|
On March 16 2014 05:52 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +We think the BW high ground mechanic is not necessarily better than SC2. Each has its pros and cons. I was thinking about this a bit, and i can't really come up with what are the pros of the SC2 model. In BW, it gave range units a great advantage against other range units and so: 1)it promoted positional play and defense by having the players fight for position on the map 2)it allowed lower number of units to defend against larger numbers, so it improved map control options and acted a bit as an anti base race mechanic(like we see so much of in SC2) This 2 are huge IMO and i can't see anything that the SC2 model can even come close to. It's very rare that an army doesn't have the capability to gain vision, since most armies include some sort of flying units past the early-mid and mid game. It's really only the choke points that seem to be relevant in SC2, whether they are ramps or just flat level choke point, doesn't really matter most of the time. So, what are the pros?
how does defensive play improve sc2 ? we already have problems since deathball is a direct consequence of defensive play
|
On March 16 2014 05:57 xsnac wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 05:52 Sapphire.lux wrote:We think the BW high ground mechanic is not necessarily better than SC2. Each has its pros and cons. I was thinking about this a bit, and i can't really come up with what are the pros of the SC2 model. In BW, it gave range units a great advantage against other range units and so: 1)it promoted positional play and defense by having the players fight for position on the map 2)it allowed lower number of units to defend against larger numbers, so it improved map control options and acted a bit as an anti base race mechanic(like we see so much of in SC2) This 2 are huge IMO and i can't see anything that the SC2 model can even come close to. It's very rare that an army doesn't have the capability to gain vision, since most armies include some sort of flying units past the early-mid and mid game. It's really only the choke points that seem to be relevant in SC2, whether they are ramps or just flat level choke point, doesn't really matter most of the time. So, what are the pros? how does defensive play improve sc2 ? we already have problems since deathball is a direct consequence of defensive play
Where did i say defensive play? I was talking positioning play, and tactics with points of contention on the map. Like players being encouraged to fight for a certain position early on, because of the tactical importance it has on the map. This is almost absent from SC2.
|
On March 16 2014 05:47 Grumbels wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 16 2014 05:25 TeslasPigeon wrote:
Some people have made the argument that redesigning the game would be a costly endeavor which is why Blizzard may not implement new fundamental changes to the game.
I don't really buy these arguments since mods like Starbow prove that design changes can be done as simple as a few editor changes in the game. The only thing I can infer, assuming that money is not an issue which I believe it is not, is a reluctance to change the game due to "casuals being confused." This philosophy has permeated other Blizzard games and appears to be the most consistent thing Blizzard will consider when designing or updating a game. Which is a shame really because most changes people seem to want (true high ground advantage, more nuanced economy, etc) can be tested in PTR fairly easily.
Starbow is hardly up to Blizzard's standards, especially in terms of animations and models. Blizzard doesn't just care about the gameplay. It's a lot more work than you might think. It's one thing to change some of the stats like oracle speed, quite another to add new mechanics to the game.
Starbow proves that introducing ideas such as a robust economy or high ground advantage are literally few changes in the editor. What animations or aesthetics does this effect? I'm not talking about the units such as the lurker or reaver. Introducing new mechanics IS simple as changing the editor settings.
Introducing a high ground advantage will completely change how maps are currently being played and built in the future. Introducing economy changes could lessen the affect of death balls and change how current maps are played and built. The problem is not only the reluctance to implement these changes but also the reluctance to test these ideas in the PTR.
These two changes ARE easy to implement and WILL affect how the game will be played drastically. Introducing new units is going to happen regardless of what people want but the same problems will still persist.
I don't understand what your post purports aside from "change is hard" which it is clearly not.
|
On March 16 2014 05:55 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 05:52 Sapphire.lux wrote:We think the BW high ground mechanic is not necessarily better than SC2. Each has its pros and cons. I was thinking about this a bit, and i can't really come up with what are the pros of the SC2 model. In BW, it gave range units a great advantage against other range units and so: 1)it promoted positional play and defense by having the players fight for position on the map 2)it allowed lower number of units to defend against larger numbers, so it improved map control options and acted a bit as an anti base race mechanic(like we see so much of in SC2) This 2 are huge IMO and i can't see anything that the SC2 model can even come close to. It's very rare that an army doesn't have the capability to gain vision, since most armies include some sort of flying units past the early-mid and mid game. It's really only the choke points that seem to be relevant in SC2, whether they are ramps or just flat level choke point, doesn't really matter most of the time. So, what are the pros? Its good for the simple minded people.
Aye. It's main pro seems to be that it doesn't do much at all so it can be mostly ignored by the simple minded lol
|
It's utterly amazing how David Kim managed to type out so much text and yet answer absolutely nothing. His belief that the income system is totally fine has already completely doomed Starcraft as a franchise. Blizzard will look at the failure of SC2 and point at it and say "see? the RTS genre is dead," before they even consider Starcraft 3 in the future. Of course, their perceived death of the RTS genre will be entirely due to their incompetence.
I also got a chuckle out of David Kims' ridiculous justification for minor changes: that there are people's pro-gaming careers on the line. What a crock of fucking shit. David Kim needs to understand that a career should be sustainable, which at the current rate of SC2's decline, will not be. These SC2 pro-gamers will have a year, maybe two left at most. The only way to keep this game alive and strong for the long term is to do major revamps.
|
On March 16 2014 06:07 TeslasPigeon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 05:47 Grumbels wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 16 2014 05:25 TeslasPigeon wrote:
Some people have made the argument that redesigning the game would be a costly endeavor which is why Blizzard may not implement new fundamental changes to the game.
I don't really buy these arguments since mods like Starbow prove that design changes can be done as simple as a few editor changes in the game. The only thing I can infer, assuming that money is not an issue which I believe it is not, is a reluctance to change the game due to "casuals being confused." This philosophy has permeated other Blizzard games and appears to be the most consistent thing Blizzard will consider when designing or updating a game. Which is a shame really because most changes people seem to want (true high ground advantage, more nuanced economy, etc) can be tested in PTR fairly easily.
Starbow is hardly up to Blizzard's standards, especially in terms of animations and models. Blizzard doesn't just care about the gameplay. It's a lot more work than you might think. It's one thing to change some of the stats like oracle speed, quite another to add new mechanics to the game. Starbow proves that introducing ideas such as a robust economy or high ground advantage are literally few changes in the editor. What animations or aesthetics does this effect? I'm not talking about the units such as the lurker or reaver. Introducing new mechanics IS simple as changing the editor settings. Introducing a high ground advantage will completely change how maps are currently being played and built in the future. Introducing economy changes could lessen the affect of death balls and change how current maps are played and built. The problem is not only the reluctance to implement these changes but also the reluctance to test these ideas in the PTR. These two changes ARE easy to implement and WILL affect how the game will be played drastically. Introducing new units is going to happen regardless of what people want but the same problems will still persist. I don't understand what your post purports aside from "change is hard" which it is clearly not.
We don't know the size of the Starcraft II team at the moment, it might be quite small. You don't know anything if you think that it's just a few tweaks in the editor. Yes, you can recreate functionality in the editor, but not to an acceptable standard for Blizzard.
For instance, if you're going to add high ground miss chance you have many aspects to worry about: visual indicators for missing attacks such as overshooting projectiles, floating text, dodging animations; optimizing the engine so that high ground miss chance is native and not a hack in the editor; dealing with interactions between any number of special abilities with high ground miss chance.
You can't do any of that with a small team, with people that weren't even responsible for the engine. You can bet that all of Blizzard's most talented programmers are working on other projects than maintenance mode Starcraft II. (not sure about LotV though)
|
On March 16 2014 06:29 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 06:07 TeslasPigeon wrote:On March 16 2014 05:47 Grumbels wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 16 2014 05:25 TeslasPigeon wrote:
Some people have made the argument that redesigning the game would be a costly endeavor which is why Blizzard may not implement new fundamental changes to the game.
I don't really buy these arguments since mods like Starbow prove that design changes can be done as simple as a few editor changes in the game. The only thing I can infer, assuming that money is not an issue which I believe it is not, is a reluctance to change the game due to "casuals being confused." This philosophy has permeated other Blizzard games and appears to be the most consistent thing Blizzard will consider when designing or updating a game. Which is a shame really because most changes people seem to want (true high ground advantage, more nuanced economy, etc) can be tested in PTR fairly easily.
Starbow is hardly up to Blizzard's standards, especially in terms of animations and models. Blizzard doesn't just care about the gameplay. It's a lot more work than you might think. It's one thing to change some of the stats like oracle speed, quite another to add new mechanics to the game. Starbow proves that introducing ideas such as a robust economy or high ground advantage are literally few changes in the editor. What animations or aesthetics does this effect? I'm not talking about the units such as the lurker or reaver. Introducing new mechanics IS simple as changing the editor settings. Introducing a high ground advantage will completely change how maps are currently being played and built in the future. Introducing economy changes could lessen the affect of death balls and change how current maps are played and built. The problem is not only the reluctance to implement these changes but also the reluctance to test these ideas in the PTR. These two changes ARE easy to implement and WILL affect how the game will be played drastically. Introducing new units is going to happen regardless of what people want but the same problems will still persist. I don't understand what your post purports aside from "change is hard" which it is clearly not. We don't know the size of the Starcraft II team at the moment, it might be quite small. You don't know anything if you think that it's just a few tweaks in the editor. Yes, you can recreate functionality in the editor, but not to an acceptable standard for Blizzard. For instance, if you're going to add high ground miss chance you have many aspects to worry about: visual indicators for missing attacks such as overshooting projectiles, floating text, dodging animations; optimizing the engine so that high ground miss chance is native and not a hack in the editor; dealing with interactions between any number of special abilities with high ground miss chance. You can't do any of that with a small team, with people that weren't even responsible for the engine. You can bet that all of Blizzard's most talented programmers are working on other projects than maintenance mode Starcraft II. (not sure about LotV though)
So because Blizzard took a break while they were making HOTS, it's reasonable that we have to wait until LOTV for the game to get fixed.
Sounds legit.
|
from the IEM semifinals, Taeja vs sos:
"protoss. I don't know what else to say" - tod
|
On March 16 2014 06:39 CutTheEnemy wrote:from the IEM semifinals, Taeja vs sos:
Both those players are pretty good. And random quotes out of context aren't very useful.
|
dezi
Germany1536 Posts
So much bullshit, if they're afraid of making changes the should stop working in it. Carrers on the line ... yeah, everyone remembers how all the Dota pro team died after each patch ... bullshit Kim, pure bullshit. I don't see this game making really cool steps. Only small minor changes and a yet again stalmate in all the MUs soon after LotV release. Sad story, when did their balls drop off?
|
If only they had balls... It has always been like that since the beginning. Too little good decisions have been made.
|
On March 16 2014 06:29 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 06:07 TeslasPigeon wrote:On March 16 2014 05:47 Grumbels wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On March 16 2014 05:25 TeslasPigeon wrote:
Some people have made the argument that redesigning the game would be a costly endeavor which is why Blizzard may not implement new fundamental changes to the game.
I don't really buy these arguments since mods like Starbow prove that design changes can be done as simple as a few editor changes in the game. The only thing I can infer, assuming that money is not an issue which I believe it is not, is a reluctance to change the game due to "casuals being confused." This philosophy has permeated other Blizzard games and appears to be the most consistent thing Blizzard will consider when designing or updating a game. Which is a shame really because most changes people seem to want (true high ground advantage, more nuanced economy, etc) can be tested in PTR fairly easily.
Starbow is hardly up to Blizzard's standards, especially in terms of animations and models. Blizzard doesn't just care about the gameplay. It's a lot more work than you might think. It's one thing to change some of the stats like oracle speed, quite another to add new mechanics to the game. Starbow proves that introducing ideas such as a robust economy or high ground advantage are literally few changes in the editor. What animations or aesthetics does this effect? I'm not talking about the units such as the lurker or reaver. Introducing new mechanics IS simple as changing the editor settings. Introducing a high ground advantage will completely change how maps are currently being played and built in the future. Introducing economy changes could lessen the affect of death balls and change how current maps are played and built. The problem is not only the reluctance to implement these changes but also the reluctance to test these ideas in the PTR. These two changes ARE easy to implement and WILL affect how the game will be played drastically. Introducing new units is going to happen regardless of what people want but the same problems will still persist. I don't understand what your post purports aside from "change is hard" which it is clearly not. We don't know the size of the Starcraft II team at the moment, it might be quite small. You don't know anything if you think that it's just a few tweaks in the editor. Yes, you can recreate functionality in the editor, but not to an acceptable standard for Blizzard. For instance, if you're going to add high ground miss chance you have many aspects to worry about: visual indicators for missing attacks such as overshooting projectiles, floating text, dodging animations; optimizing the engine so that high ground miss chance is native and not a hack in the editor; dealing with interactions between any number of special abilities with high ground miss chance. You can't do any of that with a small team, with people that weren't even responsible for the engine. You can bet that all of Blizzard's most talented programmers are working on other projects than maintenance mode Starcraft II. (not sure about LotV though)
Also, would the stats of all ranged units have to be looked at as a consequence? What ramifications would that have for the game and, importantly, the current body of strategic knowledge? Would turtling become too strong? (After all, it's not what you intend for a design that you think about, but also what players might do with it.) What further changes would be necessary? Could they be reasonably implemented? What effects would they have if implemented? And so on and on.
|
I don't understand how come every time this kind of Q&A happens everyone starts pestering him about FFs, like they're the most broken mechanic in the game and completely ruin it. I understand there's a lot of whiners out there, and people generally tend to see anything that isn't a part of their preferred race as broken or OP, but very rarely, if ever, do we ever see reasonable, logical explanations for those opinions. My suggestion to people who go to those Q&A sessions for the sake of balance whine (or who just come here afterwards to bitch about bad answers and more balance problems) is to go play random for a while, and experience all three races equally. Maybe then you'll realize that all races have their problems, and the game is in better balance right now that it has ever been.
|
Their philosophy when it comes to only making changes that are "really amazing" is really ignorant. If a change is necessary, it's necessary. It doesn't matter at all whether it's amazing or not if it's going to positively impact how the game plays. Typical blizzard bullshit.
|
OK, since now Starbow is there out - ppl think that SC2 should be a copy of it as well.. Well - why don't you guys overcome SC2 in terms of viewership anyway ??
High-ground mechanics or units clumping have not enough impact - ok clumping has a lot, but HG won't solve a jack sh*t - AND - they're just too much of a risk.. TRUE that there could at least be a PTR for those and compare and THEN discuss.. BUT - saying that DK doesn't know what to do just cause not being such a radicalist is a bad attitude IMO..
Like - I can say right now few problems that tend to occur.. The first one is however an old story of mine, that some ppl tend to think the same, and some tend to think not.. So here it is:
1 - At the time of HotS beta - the goal wasn't to make a complete new product, but rather improve its predecessor.. That being said - there weren't enough patches to test the WM and Swarmhost.. For what we know - the WM could've been a 10 sec cd shock-hitting unit rather than a 40 sec one big damage blob, and maybe SH would've had it's EL upgrade moved to Hive tech long ago.. Perhaps even had small claws of their own to defend selves when locusts would be far out.. Like - there simply wasn't enough testing of those.. The mere fact that the game got a lot better - was a reason enough to not look for further improvements on
BUT YEAH - at least if we're so negative, then let's try to define what's bad in this game overall.. Here are the current problems HotS has ATM IMO:
These are very simple to observe:
1 - T and Z lack of good AA unit Both.. They can't afford to fight Air vs Air vs Protoss, or at least not having some Air units that can survive the onslaught of Storm
2 - Corruptors were badly designed (more like - not redesigned at all unit) cause they were created for the sole reason of being the "bodyguard" of the Broodlord in WoL.. The problem however is that in HotS VRays got the Alignment ability to get insta boosted in their boss mode and Infestors aren't as strong 
3 - Terran has nothing good that's fairly easily massable other than Marine.. Or if there are - then they're all fairly fragile to the splash damage of Protoss..
4 - Again - same as related to reason #1 - if something's better than it used to be - no need of polish further.. I can 100% bet and/or guarantee that the game would be a lot better if Tempests weren't such a hard-slap counter to BLords, BCs, Carriers, and whatnot.. Like - if their dmg was 30+30 instead of 30 + 50 - we'd see a lot more BLord as well as maybe even some BC action.. And if they were not good enough vs Colossi in PvP a simple tweak to 30 + 30 + 20 vs shields would solve it instantly all..
So yah - like - try to really understand the problems of the game and state them rather than completely redesigning it just cause - in BW and/or SBow it's done "better".. No - it's not done better.. It's just done.. - different.. yes = try to state differences rather than measure with the same ruler
IMO Blizz team did a fairly good job at identifying the race/matchups's problems from WoL overall, but the problem is that the solutions they brought on weren't tested enough or weren't discovering variants enough before the final release decision went out overall.. The mere fact that the game got 100% more dynamic almost instantly, and more playable was enough to not explore further abroad, as if that the mere fact that the game got a lot better was enough to not dig further at all.. BUT - still - lazyness to not "perfectize that 10% left (unscouted)" is FAR from the game's brought upon a wrong fundamentals..
And let's be honest about 1 thing though - the game is in very relatively good state ATM, and we're pleased of the games we see.. The frustration comes out from the acknowledging the fact that we can't execute the things we see televised over and over again, cause if it seems too hard, or it's not helping us at all..
And at least let's not act like pros.. It's really far too obvious that the game can be improved a lot just by addressing it's problems (hope I stated correctly some of them above) rather than have it a complete rework..
So yeah - it's not HG, WG, or FF, or even FG the game's problem, the problem is that there aren't many ways to deal with those.. Like - if there was a Mech unit that was immune to spell damage, or at least 50% resistant, suddenly a lot of things would've looked different.. Same with the Corruptor - if it had a debuff rather than a buff - i.e. - instead of target taking 20% more damage be a target deals less 25% damage there would've been a lot more uses because a dominance wouldn't be required in order to use the spell to effectiveness vs key units of the opponent..
Like - simple as that - just find out the game's problems and say them, rather than "WE DEMAND FOR A COMPLETE REWORK" - like - pls - don't sell that sh*t .. It's really a retard mode
But yah - it's not that DK doesn't know what he's doing, it's just the fact that frustrates us that there's a tendency of what I call - make SC2 at it's release be around a 85% finished product cause it tends to VERY SLOWLY evolve - (that's what I refered to the HotS beta not exploring the new units possible variety of working IMO).. Other than that - that "very final stage of lazyness" - the team does a pretty good job.. Or at least ATM it seems so
Ofc.. won't be a complete misinformation that the WM buff felt a lot more like lower-level plays change that made the mass crowds (myself into that group as well) more pleased overall.. That just goes to show in what group we belong to and how we're not pros the way we tend to "show-off" in the "thrash-talks" going on
|
On March 16 2014 05:57 xsnac wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 05:52 Sapphire.lux wrote:We think the BW high ground mechanic is not necessarily better than SC2. Each has its pros and cons. I was thinking about this a bit, and i can't really come up with what are the pros of the SC2 model. In BW, it gave range units a great advantage against other range units and so: 1)it promoted positional play and defense by having the players fight for position on the map 2)it allowed lower number of units to defend against larger numbers, so it improved map control options and acted a bit as an anti base race mechanic(like we see so much of in SC2) This 2 are huge IMO and i can't see anything that the SC2 model can even come close to. It's very rare that an army doesn't have the capability to gain vision, since most armies include some sort of flying units past the early-mid and mid game. It's really only the choke points that seem to be relevant in SC2, whether they are ramps or just flat level choke point, doesn't really matter most of the time. So, what are the pros? how does defensive play improve sc2 ? we already have problems since deathball is a direct consequence of defensive play
This is exactly backwards. The deathball forms because there is no way for a smaller number of units to cost effectively defend against a larger number; so, both players are forced to keep their armies all together for fear of just being run over. Stronger defensive play would mean that a player could spread his units out, leaving some in defensive positions and moving some around the map to attack, and the deathball player couldn't just thoughtlessly roll over his defense.
Of course, there is definitely a balance here where if defending units are too strong then you have to be stupidly ahead just to finish off an already beaten opponent, but increasing the strength of defending units in SC2 would serve to break up the deathball.
|
Well I say we all jump off SC2s huge imbalances and jump right into Starbows perfect balance that will take at most 2 maybe 3 days to balance. And remember thats a conservative estimate.
The things that should probably be discarded or patched out are Planetary Fortresses and Nexus. It ONLY makes turtling easier. I guarantee blizzard will make a hatchery defence system for LotV.
Colossus should be slower or less effective in mass. You cant just give Protoss, (the race that scales best for units,) Forcefields AND the best splash damage spell, Storm AND the best splash damage ground unit, the Colossus. Vipers are an amazing unit for zerg against toss but terran has no good way to deal wtih Protoss late game other than simply outplaying every Ghost vs Templar battle.
And as a last ditch effort maybe lower the supply cap to 170/170 for each race.
|
On March 16 2014 06:18 Ksi wrote:
It's utterly amazing how David Kim managed to type out so much text and yet answer absolutely nothing. His belief that the income system is totally fine has already completely doomed Starcraft as a franchise. Blizzard will look at the failure of SC2 and point at it and say "see? the RTS genre is dead," before they even consider Starcraft 3 in the future. Of course, their perceived death of the RTS genre will be entirely due to their incompetence.
I also got a chuckle out of David Kims' ridiculous justification for minor changes: that there are people's pro-gaming careers on the line. What a crock of fucking shit. David Kim needs to understand that a career should be sustainable, which at the current rate of SC2's decline, will not be. These SC2 pro-gamers will have a year, maybe two left at most. The only way to keep this game alive and strong for the long term is to do major revamps.
Blizzard has already told you they are very happy with Browder and his work on SC2 by promoting him to Vice-Prez and making him the #2 speaker at Blizzcon. #1 speaker is the guy who runs the joint... you know.. Mike Morhaime. They are not overhauling his work, he is not viewed as the Jay Wilson of the RTS division. Browder is viewed as an unqualified success within Blizzard.
the RTS genre is no longer being supported by major publishers, Blizz is the only exception.
MS and EA have dropped out because it does not provide enough profit relative to the investment required. Neither of these companies cares much that the communities behind C&C and AoE criticized their games heavily. The decision was made because these communities did not spend enough cash.
The next really cool RTS game will come out of an indie studio like Carbon Games. and it won't make very much money relative to what big publishers need to justify a AAA budget.
EA has moth balled 2 RTS studios.. .EALA nad Victory Games. MS folded up Ensemble.
Big publishers have bigger fish to fry.
Its already over guy.
If you have $60 million floating around with nothing to do .... the last thing i'd ever recommend you do is spend that money on developing a "AAA" RTS game for the shrivelling PC market.
In Blizzard's view Browder milked every last dime possible out of an increasingly marginalized genre of game play. The RTS is set to become to this decade what dot eating maze games were to the 1990s.
any one wanna play some Lock 'n' Chase? how about some LadyBug?
I bring up this analogy because the PC is going away the same way the Arcade Cabinet did
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/01/09/2013-represented-worst-decline-in-pc-markets-history/
It really doesn't matter how well SC2 is designed because its platform is slowly going away as an entertainment source. Just as the arcade cabinet slowly disappeared.
Blizzard is slowly steering away from the PC with a heavy release schedule of D3 on various consoles and Hearthstone developed for non-PC devices.
|
On March 16 2014 14:06 lamprey1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2014 06:18 Ksi wrote:
It's utterly amazing how David Kim managed to type out so much text and yet answer absolutely nothing. His belief that the income system is totally fine has already completely doomed Starcraft as a franchise. Blizzard will look at the failure of SC2 and point at it and say "see? the RTS genre is dead," before they even consider Starcraft 3 in the future. Of course, their perceived death of the RTS genre will be entirely due to their incompetence.
I also got a chuckle out of David Kims' ridiculous justification for minor changes: that there are people's pro-gaming careers on the line. What a crock of fucking shit. David Kim needs to understand that a career should be sustainable, which at the current rate of SC2's decline, will not be. These SC2 pro-gamers will have a year, maybe two left at most. The only way to keep this game alive and strong for the long term is to do major revamps. I bring up this analogy because the PC is going away the same way the Arcade Cabinet did http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/01/09/2013-represented-worst-decline-in-pc-markets-history/It really doesn't matter how well SC2 is designed because its platform is slowly going away as an entertainment source. Just as the arcade cabinet slowly disappeared. Blizzard is slowly steering away from the PC with a heavy release schedule of D3 on various consoles and Hearthstone developed for non-PC devices.
PC gaming is stronger then it has been in a long, long time. Multiple "hard core" competitive games, sims of all types, kick starter projects, new revolutionary hardware on the way with 3d and VR, etc. You've no idea what you're talking about basically. D3 was one of the best selling games of all time to, PC exclusive. Can you be more wrong? lol
If you want to play your usual dumbed down AAA titles though, then yeah, a console will do you good.
The promotion to VP has much more to do with people skills, management, leader qualities, etc. It doesn't mean that FF and Colossus are now sacred cows lol.
EDIT: the low PC sales are not about people replacing the machines with other devices, as some companies and news outlets would have you believe. PCs today have much longer "life spans" then they did in the past. I used to changes my PC every couple of years or so. Nowdays, a 3 or even 4 year old machine will be more then enough for the usual consumer. Even for gaming, unless you want to max out the graphics on poorly optimized console ports, they are good enough. People still use PCs as much as ever or more.
|
one of the most core philosophies for our SC2 design team is that if the change isn't completely awesome, we don't change it. Reason being we don't want to take away from players who are actually using the current versions of the units in a fun way of their own.
Eep. This just screams "players leaving in frustration" to me. Don't improve a unit because some players are already working on their own to try to improve [use of] the unit? Yikes
Sure, the metagame always can evolve, but certainly it'd be faster the devs are helping it along, sorta giving the metagame a 'nudge' to get out of a local minimum. And it seems like players these days are getting used to the idea of having the game nudged around on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
