|
On August 05 2013 18:43 iaguz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2013 18:22 saddaromma wrote:
I think David needs to resign. He has own view of how the game 'should be' and tries hard to make it work. e.g. More actions = more fun. RTS is a strategy, things like defender's advantage, army positioning and long-term decisions should be core part of the game, which are mostly ignored by DK.
He is not the right person for the game. We've been waiting for 3.5 years already, time to move on. Huh? How is this a bad thing? Everyone has an idea of what the game should be. More actions (what does that even mean? higher apm requirements?) is just another way for a player to outplay the other and that's a good thing. It's part of what makes Starcraft what it is. Defenders advantage, unit positioning and long term decisions are a core part of the game (well, ok, Protoss tries pretty fucking hard to dodge defenders advantage but I argue that keeping tabs on pylons and shutting them down is part of a defenders duty vs them! It's possible to get your defences in order against a protoss that has to move across the map and get a pylon down as long as you notice it early) and frequently games are dependent on that sort of thing. But so is good build orders and mindgames, a bit of risk taking, a bit of scouting, a bit of timing sense, good decisions and good macro. Also, Strategy is just a term that means "overall plan on how to win the game". 6pool is a strategy. Balance is in a pretty good spot in HotS so far, most people at IEM SH (as far as I know) were telling him this. Why should he resign?
I'm not talking about balance. Game is in a bad state, and the direction it is going (DK's view) is not very promising. Look, players are retiring, viewership is low and prize pool is decreasing. These are raw numbers and you can't argue with that. Its all due to low entertainment value of the game, which is exactly developers' fault.
|
Add micro transactions. I want damn pro player cards in it like in dota. I'd make unit skins consist of parts like 6 or 8, u need to collect all pieces and then skin unlocks, u get pieces by playing, randomly no matter u win or lose (longer game higher chance to unlock a piece), micro transactions can consist of tons of stuff like country flag at loading screen next to players, u can buy missing pieces for ur skin to complete (imagine how many would buy if they collect 7/8 pieces of skin, but can't get last one for many games). Team logos instead decals. There is so much that could be done, they just need to do it, add micro transactions.
|
On August 05 2013 16:55 ETisME wrote:
David Kim thinks widow mines encourages zerg micro which is fun to watch for specutators.
Similarly, medivac speed boost will not likely to have a cooldown increase because harass units are more fun to watch for the game. He thinks right now Terran is NOT a weak race and will be weaker if a nerf is hit
Does he realize that there's no way for a Zerg to truly efficiently defend against drop harass without actually having Mutalisk? The problem being Mutalisk is terrible unit againts Bio/Mine/Medivac.
It wouldn't be so bad if the speed boost required an energy cost, it might make Terrans use Speed boost a bit more carefully rather than speed boosting all the damn time like they do at the moment.
Mines are still (imo) too efficient. Either reducing the area of their splash or reducing splash damage so that lings and blings die in two shots instead of one might be a nice change, it might make Mutalisk a bit more viable against Bio/Mine.
The medivac nerf at least isn't that bad. thing is, i feel that Terrans have a single unit, namely the mine, that can shut down an entire unit composition, in this case Ling/bling/muta. that wasn't the case in wol. similarly, immortals are a single unit which pretty much completely shut down mech in TvP.
My 2 cents. Maybe DK knows something we don't, I wish he would justify his decisions better than with just 2 sentences. You could probably write a couple paragraphs about a certain nerf or boost.
|
On August 05 2013 20:03 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2013 18:43 iaguz wrote:On August 05 2013 18:22 saddaromma wrote:
I think David needs to resign. He has own view of how the game 'should be' and tries hard to make it work. e.g. More actions = more fun. RTS is a strategy, things like defender's advantage, army positioning and long-term decisions should be core part of the game, which are mostly ignored by DK.
He is not the right person for the game. We've been waiting for 3.5 years already, time to move on. Huh? He has own view of how the game 'should be' and tries hard to make it work How is this a bad thing? Everyone has an idea of what the game should be. More actions (what does that even mean? higher apm requirements?) is just another way for a player to outplay the other and that's a good thing. It's part of what makes Starcraft what it is. Defenders advantage, unit positioning and long term decisions are a core part of the game (well, ok, Protoss tries pretty fucking hard to dodge defenders advantage but I argue that keeping tabs on pylons and shutting them down is part of a defenders duty vs them! It's possible to get your defences in order against a protoss that has to move across the map and get a pylon down as long as you notice it early) and frequently games are dependent on that sort of thing. But so is good build orders and mindgames, a bit of risk taking, a bit of scouting, a bit of timing sense, good decisions and good macro. Also, Strategy is just a term that means "overall plan on how to win the game". 6pool is a strategy. Balance is in a pretty good spot in HotS so far, most people at IEM SH (as far as I know) were telling him this. Why should he resign? I'm not talking about balance. Game is in a bad state, and the direction it is going (DK's view) is not very promising. Look, players are retiring, viewership is low and prize pool is decreasing. These are raw numbers and you can't argue with that. Its all due to low entertainment value of the game, which is exactly developers' fault.
Prize pool is increasing (overall wcs adds more than it takes away), viewership has grown since hots release, and players will always retire in any sport ever.
|
On August 05 2013 20:04 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2013 16:55 ETisME wrote:
David Kim thinks widow mines encourages zerg micro which is fun to watch for specutators.
Similarly, medivac speed boost will not likely to have a cooldown increase because harass units are more fun to watch for the game. He thinks right now Terran is NOT a weak race and will be weaker if a nerf is hit
Does he realize that there's no way for a Zerg to truly efficiently defend against drop harass without actually having Mutalisk? The problem being Mutalisk is terrible unit againts Bio/Mine/Medivac. It wouldn't be so bad if the speed boost required an energy cost, it might make Terrans use Speed boost a bit more carefully rather than speed boosting all the damn time like they do at the moment. Mines are still (imo) too efficient. Either reducing the area of their splash or reducing splash damage so that lings and blings die in two shots instead of one might be a nice change, it might make Mutalisk a bit more viable against Bio/Mine. These nerfs aren't ground-breaking by any means. My 2 cents. Maybe DK knows something we don't, I wish he would justify his decisions better than with just 2 sentences. You could probably write a couple paragraphs about a certain nerf or boost.
If mines not one shotting lings and banes isn't a ground-breaking nerf i don't know what to say. (from a Z player)
|
On August 05 2013 20:30 Karpfen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2013 20:04 Incognoto wrote:On August 05 2013 16:55 ETisME wrote:
David Kim thinks widow mines encourages zerg micro which is fun to watch for specutators.
Similarly, medivac speed boost will not likely to have a cooldown increase because harass units are more fun to watch for the game. He thinks right now Terran is NOT a weak race and will be weaker if a nerf is hit
Does he realize that there's no way for a Zerg to truly efficiently defend against drop harass without actually having Mutalisk? The problem being Mutalisk is terrible unit againts Bio/Mine/Medivac. It wouldn't be so bad if the speed boost required an energy cost, it might make Terrans use Speed boost a bit more carefully rather than speed boosting all the damn time like they do at the moment. Mines are still (imo) too efficient. Either reducing the area of their splash or reducing splash damage so that lings and blings die in two shots instead of one might be a nice change, it might make Mutalisk a bit more viable against Bio/Mine. These nerfs aren't ground-breaking by any means. My 2 cents. Maybe DK knows something we don't, I wish he would justify his decisions better than with just 2 sentences. You could probably write a couple paragraphs about a certain nerf or boost. If mines not one shotting lings and banes isn't a ground-breaking nerf i don't know what to say. (from a Z player)
eh no you're right, i was still thinking of medivacs having to use energy when i typed that. i edited to clarify
|
David Kim: Actually, for example, our design team has considered to put lurker into the multiplayer game. We tried many times. But colossus has long range, immortal has anti-armored damage, and Terran has marauder, all of which counter the lurker.
that makes me so frustrated ...
BW had Siege tanks, what about that ?
give us lurker back, goddamnit :/
|
|
|
On August 05 2013 20:16 Lorch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2013 20:03 saddaromma wrote:On August 05 2013 18:43 iaguz wrote:On August 05 2013 18:22 saddaromma wrote:
I think David needs to resign. He has own view of how the game 'should be' and tries hard to make it work. e.g. More actions = more fun. RTS is a strategy, things like defender's advantage, army positioning and long-term decisions should be core part of the game, which are mostly ignored by DK.
He is not the right person for the game. We've been waiting for 3.5 years already, time to move on. Huh? He has own view of how the game 'should be' and tries hard to make it work How is this a bad thing? Everyone has an idea of what the game should be. More actions (what does that even mean? higher apm requirements?) is just another way for a player to outplay the other and that's a good thing. It's part of what makes Starcraft what it is. Defenders advantage, unit positioning and long term decisions are a core part of the game (well, ok, Protoss tries pretty fucking hard to dodge defenders advantage but I argue that keeping tabs on pylons and shutting them down is part of a defenders duty vs them! It's possible to get your defences in order against a protoss that has to move across the map and get a pylon down as long as you notice it early) and frequently games are dependent on that sort of thing. But so is good build orders and mindgames, a bit of risk taking, a bit of scouting, a bit of timing sense, good decisions and good macro. Also, Strategy is just a term that means "overall plan on how to win the game". 6pool is a strategy. Balance is in a pretty good spot in HotS so far, most people at IEM SH (as far as I know) were telling him this. Why should he resign? I'm not talking about balance. Game is in a bad state, and the direction it is going (DK's view) is not very promising. Look, players are retiring, viewership is low and prize pool is decreasing. These are raw numbers and you can't argue with that. Its all due to low entertainment value of the game, which is exactly developers' fault. Prize pool is increasing (overall wcs adds more than it takes away), viewership has grown since hots release, and players will always retire in any sport ever.
Viewership reached rock bottom a little after HotS Beta launch. That's when Destiny's "Starcraft is dying" thread got popular.
When HotS launched, viewership got the biggest in a lot of time. Two months latter, it's back to the pre-Beta status. Oscilating a little, but it's currently better than in the "Starcraft is dying" days and worse than just after HotS launch.
Source. And the graph I'm talking about: ![[image loading]](https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8028950/TL/Monthly%20viewers%202013%2007.png)
LoL and Dota2 are growing aggressively. SC2 only needs to keep the numbers stable. No need to grow right now: LoL is bringing new people into e-sports, and some of these people will eventually find their way into SC2 and stay because of the depth. It's Dota2 and futurely, Planetary Anihilation that SC2 should worry about.
On topic, this last interview was great, actually. OP, keep giving us content for the casual Starcraft players!
|
I have always admired these balance designers. In my opinion, as long as there is differences, it can't be balanced. We just need to make sure that the imbalance of the game does not overcome the skill gap between the players. My best wish to blizzard employee, hope you guys keep up the good work.
|
Its funny its just about 2012 -11 2012-12 where every final became zvz and I think ppl ( Ehermm!!! ME) Got fed up with it and just stopped playing and watching it alltogether LOL
|
On August 03 2013 04:34 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +1. We won't change balance based on a single region.
2. We are observing the turtle swarm host plus static defense style in ZvP late-game.
3. We won't nerf the medivac because Terran is not strong at the moment. Further nerfing the medivac will make Terran even weaker.
4. If ZvZ continues to be roach vs roach for a very long time, we may make changes in the future.
5. It is true that mech is countered by Zerg. But they are observing carefully, because buffing some units may bring about more problems.
6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end. Has this guy seen Innovation play? Terran not strong at the moment? Has he seen the OSL recently? I'm confused. Also the "we won't change balance based on a single region" is akin to saying "we won't balance the game for the highest possible level" considering Korea is so much more competitive than NA or EU. So again, it seems that David Kim has lost touch with the game? I really don't like the things David Kim says.. those two things I put in bold just gives me the impression that he's not really suited for his job.
Nerf Terran because the best player in the world plays it!
Just what I expected out of the TL peanut gallery.
On August 05 2013 23:09 Grimmac wrote:
David Kim: Actually, for example, our design team has considered to put lurker into the multiplayer game. We tried many times. But colossus has long range, immortal has anti-armored damage, and Terran has marauder, all of which counter the lurker.
that makes me so frustrated ...
BW had Siege tanks, what about that ?
give us lurker back, goddamnit :/
We got the lurker in campaign, and they really were useless.
|
On August 10 2013 15:07 havok55 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 04:34 Incognoto wrote:1. We won't change balance based on a single region.
2. We are observing the turtle swarm host plus static defense style in ZvP late-game.
3. We won't nerf the medivac because Terran is not strong at the moment. Further nerfing the medivac will make Terran even weaker.
4. If ZvZ continues to be roach vs roach for a very long time, we may make changes in the future.
5. It is true that mech is countered by Zerg. But they are observing carefully, because buffing some units may bring about more problems.
6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end. Has this guy seen Innovation play? Terran not strong at the moment? Has he seen the OSL recently? I'm confused. Also the "we won't change balance based on a single region" is akin to saying "we won't balance the game for the highest possible level" considering Korea is so much more competitive than NA or EU. So again, it seems that David Kim has lost touch with the game? I really don't like the things David Kim says.. those two things I put in bold just gives me the impression that he's not really suited for his job. Nerf Terran because the best player in the world plays it! Just what I expected out of the TL peanut gallery.
TL peanut gallery? Can you please attempt to read and understand what someone is trying to convey rather than putting words into peoples' mouths? I will clarify my post once.
Terran is not under-performing and DK saying Terran is "not strong atm" is ridiculous. Many genuinely good Terrans are doing really well. I cited Innovation as an example but there are others, such as Taeja, Bomber, Supernova, etc. You get the point. In Korea, the region where the players play a good notch above everyone else, Terran is doing just fine. I never said Terran should be nerfed in that post. I implied that they weren't weak. There's a difference.
|
Russian Federation604 Posts
I want lurker and other units in 2x2 multiplayer! Wowowow))
|
lol
Q: As a girl, I am thinking whether there will be more female units?
David Kim: ...... this is the area of our art team. In fact, we want more female units.
|
On August 10 2013 15:07 havok55 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2013 04:34 Incognoto wrote:1. We won't change balance based on a single region.
2. We are observing the turtle swarm host plus static defense style in ZvP late-game.
3. We won't nerf the medivac because Terran is not strong at the moment. Further nerfing the medivac will make Terran even weaker.
4. If ZvZ continues to be roach vs roach for a very long time, we may make changes in the future.
5. It is true that mech is countered by Zerg. But they are observing carefully, because buffing some units may bring about more problems.
6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end. Has this guy seen Innovation play? Terran not strong at the moment? Has he seen the OSL recently? I'm confused. Also the "we won't change balance based on a single region" is akin to saying "we won't balance the game for the highest possible level" considering Korea is so much more competitive than NA or EU. So again, it seems that David Kim has lost touch with the game? I really don't like the things David Kim says.. those two things I put in bold just gives me the impression that he's not really suited for his job. Nerf Terran because the best player in the world plays it! Just what I expected out of the TL peanut gallery.
The whole "Terran players are just better" thing has been going ever since 2011 so excuse me if i am tired of that excuse.
|
i would really give +damage vs light to mutas
|
On August 11 2013 02:16 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2013 15:07 havok55 wrote:On August 03 2013 04:34 Incognoto wrote:1. We won't change balance based on a single region.
2. We are observing the turtle swarm host plus static defense style in ZvP late-game.
3. We won't nerf the medivac because Terran is not strong at the moment. Further nerfing the medivac will make Terran even weaker.
4. If ZvZ continues to be roach vs roach for a very long time, we may make changes in the future.
5. It is true that mech is countered by Zerg. But they are observing carefully, because buffing some units may bring about more problems.
6. When people talk about "balancing by map", they are actually making the argument that some maps favor a specific strategy of a certain race. So on the flip side, the opponent knows what strategy that is, so the opponent can be prepared. So it's balanced in the end. Has this guy seen Innovation play? Terran not strong at the moment? Has he seen the OSL recently? I'm confused. Also the "we won't change balance based on a single region" is akin to saying "we won't balance the game for the highest possible level" considering Korea is so much more competitive than NA or EU. So again, it seems that David Kim has lost touch with the game? I really don't like the things David Kim says.. those two things I put in bold just gives me the impression that he's not really suited for his job. Nerf Terran because the best player in the world plays it! Just what I expected out of the TL peanut gallery. The whole "Terran players are just better" thing has been going ever since 2011 so excuse me if i am tired of that excuse.
Oh wait, you're Zerg..
|
Show nested quote +On August 05 2013 23:09 Grimmac wrote:
David Kim: Actually, for example, our design team has considered to put lurker into the multiplayer game. We tried many times. But colossus has long range, immortal has anti-armored damage, and Terran has marauder, all of which counter the lurker.
that makes me so frustrated ...
BW had Siege tanks, what about that ?
give us lurker back, goddamnit :/ We got the lurker in campaign, and they really were useless.
They would be amazing in the early game when Zerg is so trash because they have no ranged units. Instead of buffing the Queen a million times Zerg should have just gotten lurkers to defend against bullshit rushes.
|
On August 12 2013 00:14 _Search_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2013 23:09 Grimmac wrote:
David Kim: Actually, for example, our design team has considered to put lurker into the multiplayer game. We tried many times. But colossus has long range, immortal has anti-armored damage, and Terran has marauder, all of which counter the lurker.
that makes me so frustrated ...
BW had Siege tanks, what about that ?
give us lurker back, goddamnit :/ We got the lurker in campaign, and they really were useless.
They would be amazing in the early game when Zerg is so trash because they have no ranged units. Instead of buffing the Queen a million times Zerg should have just gotten lurkers to defend against bullshit rushes
Ofcourse they were bad in campaign, every unit was different than in multiplayer statwise
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
