved
so its a very legit question imo
Where else to ask it if not directly to a blizzard employee
|
On July 27 2013 01:47 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 01:37 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2013 01:33 Dirtyharry wrote:On July 27 2013 01:26 DidYuhim wrote:On July 27 2013 01:24 Foxxan wrote:On July 27 2013 01:22 hifriend wrote:Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
lol wtf is up with these questions? this person shouldn't be conducting interviews. Whats so wrong with this question? Imo its a good question, really good It's a way of being a dick, but not a way of asking the question during the actual interview. But it's still a good question... No, its a pretty shitty question. Asking "Why does your game go so fast? Have you thought about slowing it down so its easier to follow?" is not very good. Hm no, its way different than that question What he mean is the fights ends so fast, way to fast especially deathball vs deathball, not much micro involved so its a very legit question imo Where else to ask it if not directly to a blizzard employee
Is a shitty question because you know the answer, which is: Fuck no, we are not rebuilding the game from the ground up.
Its like asking a coach of a professional sports team who he things is going to win the game tonight: My team, you idiot.
There is plenty of micro involved in endgame fights, but sometimes it is better for the players to focus on getting more units into the fight. If you don't like it, play another game.
|
What a shitty interviewer. He's basically just throwing out his personal preferences in an accusatory way, then acting like David Kim is somehow obligated to agree with his interpretation.
|
LOL NO MIcro in endgame fights I'm guessing you are Low Level protoss player.... LOL High Diamond on up you have to micro regardless of race in endgame deathball vses deathball or you lose
|
United Kingdom20323 Posts
On July 27 2013 02:10 Pirfiktshon wrote:
LOL NO MIcro in endgame fights I'm guessing you are Low Level protoss player.... LOL High Diamond on up you have to micro regardless of race in endgame deathball vses deathball or you lose
I'm guessing you are "high diamond"
|
Northern Ireland26242 Posts
On July 27 2013 01:21 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 01:13 DidYuhim wrote:On July 27 2013 01:00 BillGates wrote:
Protoss is so boring to play and play against. Its the worst designed race and needs a complete and utter redesign.
How about removing the Colossus and adding back and reaver? You see how much whine we have with widow mines? And now imagine how much whine will have with Reavers. I love people who ask for the Reaver. I never was super into BW, but even I saw that thing destroy a line of workers in one hit. Do people want to deal with zealots warping in and a reaver dropping down to launch a 100 damage nuke unto your mineral line? Or blobs of 15-20 marines all dying due to a single shot?
The concept of a Reaver-esque unit is still more potentially interesting than the Collosus. Can't do a straight port over of the BW Reaver for the reasons you outlined, but equally some kind of really slow burst-damage unit that needs shuttled around would be cool.
|
Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
|
How can someone be so short-sided?
Most of Zerg ladder wins are because of all ins...and the reason we had a ZvZ FINALS is because the Zergs there were way and above the rest of the crowd...
Ugh
|
Northern Ireland26242 Posts
On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
|
On July 27 2013 02:20 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
More importantly, it can't really be changed at this point, so why ask? He might as well ask "why isn't the dragoon in the game?" because the question would have about as much merit.
|
On July 27 2013 02:20 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion
haha i remember all the WOL battlereports with Browder and how proud he was with his "TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DAMAGE" , so yeah, the interviewer probably hurt his feelings. Rude question.
|
On July 27 2013 01:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 01:47 Foxxan wrote:On July 27 2013 01:37 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2013 01:33 Dirtyharry wrote:On July 27 2013 01:26 DidYuhim wrote:On July 27 2013 01:24 Foxxan wrote:On July 27 2013 01:22 hifriend wrote:Q: SC2 is a game of "high damage and low defense", namely, the damage output in the game is too high, which makes the big battles only last for a few seconds. Why not slowing down the pace of the game a little bit to improve spectating experience?
lol wtf is up with these questions? this person shouldn't be conducting interviews. Whats so wrong with this question? Imo its a good question, really good It's a way of being a dick, but not a way of asking the question during the actual interview. But it's still a good question... No, its a pretty shitty question. Asking "Why does your game go so fast? Have you thought about slowing it down so its easier to follow?" is not very good. Hm no, its way different than that question What he mean is the fights ends so fast, way to fast especially deathball vs deathball, not much micro involved so its a very legit question imo Where else to ask it if not directly to a blizzard employee Is a shitty question because you know the answer, which is: Fuck no, we are not rebuilding the game from the ground up. Its like asking a coach of a professional sports team who he things is going to win the game tonight: My team, you idiot. There is plenty of micro involved in endgame fights, but sometimes it is better for the players to focus on getting more units into the fight. If you don't like it, play another game.
A big battle ends in seconds, not much improvisation going on there
Building up that armee while staying passive and then ending the game in 5seconds is not very good for spectators
So yes i consider it a very valid question and your question example is far off imo
Why do you use the same example as before which i disagreed with?
Why do you say "if u dont like it, play another game" , is that sentence toward me?
|
Northern Ireland26242 Posts
On July 27 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion More importantly, it can't really be changed at this point, so why ask? He might as well ask "why isn't the dragoon in the game?" because the question would have about as much merit.
The interviewer is really just a conduit for the community's queries, so we're to blame for it in a manner of speaking I guess.
I happily allow Blizzard to proceed as they see fit, they don't really owe me anything as I've got more than my money's worth out of the game purchase I made. I just dispute some of the party lines they trot out, especially regarding the casual playerbase. Most of my friends who dipped into the game found things like terrible terrible damage REALLY frustrating and not cool or dynamic.
|
On July 27 2013 02:27 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion haha i remember all the WOL battlereports with Browder and how proud he was with his "TERRIBLE TERRIBLE DAMAGE" , so yeah, the interviewer probably hurt his feelings. Rude question.
No its just a dumb one and has not merit. I know YOU think its super important, but asking pointless questions is dumb and alittle rude. It is a core part of the game and not something they are going to change, so why even ask the question when you could ask one about something they might change?
|
Unless the translation sucks these questions really do. Is it really a journalist asking? Nice to see interviews anyway :-)
|
On July 27 2013 02:30 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2013 02:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion More importantly, it can't really be changed at this point, so why ask? He might as well ask "why isn't the dragoon in the game?" because the question would have about as much merit. The interviewer is really just a conduit for the community's queries, so we're to blame for it in a manner of speaking I guess. I happily allow Blizzard to proceed as they see fit, they don't really owe me anything as I've got more than my money's worth out of the game purchase I made. I just dispute some of the party lines they trot out, especially regarding the casual playerbase. Most of my friends who dipped into the game found things like terrible terrible damage REALLY frustrating and not cool or dynamic.
I can see that, but I have friends who don't like Dota because "everything isn't on one screen". They don't like scrolling to other parts of the map or being attacked or stunned from off screen. Or getting nuked down without a chance to respond.
Does that make Dota bad? No, just not for them. Games like this are not going to please everyone and trying to do that only makes them flat and boring. I would rather Dota be batshit crazy and SC2 being unforgiving and mean than slowing everything down so some people can catch up.
|
On July 26 2013 13:11 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2013 13:05 Kim Hyuna wrote:
David Kim till date still don't address the low cost of Roaches which dealt so much damage in mass.
And still NO stalkers buff since WOL days. Seriously? Not whining about balance but what the fuck? All his comments doesn't make sense. And buffing VIPER which already so strong against P which makes making colos pretty useless.
Err you realize the counter to viper is templar right? Like it's not that hard to feedback a viper before it abducts colossi  . I am curious how they will buff the viper without making it broken as shit lol.
abduct range is larger then feedback range.
|
Northern Ireland26242 Posts
On July 27 2013 02:41 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:30 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 27 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2013 02:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion More importantly, it can't really be changed at this point, so why ask? He might as well ask "why isn't the dragoon in the game?" because the question would have about as much merit. The interviewer is really just a conduit for the community's queries, so we're to blame for it in a manner of speaking I guess. I happily allow Blizzard to proceed as they see fit, they don't really owe me anything as I've got more than my money's worth out of the game purchase I made. I just dispute some of the party lines they trot out, especially regarding the casual playerbase. Most of my friends who dipped into the game found things like terrible terrible damage REALLY frustrating and not cool or dynamic. I can see that, but I have friends who don't like Dota because "everything isn't on one screen". They don't like scrolling to other parts of the map or being attacked or stunned from off screen. Or getting nuked down without a chance to respond. Does that make Dota bad? No, just not for them. Games like this are not going to please everyone and trying to do that only makes them flat and boring. I would rather Dota be batshit crazy and SC2 being unforgiving and mean than slowing everything down so some people can catch up.
See your point is fair, but equally I don't put 'terrible terrible damage' in the same kind of category as you.
If the interviewer had demanded automated macro, or something really alien to what Starcraft historically is, I would be in agreement.
As it is, discussing how deathball v deathball battles can end really quickly and in a frustrating manner for both players and spectators is a legitimate point of inquiry, to me at least.
They acknowledge the issue as well, but have skirted around core mechanical issues at trying to mitigate it through encouraging harassment all over the place.
|
On July 27 2013 02:45 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 02:41 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2013 02:30 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 27 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On July 27 2013 02:20 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 27 2013 02:18 Sapphire.lux wrote:
Terrible terrible damage that makes fights end very fast was and still is a valid criticism. Nothing wrong with mentioning it from time to time. Could have been worded a bit better though.
No, it's totally rude to raise a criticism of it. Bitch all you want about unit balance, but fundamental design is sacrosanct and out of limits for discussion More importantly, it can't really be changed at this point, so why ask? He might as well ask "why isn't the dragoon in the game?" because the question would have about as much merit. The interviewer is really just a conduit for the community's queries, so we're to blame for it in a manner of speaking I guess. I happily allow Blizzard to proceed as they see fit, they don't really owe me anything as I've got more than my money's worth out of the game purchase I made. I just dispute some of the party lines they trot out, especially regarding the casual playerbase. Most of my friends who dipped into the game found things like terrible terrible damage REALLY frustrating and not cool or dynamic. I can see that, but I have friends who don't like Dota because "everything isn't on one screen". They don't like scrolling to other parts of the map or being attacked or stunned from off screen. Or getting nuked down without a chance to respond. Does that make Dota bad? No, just not for them. Games like this are not going to please everyone and trying to do that only makes them flat and boring. I would rather Dota be batshit crazy and SC2 being unforgiving and mean than slowing everything down so some people can catch up. See your point is fair, but equally I don't put 'terrible terrible damage' in the same kind of category as you. If the interviewer had demanded automated macro, or something really alien to what Starcraft historically is, I would be in agreement. As it is, discussing how deathball v deathball battles can end really quickly and in a frustrating manner for both players and spectators is a legitimate point of inquiry, to me at least. They acknowledge the issue as well, but have skirted around core mechanical issues at trying to mitigate it through encouraging harassment all over the place.
There are things they could do, like make the auto-targeting "less good" but at the end of the day it would only help so much. As long as we can box all our units and A-move them, the death ball will always be an issue. If they wanted to make it better, making protoss less reliant of the colossi for its constant splash damage would go a long way to limiting their "death-bally-ness". But I don't know how you do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
