Update: Although David Kim has finished, Blizzard community manager Randy Jordan (Kaivax) edited the post to say that he may answer some additional questions. I've added his answers to the end of the post.
Q: Are any "large scale" or "mechanic" redesigns being considering for Legacy of the Void? For example considering changing mechanics around high ground advantage, the soft 3 base income cap, warpgate, etc? + Show Spoiler +
A: We're currently working on all parts of the next expansion, but everything is a work in progress. If something is problematic, we would discuss it and try possible changes. But one of our core philosophies on SC2 design is if the change isn't completely amazing, we prefer not to do it. So in this specific case, things like high ground advantage working the way it does currently vs. how it worked in BW vs. other advantages we can think of that are different, it's really hard to clearly say that one mechanic is better in all the cases. Overall, we are trying various changes in various areas, but it's really difficult to say for certain what will go through at the end of the day. When you guys have good suggestions on specific problematic areas as well as possible solutions, we definitely discuss and/or try those things internally as we work on the next game to be able to know exactly why or why not we're deciding on a certain area. Eg. We've tried and still retry things like different suggestions for the Swarm Host, more harsh counters to Force Fields, or old units like Lurkers, and so on.
Q: As the mapmaker of Frost, I want to ask: Do you have plans to allow Half-Bases and other map features in the ladder? Eg. 6m 1hyg expansions? I know Blizzard's stance is that "newer" players will not understand it, but I personally don't think that is the case... + Show Spoiler +
DotA for example really has a high learning curve with many things to learn but it doesn't stop people from learning it. Here is the list of map-features if allowed, I think will improve gameplay: Half-Bases or alternate mineral/gas numbers Mineral Blocks which acts differently from destructible rocks Burrowed Ultralisks or something to prevent forcefields/spells (maybe in LotV) that would allow really cool map design No-fly zones to be used in 3p maps. No creep/No build zones. I think maps can really make games fun and I can elaborate some of these points if needed. Also, for LotV, could you guys please include 60 degree/30 degree ramps? It would really revolutionise 3p maps... EDIT: Since there has been some traction, I also want to ask if you can please allow maps to be altered and edited mid-season, not just Blizzard maps, even aesthetically etc. If a map's going to stay around for a while, a makeover is pretty great. Lastly, please communicate more with mapmakers in TLMCs etc! Thank you.
A; Not just maps, but in general we believe the smallest changes possible that have the biggest impacts are the better designs in SC2. And often times, new map mechanics are the opposite of this. An awesome example of what we're trying to go for when we say we want map diversity is Habitation Station. This map only uses existing map mechanics (including the high yield base that many map makers, pros, even many of us internally at blizzard brushed off as it can't work for esports), but the map itself plays completely differently compared to other maps in terms of build orders, timings, and strategies used. It feels so fresh watching games on this map, and it's easy to locate specific strategies used on this map that you almost never see on other maps. So by slightly changing where and how to use an existing mechanic in a creative way, the map maker was able to create a completely unique map that's different from what we've been seeing for years. Compare that to a map that uses a brand new map mechanic. Take Heavy Rain for example. The center of the original map had destructible rocks that are rebuilt every X minutes. We've replaced that new mechanic with simple destructible rocks because the difference is very minor. If you think back on the games where the rocks are broken (not the towers near the 3rd, but the rocks in the middle that open up the side paths), those don't even come into play until the later stages of the game. So this would be an example of a big change (introducing a completely new mechanic only on this map) that only gets very small gains (minor differences only in the late game). FYI, we're also grateful for awesome maps like Frost. Of the maps introduced that season, Frost turned out to be really amazing. Frost is one of 3 maps that's been in the map pool the longest, and there's a high chance that it'll be the only remaining map of those 3 next season due to how good the map is. As for changes, we prefer not to unless the map is problematic (Daedalus is fixed) because we wouldn't want to disrupt tournament games in any way even if it's just aesthetic.
Q: First off, thank you for doing the AMA! This is very much appreciated. Every time there is a balance update to StarCraft, the changes are very minor. I understand this is in favour of not breaking the balance of the game. However, lately we have seen that the closest competitors to StarCraft (LoL and DotA) do patch core aspects of the game when it seems to be broken or not as much fun as it could be. How do you stand about making bigger balance changes to the game instead of very tiny ones (for example changing the way Forcefields work)? + Show Spoiler +
A: We prefer not to make big changes due to careers being on the line in a game like Starcraft 2. We also mentioned we would prefer not to make design changes in patches because we don't think it's good for the game to change too much and confuse returning players or players who just don't keep up with every single change we make to the game. However, it doesn't mean we aren't exploring various design changes. If we absolutely had to, we would still make these types of changes, so we'd like to still be ready even if we actually don't make a change right now. One example here in the past when we made a design change was when we added the Phoenix range upgrade back in Wings, when Mutalisk switches were too strong in ZvP. And right now, we are playing around with various design changes to the Swarm Host due to what we've been seeing and hearing, even though we don't have immediate plans to change how the unit works.
Q: Has the Nydus Worm been a topic of conversation for you and the other designers? Are any changes being considered? Is your team happy with it's use (or lack of use) in Heart of the Swarm? I've been curious about this ever since a new nydus worm was shown very early on in HotS but never made it into the game- a worm that spewed creep (and could even attack?) + Show Spoiler +
A: Units that aren't being used that much, but don't break anything aren't as high of a priority for patches. However, they are high priority for the next game. This list includes not just the Nydus Worm, but also units such as BCs, Carriers, Corruptors, etc. Like we mentioned in another post, 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. And we're in such early stages that it's really difficult to say that we have a good solution for any of these things, but we are trying our best not only to work on supporting HotS, but also thinking farther down the line.
Q: As you should be able to tell from the top comments in this thread, the community is very interested in having a discussion about the possibility of major re-design of certain elements of the game (protoss, forcefields, deathballs, income, etc) for the Legacy of The Void expansion. Could you please touch on the possibility of this? + Show Spoiler +
A: We've answered a similar question above, but would just like to reiterate that we do hear your concerns, and we are discussing and/or trying various changes. However, the most important thing to remember is that core mechanics are difficult to mess with in an expansion because we're talking about completely changing major parts of the game. There are people out there that want such major changes (which is sort of what the mod community is for), but there are also people out there who like the current core systems the way they are. Also, the danger of doing something like this is that it's not as easy as just changing something. We know the ins and outs of how this game works through years of experience. It would be very difficult to simply change a core part of the game to something completely different, and still have it as polished as what we have now.
Q: What do you feel is the biggest issue with 2 hour long SH games in ZvZ ZvP and ZvT(Mech), and would you consider a complete rework of the unit or would you prefer sticking to tweaking other units/abilities to make it less... Boring(?) to watch. + Show Spoiler +
A: We believe ZvP is the biggest concern of the three matchups. The issue here is a combination of Swarm Hosts, base defenses, Vipers, and Corruptors. We've tested the Tempest changes and discussed with some knowledgeable casters/players around the world. We came to the conclusion that while this change is solid to solve this ZvP issue, it hasn't really been happening in tournament games recently, so it's better to wait before making any further changes. For ZvT, we believe this sort of stalemate happens not because of Swarm Hosts, but mostly because of the strength of Mass Ravens in the late game. We haven't been seeing as many of these games compared to the late game PvZ games. When we evaluate these games, it looks to us like Terran players are sometimes delaying moving out because reaching a critical mass of Ravens could win the game, if they can reach that point at a decently even economy. There have been so few pro level 1-2 hour Swarm Host games that it's difficult to make a clear call in this area. For example, we're always analyzing games, and recently, the only pro game that came close to this was the HerO vs. Rogue game which lasted 37 min. With that said, we are aware on the EU ladder that this type of strategy is more common and we're still discussing it frequently with EU players and casters to see if we need to start testing other changes on the next balance test map.
Q: Hello Mr.Kim. Do you consider to implement daily automatic battle.net tournament like in wc3? + Show Spoiler +
A: Yes. As we mentioned previously, this is a high priority for us and something that we're exploring around the next expansion.
Q: Can you takes us through how you designed a unit, the step by step process? (with as much or as little detail as you'd like to give) I personally don't know a lot about game design and figure this would be on of the best people in the world to ask about it. + Show Spoiler +
A: We have a multiplayer design team that work on unit designs. Each person on this team brings ideas to our meetings. The ideas range from something so crazy that you might think it can't ever work in SC2 to easier-to-try-right-away ideas. Within the actual meetings, we try to prove or disprove why the idea can or can't work, and we talk about ways to improve the idea to make it fit for SC2, or we brainstorm new ideas that branch off of these ideas. Most of the ideas don't go anywhere, but if a unit concept is viable enough to try in game, we implement it into a test environment and try it out in our regular playtests. We then repeat this process until we find something we like. This is why when someone asks who designed unit X, we can't really give an answer because it's always a team effort.
Q: Has the recent popularity of Starbow and its Brood-War-like gameplay influenced your approach to LotV in any way? Most people agree that large-scale fights that end in a matter of seconds aren't fun, or good for the competitive scene (not for the progamers, and certainly not for the audience). They don't reward skill, since there's usually not enough time to execute any micro maneuvers beyond the most basic splits and casting a few aoe spells. + Show Spoiler +
A: We definitely look at popular mods for ideas for SC2. Not only mods, but it's just very common for our designers to just explore games they are playing currently. One interesting story I'd like to share is back when the last Hearthstone alpha started internally, so many of us were playing the game so much that our multiplayer meetings were full of TCG-like ability ideas which took us to interesting areas creatively. Of course we can't do things like "when this unit enters play, something disruptive happens to the enemy," but often times crazy ideas lead to reasonable ideas that can actually work in a completely different type of game.
Q: Putting balance aside, I want to ask something about free units. In my opinion, a core part of any RTS is to think about when you can engage. Inefficient engagements will lose you the game in the long run. The swarm host kind of defies this philosophy... + Show Spoiler +
because as long as the SH itself is safe (which isn't that hard because of the range of locusts and static d), the locusts can take any engagement they want and still be cost efficient. 30 locusts to kill 1 zealot? That's cost efficient because 100 minerals is more than 0 minerals. What is your opinion on this matter? Do you think free units can have a place in a RTS? For example, would you be open to removing the interceptor cost to make the carrier more viable?
A: Yes free units can have a place in RTS, and free doesn't mean it's OP. There's a cost to using Locusts and it's not completely free. You still need to make Swarm Hosts. Say the damage of Locusts went down to 10% of what it is now, even though yeah it'll still be true that X number of Locusts will be able to kill units for "free," Swarm Hosts/Locusts will not be used much due to how cost inefficient they are. Another area we're exploring with the Swarm Host is the design of the unit especially in terms of the entertainment aspect of it. Because of how fast Locusts spawn, it's very common for us to watch the Observer camera go to the location where the Locusts are spawned. Often times, they just walk towards the rally point and die, meaning we didn't need to look at those locusts. Naturally, we're looking into this area. For the Carrier, we believe the issue is that Carriers are mostly just A move capital ships. The main cool factor of this unit is that they see play once in a while. If they were seen often, We don't think 10+ Carriers being A moved is all that interesting to play with or watch. This is also a unit we're trying various things with in order to have a more interesting unit that is still a Carrier. If we can first solve that, then we believe we can balance it correctly to have them more cost effective.
Q: The (very) lategame seems to be boring to play and watch for most match-ups. We have a lot of situations where the players are not being able to attack efficiently which makes for very stale games. We have a lot of turtle units in the latgame that slow the game down (e.g. broodlords, swarmhosts, mothership, colosse, lategame mech, tvp happy ghost style etc.). It feels like that a lot of players including pros try to avoid getting into this position by ending the game in the midgame. Do you agree with those concerns? Are you planing to make the lategame more dynamic and more fun? + Show Spoiler +
A: More action throughout the game is definitely one of our most important goals. While we don't agree that most late games are boring to watch right now, this is just an area we need to continue working on. It really depends on the game. If both sides are just sitting back not attacking, we agree it's not that fun to watch. Long games where there's constant action are fun. One thing to note here is defense always gets stronger over time. Think back on any strategy or timing that players had trouble defending against. Eg. Medivacs when the speed boost was first introduced vs. now, there's a clear difference in how much easier it has gotten even though the unit hasn't been changed. We internally joke around by saying things like "we think this harass option is OP right now, but we probably need to buff it 2 years from now." And it sometimes actually turns out to be the case. Eg. Medivac back in Wings was OP, it was buffed in HotS.
Q: Hey David, What do you think of the maps these days in HOTS. I know in broodwar, alot of things balance wise were simply changed through different maps. Do you think this is a direction you would move towards in the future? For instance there is talk about nerfing the blink stalker for TvP. If the build does become way too dominant in the matchup, would you consider fixing this through maps? Or is it a better option to allow freer map design and instead change unit stats in your opinion? + Show Spoiler +
A: It's a bit of both. Both the numbers in game as well as which maps are used in the current season have a big impact on game balance. Both are important. Our current plan on maps is to swap out more maps that promote different types of play. And because we will be swapping out more maps per season going forward, this naturally means we can more easily do what you suggest, such as balancing the game a bit better through the use of maps. We'll be talking more about next season's maps in the coming weeks (not just 1v1 maps, but team maps as well). You'll notice that balance via map design is something we've been pushing for.
David Kim ended the Q&A with this:
As a final post today,
Thanks for all the questions and comments. Every day, we internally discuss issues such as those that were brought up in this thread.
Just to touch on some popular topics to finish things off: - We think the BW high ground mechanic is not necessarily better than SC2. Each has its pros and cons.
Force field - we're discussing whether there needs to be more counters, but we believe Force Fields themselves, when used very well, are in a good place.
Units clumping naturally - This really rewards split micro which is one of the coolest micro moments SC2 provides. If units auto spread, marine splitting vs. Banelings won't be as cool to watch.
Players don't need to expand more than twice - We disagree. There's a lot of variety out there whether it's 2 base play, 3 base play, or constant expansion play. Take a look at ZvP: it's extremely common for Zerg to take the 4th base around the time Protoss takes the 3rd.
With that said, your feedback is what largely drives what we evaluate, and all of these topics as well as the other areas discussed today remain a major focus for us. Thank you very much. We look forward to doing this again soon.
Questions answered by community manager Randy Jordan (Kaivax):
Q: Network spikes and high latency in Multiplayer. Is it possible to optimize the way SC2 communicates so that Observers don't cause latency or spikes for the players, as well as somehow improving Multiplayer latency responsiveness/performance in general? + Show Spoiler +
A: I just want to reiterate that when this is an issue, it is a top priority issue for us.
Q: Today, are you globally satisfied of the balance of your game ? + Show Spoiler +
A: I think it's safe to say that our balance design team is satisfied enough. There is no perfect with an ever-changing metagame and so many variables, so they can't/don't/won't ever reach "global satisfaction". There are always concerns to be addressed.
Q: Hi David Kim. I have a question not related to balance, which you will probably find refreshing for a change I was wondering if we will ever see you do a 1-2 hour stream session on a service like twitch.tv. I am sure many people would love to see you play random ladder. + Show Spoiler +
A: I'd personally like to see David Kim stream Hearthstone arena or WoW pet battles. He's remarkably adept in pet battles. But that's probably just me.
Q: tl;dr: Will we ever see a return of Stronger Team Colors for PLAYERS? ... + Show Spoiler +
As a person who knows many color blind individuals I cannot tell you how many times I've heard that being able to differentiate between their own zerglings/banelings is nearly impossible. In the past Blizzard has even come out and fully supported Stronger Team Colors and said they have no intentions of removing this support for players who have issues with vision. However, when the modding of files was fixes Stronger Team Colors inevitably met its end. Now, it is only available through the game mod for Game Heart. I urge you strongly to look into supporting Stronger Team Colors for players as it provides //NO// advantages to competitive play and is purely for vision impaired, or those who like the looks in general. You can see the support the mod had on Team Liquid here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/216725-stronger-team-color[1] Nearly 100 pages, 443156 views, and 1476 replies... I would very much appreciate a response!
A: Just want to say again -- We're following this issue very closely, and it's something that we do want to address, if we can.
Q: Thanks for adding Brood War music to Starcraft 2. Could you please tell the developers it would be so nice if there were a music option 'race independent' added to the menu? As a mostly Zerg player I'd love to hear some Terran music as well. + Show Spoiler +
I've passed this along to the developers.
Q: Are you the only balance designer at the moment? + Show Spoiler +
Kaivax here. No, David Kim is not the only balance designer. Not only is David a part of an established team of designers, but the balance design team interacts with developers from all across the StarCraft II team when considering unit design.
When he referenced the mod community, all that I thought in my mind was: "He is referring to Starbow."
I think this is key to note, Blizzard finished the core design of SC2 in 2010, now is the time for the community to modify the portions of the game that are not liked. I honestly don't think the swarm host will be removed, and people can yell at the top of a mountain about forcefields but they are obviously not wanting to make 'large' modifications. (In quotation marks because I do not believe it is a large change at all to change a unit's spell stat.) I am a fan of David Kim/Dustin Browder for their work although its pretty clear they are not in the position to satisfy the community for LOTV.
I wish people would stop using the word "considering" or "thinking about" when asking questions.
Do it explicit such as "Are you GOING to so and so."
When they confirm that they are considering or thinking about doing certain things asked by the communities. It means jack shit as oppose to actually doing it.
Same shit w/ "like to do this and that" as the answer.
All answers that doesn't state explicitly that they ARE GOING to change for the better are just as futile as not answering in the first place.
Looks like nothing substantial will be altered for LotV after all.
Another disappointing interview showing David Kim doesn't understand the community or even the game.
There is a strawman Starcraft player like the average guy in the midwest American TV viewer that doesn't actually exist in any significant number to even consider, yet they base decisions around these mythological people.
Longest SH game recently was 37 mins, really?
Doesn't want to mess with core mechanics because big changes are worse than small ones without making any analytical points whatsoever to say why other than using a dreadfully irrelevant example. Claiming wholesale changes that almost everyone agrees are required are simply what mods are for. Man, just such a terribly disappointing interview that just sucked all remaining vestiges of hope for LoTV right out the window.
Thanks David.
Time for the community to carry the torch since Blizzard do not seem competent enough.
Not sure why SC2 team is like this when all other Blizzard teams view expansions as a hard reset starting from BW. BW, LoD, TFT, all WoW expansions and RoS contain drastic changes. HotS had fewest changes of any Blizz expansion pack to date, aside from the Sierra created Diablo 1 xpac. BW/TFT had major e-sports scenes so it's not like SC2 is unique in this regard.
On March 13 2014 06:35 andrewlt wrote: Not sure why SC2 team is like this when all other Blizzard teams view expansions as a hard reset starting from BW. BW, LoD, TFT, all WoW expansions and RoS contain drastic changes. HotS had fewest changes of any Blizz expansion pack to date, aside from the Sierra created Diablo 1 xpac. BW/TFT had major e-sports scenes so it's not like SC2 is unique in this regard.
You haven't actually played Vanillia Starcraft, have you?
On March 13 2014 06:22 Xiphos wrote: I wish people would stop using the word "considering" or "thinking about" when asking questions.
Do it explicit such as "Are you GOING to so and so."
When they confirm that they are considering or thinking about doing certain things asked by the communities. It means jack shit as oppose to actually doing it.
Same shit w/ "like to do this and that" as the answer.
All answers that doesn't state explicitly that they ARE GOING to change for the better are just as futile as not answering in the first place.
Looks like nothing substantial will be altered for LotV after all.
Well how can David Kim give 100% on answers on LotV stuff? If you ask yes/no questions without using the words "considering" or "thinking about" you are just going to get "considering" or "thinking about" answers. That doesn't change with the question.
Nobody dodges forcefields like David Kim does. Joking aside this is yet another AMA, but I won't give any answers of substance. More runarounds and ambiguity. If we don't see severe mechanic/design changes in the LotV beta then it's never going to happen. It's their one and only opportunity to really get a high number of games over a period of time from a variety of skill levels.
On March 13 2014 06:55 Esper wrote: Nobody dodges forcefields like David Kim does. Joking aside this is yet another AMA, but I won't give any answers of substance. More runarounds and ambiguity. If we don't see severe mechanic/design changes in the LotV beta then it's never going to happen. It's their one and only opportunity to really get a high number of games over a period of time from a variety of skill levels.
On March 13 2014 06:55 Esper wrote: Nobody dodges forcefields like David Kim does. Joking aside this is yet another AMA, but I won't give any answers of substance. More runarounds and ambiguity. If we don't see severe mechanic/design changes in the LotV beta then it's never going to happen. It's their one and only opportunity to really get a high number of games over a period of time from a variety of skill levels.
Why even bother with an AMA :/
So they can pretend like they care about what the community says.
On March 13 2014 06:56 Zealos wrote: I like it. Basically it can be summed up: We hear your complaints. We are not changing anything.
DKim has worked his ass off for years on SC2, give the guy a break. They made a judgement call on forcefields, SH, what have you, it is what is.
He can't come out and say definitively what the next expansion will have, or what the plan is, it's way to early. At least he isn't slamming the door on potential ideas.
Guess they cant change the core mechanics because of the players and the players want changes in the core mechanics...just great, things are moving forward i see, at Blizz HQ. Anyways, nothing new, and something new wont be implemented in this expansion, kinda sad panda. Thanks david for the transcript.
I wonder how difficult it would be to start a petition to get DK fired/demoted..? He is choking the life out of this game one step at a time due to sheer incompetence. Free units have a cost? 10+ Carriers a-moving isn't fun to watch, but 20+ SH chilling in the middle of the map not moving at all is? They will only put a change through if its "completely awesome" (gotta love corporate buzzwords)??
Honestly, this situation reminds me a lot of how Halo ended up dying as a competitive game and an esports scene.. The developers got all these crazy ideas in their heads that the only way to move forward was to completely change the game from one installment to the next (i.e. Halo Reach) instead of just sticking with tried and true methods. Blizzard seems to be under the same misconception as Bungie was at the end of their Halo career..they think SC is popular because they made it, when in reality they are popular because they made a good game.
On March 13 2014 06:35 andrewlt wrote: Not sure why SC2 team is like this when all other Blizzard teams view expansions as a hard reset starting from BW. BW, LoD, TFT, all WoW expansions and RoS contain drastic changes. HotS had fewest changes of any Blizz expansion pack to date, aside from the Sierra created Diablo 1 xpac. BW/TFT had major e-sports scenes so it's not like SC2 is unique in this regard.
I'm tempted to agree with you, but at the same time I'm not. WoW, Diablo, etc. aren't really solid comparisons because RTS games are different, but as far as WC3 is concerned...
TFT did bring a lot to RoC (one hero for each race, racial shop, some maps I believe, the EXP threshold on creeps, etc..) but the core elements of the game were the same. I wouldn't go as far as to call TFT a hard reset of RoC, but it was definitely an astonishing improvement that quickly let TFT become competitive. It's true that HotS was nowhere near that.
The sad truth is, Blizzard was never a company known for making bold changes. Don't get me wrong, SC, BW, RoC and TFT were all revolutions in their own rights in terms of gaming, but even in those games, Blizzard never made any major change to the core gameplay post-release. The same is happening with SC2, and while people were already whining on WC3 about Blizzard not making big changes, it is becoming a bigger issue now because you have other popular games doing huge tweaks to their gameplay to keep the players interested and to freshen things up.
DK once again didn't really provide any interesting answer. It's rather clear now that they do not intend to do any sort of overhaul, SC2 will stay vaguely the same. It's truly weird, as when you compare it to WC3, the expansions really do not hold up in terms of improvements and changes... I feel like Blizzard has grown too cautious, and wishes to stay away from unexplored grounds as much as possible.
On March 13 2014 06:56 Zealos wrote: I like it. Basically it can be summed up: We hear your complaints. We are not changing anything.
DKim has worked his ass off for years on SC2, give the guy a break. They made a judgement call on forcefields, SH, what have you, it is what is.
He can't come out and say definitively what the next expansion will have, or what the plan is, it's way to early. At least he isn't slamming the door on potential ideas.
They can make mistakes, we are all human. But instead of owning up to their screw ups and fixing them, they choose to act like their shit don't stink and provide indirect band-aid fixes instead.
On March 13 2014 07:02 vidium wrote: Guess they cant change the core mechanics because of the players and the players want changes in the core mechanics...just great, things are moving forward i see, at Blizz HQ. Anyways, nothing new, and something new wont be implemented in this expansion, kinda sad panda.
These AMAs are so disheartening. Until there's a legitimate RTS competitor Blizz can just do whatever they want. As much as I do not enjoy playing SC2 right now, I still play the game plenty. I just don't have another option.
On March 13 2014 07:02 vidium wrote: Guess they cant change the core mechanics because of the players and the players want changes in the core mechanics...just great, things are moving forward i see, at Blizz HQ. Anyways, nothing new, and something new wont be implemented in this expansion, kinda sad panda.
These AMAs are so disheartening. Until there's a legitimate RTS competitor Blizz can just do whatever they want. As much as I do not enjoy playing SC2 right now, I still play the game plenty. I just don't have another option.
Play starbow, they have a ladder client now. Go here to sign up for it:
Also, the danger of doing something like this is that it's not as easy as just changing something. We know the ins and outs of how this game works through years of experience. It would be very difficult to simply change a core part of the game to something completely different, and still have it as polished as what we have now.
I feel that the majority of players know that taking ff out would be a huge change and it would cause ripple effects across the balance of the game. But I feel people are ready to see/hear what that could look like.
On March 13 2014 05:42 davidjayhawk wrote: Yes free units can have a place in RTS, and free doesn't mean it's OP. There's a cost to using Locusts and it's not completely free. You still need to make Swarm Hosts. Say the damage of Locusts went down to 10% of what it is now, even though yeah it'll still be true that X number of Locusts will be able to kill units for "free," Swarm Hosts/Locusts will not be used much due to how cost inefficient they are.
This is by far the most infuriating part of these AMAs and DK in general... which is saying a lot because there's almost never cause for optimism. I cannot stand how he uses hyperbole to justify concepts. And on top of that he uses numbers to justify design, as per usual. I really wish people who have an actual voice would speak up about how apathetic Blizzard's actions are. It was refreshing when basically every pro called BS on the proxy-tempest PTR notes.
On March 13 2014 07:02 vidium wrote: Guess they cant change the core mechanics because of the players and the players want changes in the core mechanics...just great, things are moving forward i see, at Blizz HQ. Anyways, nothing new, and something new wont be implemented in this expansion, kinda sad panda.
These AMAs are so disheartening. Until there's a legitimate RTS competitor Blizz can just do whatever they want. As much as I do not enjoy playing SC2 right now, I still play the game plenty. I just don't have another option.
RTS are so difficult and time-consuming to develop that there probably will not be another one for a long time.
Face it, SC is great as it is, whether or not it could be better.
I think SC2 is in a really good spot right now, but the way David Kim scream satisfaction of the game, it doesn't seem like they're trying hard to make it 'even better,' but more just trying to preserve it.
Typical answers from him like from every interview since 2010.
Q: "X is op, are you going to do anything about it?" A: "We are looking into and and we feel we need to see more games so we can actually say that is op." - after something being broken for more than 6 months.
Q: "Are you going to add normal battle net or daily tournaments that was done 10 years ago in WC3 and SC1?" A: "I mean we are currently working on it as our priority for next expansion and should be up by 2017, because technology isn't there yet."
Q: "Swarm hosts are op can you fix them?" A: "We talked to a lot of pros and decided to make completely useless change that doesn't even come close to fixing this problem, because we have no idea what we are doing anyway."
I don't understand how can someone be so clueless and stubborn after 4 years of SC2, every interview same "answers", no solution and no plans for future changes.
This ama almost reminds me of Codemasters, leaving Grid 2 as it is and using all the feedback&suggestions to lock them in a safe, only to use those ideas in the followup game of the series years later.
For blizzard it also seems these expansions aren't seen as reinventions of the game, but just iterations of the concept they launched in 2010.
Force field - we're discussing whether there needs to be more counters, but we believe Force Fields themselves, when used very well, are in a good place. Units clumping naturally - This really rewards split micro which is one of the coolest micro moments SC2 provides. If units auto spread, marine splitting vs. Banelings won't be as cool to watch. Players don't need to expand more than twice - We disagree. There's a lot of variety out there whether it's 2 base play, 3 base play, or constant expansion play. Take a look at ZvP: it's extremely common for Zerg to take the 4th base around the time Protoss takes the 3rd Ok....nothing will change, too much ego
They have to calm the crowd somehow so that's why they make these AMA. It's like in the medieval when they hang a bunch or random people claiming they were criminals just to calm the population
Those Q&A answers might as well have been given 2 years ago, he's still saying the same old crap. He just gives some lipservice about how Blizzard's considering changes, but at the end of the day affirming that they're not going to make any fundamental changes to the core game design.
On March 13 2014 07:23 ejozl wrote: I think SC2 is in a really good spot right now, but the way David Kim scream satisfaction of the game, it doesn't seem like they're trying hard to make it 'even better,' but more just trying to preserve it.
It's almost a lose-lose situation for him, no one is ever going to be 100% happy with what he says. If he says what they're thinking to do with certain units, this community will absolutely have a knee-jerk reaction. The game works right now and it isn't so terribly unbalanced, so for him to be proud of the game is not bad. If they were satisfied with how the game is, they (the whole balance team not just David Kim) would not attempt to balance the game anymore, yet they still are. This is all a matter of perspective. They have to think about, what do we do to not completely unbalance the game and have it still be fun for the majority of players. They are walking a tight-rope right now and it's very hard to know when to make/take the right step so they have to tread carefully.
Also people have been asking for an AMA from the people like David Kim. He's done it and people continue to complain. A lot of people already knew that he was going to give broad answers like he gave. While it sucks that nothing is specific, people have to understand why it's not specific, because more than likely they still don't know what the specific answer is. It should be expected that he gave broad answers. It's awesome that he at least did the AMA and more would be better, but at the same time we would still get the same general replies until they knew what they were going to do.
Also for those asking about huge game design changes in LotV, that is a question that will not have a definitive answer until at most a year before the release of LotV.
On March 13 2014 06:22 Xiphos wrote: I wish people would stop using the word "considering" or "thinking about" when asking questions.
Do it explicit such as "Are you GOING to so and so."
When they confirm that they are considering or thinking about doing certain things asked by the communities. It means jack shit as oppose to actually doing it.
Same shit w/ "like to do this and that" as the answer.
All answers that doesn't state explicitly that they ARE GOING to change for the better are just as futile as not answering in the first place.
Looks like nothing substantial will be altered for LotV after all.
They do say they are going to do things. Its called patch notes. They come out when they release a patch and they have done things.
"Force field - we're discussing whether there needs to be more counters, but we believe Force Fields themselves, when used very well, are in a good place."
This is the saddest answer of them all. It's been 4 years and we're asking for the exact same thing, and zero things have been done so far. They can "discuss" it all they want, but they're never gonna do anything.It's like they completely choose to ignore all the examples of how FFs are broken as hell and keep spitting the same crap about how they "beleive" in them.
On March 13 2014 07:02 Survivor61316 wrote: I wonder how difficult it would be to start a petition to get DK fired/demoted..? He is choking the life out of this game one step at a time due to sheer incompetence. Free units have a cost? 10+ Carriers a-moving isn't fun to watch, but 20+ SH chilling in the middle of the map not moving at all is? They will only put a change through if its "completely awesome" (gotta love corporate buzzwords)??
Honestly, this situation reminds me a lot of how Halo ended up dying as a competitive game and an esports scene.. The developers got all these crazy ideas in their heads that the only way to move forward was to completely change the game from one installment to the next (i.e. Halo Reach) instead of just sticking with tried and true methods. Blizzard seems to be under the same misconception as Bungie was at the end of their Halo career..they think SC is popular because they made it, when in reality they are popular because they made a good game.
About the bolded part: That is something I also adressed in the other Thread. According to DK Locusts are not free cause you have to pay/built the unit that spawns them. While it might be right in a technical way Im not sure what to think about this and how he can come up with something like that. Its like :"To make this you have to built this, No shit sherlock. Some other guy then said above my post that the cost is that you fall asleep on your keyboard . The part with the Carriers was a bit surprising but also shocking. Weren´t they more used as a target fire unit in BW? If thats what they think about Carriers what about true A-Move units like Roaches or Marauders?
On March 13 2014 07:34 baba1 wrote: They have to calm the crowd somehow so that's why they make these AMA. It's like in the medieval when they hang a bunch or random people claiming they were criminals just to calm the population
But what David Kim did in this interview was essentially the opposite of calming the crowd. Now we all know that nothing will ever be done about core elements in SC2.
SC2 used to be the second to fifth most watched game on twitch at all times. Nowadays, it's not even the top ten most viewed game on twitch most of the time. And SC2 will never ever take back that spot it used to have unless they change some core elements in the game. No one gives a shit about some minor changes to some units until the game still is plagued by (in no particular order); 3 base economy, 15min no rush into 5 second deciding battles, force fields, Protoss(i'm a protoss player myself), unit clumping, free units, map design(all maps are essentially the same due to balancing of force fields), warp gate, inject mechanic, horrible horrible damage... yeah, the list just goes on and on.
With David Kim in charge of LotV the future looks grim for SC2.
On March 13 2014 07:34 baba1 wrote: They have to calm the crowd somehow so that's why they make these AMA. It's like in the medieval when they hang a bunch or random people claiming they were criminals just to calm the population
And SC2 will never ever take back that spot it used to have
On March 13 2014 06:19 InFaMOUs331 wrote: When he referenced the mod community, all that I thought in my mind was: "He is referring to Starbow."
I think this is key to note, Blizzard finished the core design of SC2 in 2010, now is the time for the community to modify the portions of the game that are not liked. I honestly don't think the swarm host will be removed, and people can yell at the top of a mountain about forcefields but they are obviously not wanting to make 'large' modifications. (In quotation marks because I do not believe it is a large change at all to change a unit's spell stat.) I am a fan of David Kim/Dustin Browder for their work although its pretty clear they are not in the position to satisfy the community for LOTV.
When DK said about the modding community, all I could think was "Yes and what happens when Pros stop playing your game and start playing Starbow (or some other mod) and suddenly no pros are playing SC2 anymore?" Surely its not up to the modding community to gives pros and players what they want/believe is a better game? Starbow is gaining traction, its showing up in major money events slowly, what happens if Starbow becomes WC3's Dota to SC2? Well, personally I think that would be a good thing, however, unlike with Dota.... Blizzard owns Starbow, they won't be making that mistake again lol.
So I guess its all good for Blizzard if Starbow becomes the predominant "Starcraft" version for esports. As they still have all the rights to the game, the money etc. Still, if I were C.E.O at Blizzard and some upstart modder made a version of my game that was better, and my company stood by and watched it happen.... I'd be pissed. Especially since u can play Starbow without buying SC2 I'm pretty sure if this situation ever comes to pass old Morhaime will be screaming "David, do u know how much money we could have made if you and your stupid design team listened to the community? We could be charging $60 for this game, now everyone gets to play it for free.... idiot"
And the thing about unit clumping and how msplit micro is one of the most exciting parts of SC2.... yes because battles end so fucking fast thats the only micro you EVER get to do. Perhaps if battles were more like BW (I don't want BW, just give me the good bits, like cool micro and long spread out battles) then people wouldn't be so impressed by split micro, and real micro could shine through. There is a reason why Flash and Jaedong aren't dominant in SC2, because the things they excelled at, that set them apart in BW, simply don't exist. They can't get more out of a single unit than anyone else can, macroing is so much easier that they don't have an advantange for that huge 400+ apm to be used on. I for one was not at all surprised that some of the top BW players of all time, were mediocre at SC2, Blizzard levelled the playing field too much, so much that its not possible for players like Jaedong to find those tiny advantages that add up to a big one.
On March 13 2014 07:57 murphs wrote: Pro tip for Blizzard
If someones resume states their main experience is being a balance tester on Dawn of War then you should probably throw it in the bin and move on.
Please do not bash DK for being balance tester for DoW. DK did a great job with DoW. It is the best balanced rts! I am VERY SAD that DK did not speak about adding more free units
Players don't need to expand more than twice - We disagree. There's a lot of variety out there whether it's 2 base play, 3 base play, or constant expansion play. Take a look at ZvP: it's extremely common for Zerg to take the 4th base around the time Protoss takes the 3rd.
The problem isn't lack of variety, it's flat scaling. There's no mineral incentive to take that fourth unless you have over 70 or so drones.
If you have five hatches, 5x6 (30) drones on gas and 48 on minerals, you have 78 drones yet no increased income from using the fourth or fifth hatchery to mine minerals until your other bases mine out.
On March 13 2014 05:42 davidjayhawk wrote: Yes free units can have a place in RTS, and free doesn't mean it's OP. There's a cost to using Locusts and it's not completely free. You still need to make Swarm Hosts. Say the damage of Locusts went down to 10% of what it is now, even though yeah it'll still be true that X number of Locusts will be able to kill units for "free," Swarm Hosts/Locusts will not be used much due to how cost inefficient they are.
This is by far the most infuriating part of these AMAs and DK in general... which is saying a lot because there's almost never cause for optimism. I cannot stand how he uses hyperbole to justify concepts. And on top of that he uses numbers to justify design, as per usual. I really wish people who have an actual voice would speak up about how apathetic Blizzard's actions are. It was refreshing when basically every pro called BS on the proxy-tempest PTR notes.
Not to mention his assertion is wrong. The longer swarmhosts are in game killing stuff, even if their damage went down 10% or whatever, they become more cost effective over time simply because of the free unit mechanic. People would absolutely still make them because they will still function as an amazing stalling tactic, and something that forces the opponent to trade units that cost money for units that don't.
I've never really been one to hate on David Kim, because I've thought that he's done actually quite a good job. I mean, hell, games overall in HotS have been amazing, and balance for the game is pretty much better than ever. But making statements like that, that are just so...absurd start to change my opinion =/
Props to him for doing this Q&A session, but is there really any point to these if he isn't going to say anything ? It's like listening to a politician talking.
Based on this interview I personally doubt that we'll see any design or major changes for LOTV multiplayer and I am quite disappointed.
It's really frustrating when literally the most retarded questions are picked to get answered. Most of those questions are just repeats of the same thing, and most of the questions he has answered in previous Q&A sessions. It just seems the question selection is pretty weak and leads to repeating the same answers over and over.
The most frustrating thing is that they feel the need to worry about players coming back to the game from a long break, or players who don't keep up with all the changes they do. Like that shouldn't be anywhere near as high as priority as keeping the people who still play the game or who keep up with everything and are playing all the time should be. Like that's a reason you won't consider making big changes? really?
And as far as LotV, I think an economy overhaul would be great for the game, exponential growth with the number of expansions could solve a lot of problems, like turtle play, deathball games where it ends with 1 massive engagement instead of battling over economy advantages, etc. Or at least a change from the 3base max saturation, or even a change to the 200 max supply, as 300 might be much better or 250 or so.
wish there were mods that lets people test small changes and see if it's good while having a show about it to dscuss it more. also that reason to not have auto splitting cause of losing marine splitting is not good if the change might make the game better like fixing deathballs. i don't find marine splitting amazing anymore anyway since most pros are good at it.
On March 13 2014 06:56 Zealos wrote: I like it. Basically it can be summed up: We hear your complaints. We are not changing anything.
DKim has worked his ass off for years on SC2, give the guy a break. They made a judgement call on forcefields, SH, what have you, it is what is.
He can't come out and say definitively what the next expansion will have, or what the plan is, it's way to early. At least he isn't slamming the door on potential ideas.
They can make mistakes, we are all human. But instead of owning up to their screw ups and fixing them, they choose to act like their shit don't stink and provide indirect band-aid fixes instead.
I hear that. But also consider, that in terms of financials, the game has been a huge success. The higher-up's probably don't see a need to change everything up. That being said, who knows the reasoning.
On March 13 2014 07:57 murphs wrote: Pro tip for Blizzard
If someones resume states their main experience is being a balance tester on Dawn of War then you should probably throw it in the bin and move on.
Please do not bash DK for being balance tester for DoW. DK did a great job with DoW. It is the best balanced rts! I am VERY SAD that DK did not speak about adding more free units
I wonder how much money he gets for jumping out and being the target for all the hate every few month, I might apply if its enough. But since it actually works I won't complain.
Players don't need to expand more than twice - We disagree. There's a lot of variety out there whether it's 2 base play, 3 base play, or constant expansion play. Take a look at ZvP: it's extremely common for Zerg to take the 4th base around the time Protoss takes the 3rd.
The problem isn't lack of variety, it's flat scaling. There's no mineral incentive to take that fourth unless you have over 70 or so drones.
If you have five hatches, 5x6 (30) drones on gas and 48 on minerals, you have 78 drones yet no increased income from using the fourth or fifth hatchery to mine minerals until your other bases mine out.
That's only part of the story though. You can also take extra expansions just to mine gas like WoL Zerg did, but those playstyles are heavily discouraged in the current balance/metagame. Then there is noone actually preventing you from taking a 4th and 5th base and building 100workers in the midgame - apart from your opponent and the supply limit. What I'm saying is that base scaling wouldn't be a problem if just building more workers was viable - or you'd profit bases would profit in another way apart from mineral income, like gas income.
Still, DK is very right to say that Zerg does usually have to take 4bases and saturate them at least in some way against T and P. That alone proves that there is much more to it than "scaling", it's a very, very deep issue that touches everything from timing attacks, to maxed armies and from unit designs to map layouts.
Force field - we're discussing whether there needs to be more counters, but we believe Force Fields themselves, when used very well, are in a good place.
Really ppl, what did you expect? Did you think he would unveil all of their plans?
I am optimistic, because he talked about the lurker, which is a sign of considering proven things.
I understand them when they say that they never will change anything too big. In RTS games any change causes a butterfly effect that can emerge months after introducing it.
To the comparison to TFT: I love TFT. The biggest thing to me was the change of the gold-lumber balance. Yet something that big is nothing I can see happening in SC2.
On March 13 2014 05:42 davidjayhawk wrote: This is a compilation of answered questions from this reddit thread.
Update: Although David Kim has finished, Blizzard community manager Randy Jordan (Kaivax) edited the post to say that he may answer some additional questions. I will try to post those below too.
Q: Are any "large scale" or "mechanic" redesigns being considering for Legacy of the Void? For example considering changing mechanics around high ground advantage, the soft 3 base income cap, warpgate, etc? + Show Spoiler +
A: We're currently working on all parts of the next expansion, but everything is a work in progress. If something is problematic, we would discuss it and try possible changes. But one of our core philosophies on SC2 design is if the change isn't completely amazing, we prefer not to do it. So in this specific case, things like high ground advantage working the way it does currently vs. how it worked in BW vs. other advantages we can think of that are different, it's really hard to clearly say that one mechanic is better in all the cases. Overall, we are trying various changes in various areas, but it's really difficult to say for certain what will go through at the end of the day. When you guys have good suggestions on specific problematic areas as well as possible solutions, we definitely discuss and/or try those things internally as we work on the next game to be able to know exactly why or why not we're deciding on a certain area. Eg. We've tried and still retry things like different suggestions for the Swarm Host, more harsh counters to Force Fields, or old units like Lurkers, and so on.
Q: As the mapmaker of Frost, I want to ask: Do you have plans to allow Half-Bases and other map features in the ladder? Eg. 6m 1hyg expansions? I know Blizzard's stance is that "newer" players will not understand it, but I personally don't think that is the case... + Show Spoiler +
DotA for example really has a high learning curve with many things to learn but it doesn't stop people from learning it. Here is the list of map-features if allowed, I think will improve gameplay: Half-Bases or alternate mineral/gas numbers Mineral Blocks which acts differently from destructible rocks Burrowed Ultralisks or something to prevent forcefields/spells (maybe in LotV) that would allow really cool map design No-fly zones to be used in 3p maps. No creep/No build zones. I think maps can really make games fun and I can elaborate some of these points if needed. Also, for LotV, could you guys please include 60 degree/30 degree ramps? It would really revolutionise 3p maps... EDIT: Since there has been some traction, I also want to ask if you can please allow maps to be altered and edited mid-season, not just Blizzard maps, even aesthetically etc. If a map's going to stay around for a while, a makeover is pretty great. Lastly, please communicate more with mapmakers in TLMCs etc! Thank you.
A; Not just maps, but in general we believe the smallest changes possible that have the biggest impacts are the better designs in SC2. And often times, new map mechanics are the opposite of this. An awesome example of what we're trying to go for when we say we want map diversity is Habitation Station. This map only uses existing map mechanics (including the high yield base that many map makers, pros, even many of us internally at blizzard brushed off as it can't work for esports), but the map itself plays completely differently compared to other maps in terms of build orders, timings, and strategies used. It feels so fresh watching games on this map, and it's easy to locate specific strategies used on this map that you almost never see on other maps. So by slightly changing where and how to use an existing mechanic in a creative way, the map maker was able to create a completely unique map that's different from what we've been seeing for years. Compare that to a map that uses a brand new map mechanic. Take Heavy Rain for example. The center of the original map had destructible rocks that are rebuilt every X minutes. We've replaced that new mechanic with simple destructible rocks because the difference is very minor. If you think back on the games where the rocks are broken (not the towers near the 3rd, but the rocks in the middle that open up the side paths), those don't even come into play until the later stages of the game. So this would be an example of a big change (introducing a completely new mechanic only on this map) that only gets very small gains (minor differences only in the late game). FYI, we're also grateful for awesome maps like Frost. Of the maps introduced that season, Frost turned out to be really amazing. Frost is one of 3 maps that's been in the map pool the longest, and there's a high chance that it'll be the only remaining map of those 3 next season due to how good the map is. As for changes, we prefer not to unless the map is problematic (Daedalus is fixed) because we wouldn't want to disrupt tournament games in any way even if it's just aesthetic.
Q: First off, thank you for doing the AMA! This is very much appreciated. Every time there is a balance update to StarCraft, the changes are very minor. I understand this is in favour of not breaking the balance of the game. However, lately we have seen that the closest competitors to StarCraft (LoL and DotA) do patch core aspects of the game when it seems to be broken or not as much fun as it could be. How do you stand about making bigger balance changes to the game instead of very tiny ones (for example changing the way Forcefields work)? + Show Spoiler +
A: We prefer not to make big changes due to careers being on the line in a game like Starcraft 2. We also mentioned we would prefer not to make design changes in patches because we don't think it's good for the game to change too much and confuse returning players or players who just don't keep up with every single change we make to the game. However, it doesn't mean we aren't exploring various design changes. If we absolutely had to, we would still make these types of changes, so we'd like to still be ready even if we actually don't make a change right now. One example here in the past when we made a design change was when we added the Phoenix range upgrade back in Wings, when Mutalisk switches were too strong in ZvP. And right now, we are playing around with various design changes to the Swarm Host due to what we've been seeing and hearing, even though we don't have immediate plans to change how the unit works.
Q: Has the Nydus Worm been a topic of conversation for you and the other designers? Are any changes being considered? Is your team happy with it's use (or lack of use) in Heart of the Swarm? I've been curious about this ever since a new nydus worm was shown very early on in HotS but never made it into the game- a worm that spewed creep (and could even attack?) + Show Spoiler +
A: Units that aren't being used that much, but don't break anything aren't as high of a priority for patches. However, they are high priority for the next game. This list includes not just the Nydus Worm, but also units such as BCs, Carriers, Corruptors, etc. Like we mentioned in another post, 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. And we're in such early stages that it's really difficult to say that we have a good solution for any of these things, but we are trying our best not only to work on supporting HotS, but also thinking farther down the line.
Q: As you should be able to tell from the top comments in this thread, the community is very interested in having a discussion about the possibility of major re-design of certain elements of the game (protoss, forcefields, deathballs, income, etc) for the Legacy of The Void expansion. Could you please touch on the possibility of this? + Show Spoiler +
A: We've answered a similar question above, but would just like to reiterate that we do hear your concerns, and we are discussing and/or trying various changes. However, the most important thing to remember is that core mechanics are difficult to mess with in an expansion because we're talking about completely changing major parts of the game. There are people out there that want such major changes (which is sort of what the mod community is for), but there are also people out there who like the current core systems the way they are. Also, the danger of doing something like this is that it's not as easy as just changing something. We know the ins and outs of how this game works through years of experience. It would be very difficult to simply change a core part of the game to something completely different, and still have it as polished as what we have now.
Q: What do you feel is the biggest issue with 2 hour long SH games in ZvZ ZvP and ZvT(Mech), and would you consider a complete rework of the unit or would you prefer sticking to tweaking other units/abilities to make it less... Boring(?) to watch. + Show Spoiler +
A: We believe ZvP is the biggest concern of the three matchups. The issue here is a combination of Swarm Hosts, base defenses, Vipers, and Corruptors. We've tested the Tempest changes and discussed with some knowledgeable casters/players around the world. We came to the conclusion that while this change is solid to solve this ZvP issue, it hasn't really been happening in tournament games recently, so it's better to wait before making any further changes. For ZvT, we believe this sort of stalemate happens not because of Swarm Hosts, but mostly because of the strength of Mass Ravens in the late game. We haven't been seeing as many of these games compared to the late game PvZ games. When we evaluate these games, it looks to us like Terran players are sometimes delaying moving out because reaching a critical mass of Ravens could win the game, if they can reach that point at a decently even economy. There have been so few pro level 1-2 hour Swarm Host games that it's difficult to make a clear call in this area. For example, we're always analyzing games, and recently, the only pro game that came close to this was the HerO vs. Rogue game which lasted 37 min. With that said, we are aware on the EU ladder that this type of strategy is more common and we're still discussing it frequently with EU players and casters to see if we need to start testing other changes on the next balance test map.
Q: Hello Mr.Kim. Do you consider to implement daily automatic battle.net tournament like in wc3? + Show Spoiler +
A: Yes. As we mentioned previously, this is a high priority for us and something that we're exploring around the next expansion.
Q: Can you takes us through how you designed a unit, the step by step process? (with as much or as little detail as you'd like to give) I personally don't know a lot about game design and figure this would be on of the best people in the world to ask about it. + Show Spoiler +
A: We have a multiplayer design team that work on unit designs. Each person on this team brings ideas to our meetings. The ideas range from something so crazy that you might think it can't ever work in SC2 to easier-to-try-right-away ideas. Within the actual meetings, we try to prove or disprove why the idea can or can't work, and we talk about ways to improve the idea to make it fit for SC2, or we brainstorm new ideas that branch off of these ideas. Most of the ideas don't go anywhere, but if a unit concept is viable enough to try in game, we implement it into a test environment and try it out in our regular playtests. We then repeat this process until we find something we like. This is why when someone asks who designed unit X, we can't really give an answer because it's always a team effort.
Q: Has the recent popularity of Starbow and its Brood-War-like gameplay influenced your approach to LotV in any way? Most people agree that large-scale fights that end in a matter of seconds aren't fun, or good for the competitive scene (not for the progamers, and certainly not for the audience). They don't reward skill, since there's usually not enough time to execute any micro maneuvers beyond the most basic splits and casting a few aoe spells. + Show Spoiler +
A: We definitely look at popular mods for ideas for SC2. Not only mods, but it's just very common for our designers to just explore games they are playing currently. One interesting story I'd like to share is back when the last Hearthstone alpha started internally, so many of us were playing the game so much that our multiplayer meetings were full of TCG-like ability ideas which took us to interesting areas creatively. Of course we can't do things like "when this unit enters play, something disruptive happens to the enemy," but often times crazy ideas lead to reasonable ideas that can actually work in a completely different type of game.
Q: Putting balance aside, I want to ask something about free units. In my opinion, a core part of any RTS is to think about when you can engage. Inefficient engagements will lose you the game in the long run. The swarm host kind of defies this philosophy... + Show Spoiler +
because as long as the SH itself is safe (which isn't that hard because of the range of locusts and static d), the locusts can take any engagement they want and still be cost efficient. 30 locusts to kill 1 zealot? That's cost efficient because 100 minerals is more than 0 minerals. What is your opinion on this matter? Do you think free units can have a place in a RTS? For example, would you be open to removing the interceptor cost to make the carrier more viable?
A: Yes free units can have a place in RTS, and free doesn't mean it's OP. There's a cost to using Locusts and it's not completely free. You still need to make Swarm Hosts. Say the damage of Locusts went down to 10% of what it is now, even though yeah it'll still be true that X number of Locusts will be able to kill units for "free," Swarm Hosts/Locusts will not be used much due to how cost inefficient they are. Another area we're exploring with the Swarm Host is the design of the unit especially in terms of the entertainment aspect of it. Because of how fast Locusts spawn, it's very common for us to watch the Observer camera go to the location where the Locusts are spawned. Often times, they just walk towards the rally point and die, meaning we didn't need to look at those locusts. Naturally, we're looking into this area. For the Carrier, we believe the issue is that Carriers are mostly just A move capital ships. The main cool factor of this unit is that they see play once in a while. If they were seen often, We don't think 10+ Carriers being A moved is all that interesting to play with or watch. This is also a unit we're trying various things with in order to have a more interesting unit that is still a Carrier. If we can first solve that, then we believe we can balance it correctly to have them more cost effective.
Q: The (very) lategame seems to be boring to play and watch for most match-ups. We have a lot of situations where the players are not being able to attack efficiently which makes for very stale games. We have a lot of turtle units in the latgame that slow the game down (e.g. broodlords, swarmhosts, mothership, colosse, lategame mech, tvp happy ghost style etc.). It feels like that a lot of players including pros try to avoid getting into this position by ending the game in the midgame. Do you agree with those concerns? Are you planing to make the lategame more dynamic and more fun? + Show Spoiler +
A: More action throughout the game is definitely one of our most important goals. While we don't agree that most late games are boring to watch right now, this is just an area we need to continue working on. It really depends on the game. If both sides are just sitting back not attacking, we agree it's not that fun to watch. Long games where there's constant action are fun. One thing to note here is defense always gets stronger over time. Think back on any strategy or timing that players had trouble defending against. Eg. Medivacs when the speed boost was first introduced vs. now, there's a clear difference in how much easier it has gotten even though the unit hasn't been changed. We internally joke around by saying things like "we think this harass option is OP right now, but we probably need to buff it 2 years from now." And it sometimes actually turns out to be the case. Eg. Medivac back in Wings was OP, it was buffed in HotS.
Q: Hey David, What do you think of the maps these days in HOTS. I know in broodwar, alot of things balance wise were simply changed through different maps. Do you think this is a direction you would move towards in the future? For instance there is talk about nerfing the blink stalker for TvP. If the build does become way too dominant in the matchup, would you consider fixing this through maps? Or is it a better option to allow freer map design and instead change unit stats in your opinion? + Show Spoiler +
A: It's a bit of both. Both the numbers in game as well as which maps are used in the current season have a big impact on game balance. Both are important. Our current plan on maps is to swap out more maps that promote different types of play. And because we will be swapping out more maps per season going forward, this naturally means we can more easily do what you suggest, such as balancing the game a bit better through the use of maps. We'll be talking more about next season's maps in the coming weeks (not just 1v1 maps, but team maps as well). You'll notice that balance via map design is something we've been pushing for.
David Kim ended the Q&A with this:
As a final post today,
Thanks for all the questions and comments. Every day, we internally discuss issues such as those that were brought up in this thread.
Just to touch on some popular topics to finish things off: - We think the BW high ground mechanic is not necessarily better than SC2. Each has its pros and cons.
Force field - we're discussing whether there needs to be more counters, but we believe Force Fields themselves, when used very well, are in a good place.
Units clumping naturally - This really rewards split micro which is one of the coolest micro moments SC2 provides. If units auto spread, marine splitting vs. Banelings won't be as cool to watch.
Players don't need to expand more than twice - We disagree. There's a lot of variety out there whether it's 2 base play, 3 base play, or constant expansion play. Take a look at ZvP: it's extremely common for Zerg to take the 4th base around the time Protoss takes the 3rd.
With that said, your feedback is what largely drives what we evaluate, and all of these topics as well as the other areas discussed today remain a major focus for us. Thank you very much. We look forward to doing this again soon.
Questions answered by community manager Randy Jordan (Kaivax):
Q: Network spikes and high latency in Multiplayer. Is it possible to optimize the way SC2 communicates so that Observers don't cause latency or spikes for the players, as well as somehow improving Multiplayer latency responsiveness/performance in general? + Show Spoiler +
A: I just want to reiterate that when this is an issue, it is a top priority issue for us.
Q: Today, are you globally satisfied of the balance of your game ? + Show Spoiler +
A: I think it's safe to say that our balance design team is satisfied enough. There is no perfect with an ever-changing metagame and so many variables, so they can't/don't/won't ever reach "global satisfaction". There are always concerns to be addressed.
Q: Hi David Kim. I have a question not related to balance, which you will probably find refreshing for a change I was wondering if we will ever see you do a 1-2 hour stream session on a service like twitch.tv. I am sure many people would love to see you play random ladder. + Show Spoiler +
A: I'd personally like to see David Kim stream Hearthstone arena or WoW pet battles. He's remarkably adept in pet battles. But that's probably just me.
Q: tl;dr: Will we ever see a return of Stronger Team Colors for PLAYERS? ... + Show Spoiler +
As a person who knows many color blind individuals I cannot tell you how many times I've heard that being able to differentiate between their own zerglings/banelings is nearly impossible. In the past Blizzard has even come out and fully supported Stronger Team Colors and said they have no intentions of removing this support for players who have issues with vision. However, when the modding of files was fixes Stronger Team Colors inevitably met its end. Now, it is only available through the game mod for Game Heart. I urge you strongly to look into supporting Stronger Team Colors for players as it provides //NO// advantages to competitive play and is purely for vision impaired, or those who like the looks in general. You can see the support the mod had on Team Liquid here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/216725-stronger-team-color[1] Nearly 100 pages, 443156 views, and 1476 replies... I would very much appreciate a response!
A: Just want to say again -- We're following this issue very closely, and it's something that we do want to address, if we can.
Thanks for this. On the whole consistent with his previous responses. I haven't gone through all the replies, but I am happy that they will continue to look at maps in 2014 (team maps too! yay!). I'm also happy that it looks like there will be no substantive changes to core game mechanics for LOTV. I think the window for that has passed with HOTS.
One of the best interviews yet IMO. Especially the last bit: Deathballs, FF, economy, they like them the way they are and that's that.
What i found weird was the bit with the excuses for why major changes can not be done in an expansion. This coming from the company that is all about major changes, from BW, TFT, LoD, etc. Is SC2 so underfunded that all they can do is single player and a couple of units for multi? I don't get it.
This game will get 2 expansions and it will still have most of the problems that were pointed out during the first BETA in 2010. That's a bit crazy actually, especially for a company like Blizzard. Arrogance, stupidity, underfunded or what? The sad thing is it has so much potential that will never be achieved.
So they refuse to change anything for the sake of change unless "it's awesome" and dodged questions on changes by saying "some people" like it the way it is (cough, it's pretty much only Blizzard who think this, cough).
"Players don't need to expand more than twice - We disagree. There's a lot of variety out there whether it's 2 base play, 3 base play, or constant expansion play. Take a look at ZvP: it's extremely common for Zerg to take the 4th base around the time Protoss takes the 3rd." LOL, no shit? Zergs almost always operate 1 base ahead ideally...worst example ever. I really want SC2 to succeed but I just can't see it ever really growing with this mindset from the developers.
On March 13 2014 06:22 Xiphos wrote: I wish people would stop using the word "considering" or "thinking about" when asking questions.
Do it explicit such as "Are you GOING to so and so."
When they confirm that they are considering or thinking about doing certain things asked by the communities. It means jack shit as oppose to actually doing it.
Same shit w/ "like to do this and that" as the answer.
All answers that doesn't state explicitly that they ARE GOING to change for the better are just as futile as not answering in the first place.
Looks like nothing substantial will be altered for LotV after all.
They do say they are going to do things. Its called patch notes. They come out when they release a patch and they have done things.
Don't divert.
I'm talking strictly about AMAs.
Patch Notes are just things that have already been done.
The whole point of AMAs is to get to the bottom of things on future plans and product insurance.
This is both the communities and DK's fault. The community for coming up w/ passive questions and DK taking that advantage of the passive questions w/ even more passive answers.
On March 13 2014 06:35 andrewlt wrote: Not sure why SC2 team is like this when all other Blizzard teams view expansions as a hard reset starting from BW. BW, LoD, TFT, all WoW expansions and RoS contain drastic changes. HotS had fewest changes of any Blizz expansion pack to date, aside from the Sierra created Diablo 1 xpac. BW/TFT had major e-sports scenes so it's not like SC2 is unique in this regard.
I'm tempted to agree with you, but at the same time I'm not. WoW, Diablo, etc. aren't really solid comparisons because RTS games are different, but as far as WC3 is concerned...
TFT did bring a lot to RoC (one hero for each race, racial shop, some maps I believe, the EXP threshold on creeps, etc..) but the core elements of the game were the same. I wouldn't go as far as to call TFT a hard reset of RoC, but it was definitely an astonishing improvement that quickly let TFT become competitive. It's true that HotS was nowhere near that.
The sad truth is, Blizzard was never a company known for making bold changes. Don't get me wrong, SC, BW, RoC and TFT were all revolutions in their own rights in terms of gaming, but even in those games, Blizzard never made any major change to the core gameplay post-release. The same is happening with SC2, and while people were already whining on WC3 about Blizzard not making big changes, it is becoming a bigger issue now because you have other popular games doing huge tweaks to their gameplay to keep the players interested and to freshen things up.
DK once again didn't really provide any interesting answer. It's rather clear now that they do not intend to do any sort of overhaul, SC2 will stay vaguely the same. It's truly weird, as when you compare it to WC3, the expansions really do not hold up in terms of improvements and changes... I feel like Blizzard has grown too cautious, and wishes to stay away from unexplored grounds as much as possible.
BS on the "Blizzard was never a company known for making bold changes".
Blizzard North completely changed the engine of SC1 after seeing their competitions at the time.
All we need are short and concise answers instead of being extremely PC w/ it. DK should be expected to know exactly what the Blizz exec wants in the game and convey it.
He avoids pretty much all the questions regarding game balance, this feels so awkward. I realize that some builds will eventually come up to "solve" Swarm Hosts, or maybe even a counter for ravens, but the road that we're on right now is too bumpy to reach that destination. We don't need a major re-design, we just need some fresh stuff and happy players. How much pride can David Kim take in eventually losing his job because he killed SC2 with LoTV because too few changes that the community demanded went through?
The worst response ever is the "X is confusing for Y, so we are being careful with that". How is that an argument in favor of anything? Nothing is confusing, it cannot be complicated enough to ever become confusing. Everything will eventually be figured out and it will be figured out a lot quicker than any game designer no matter how good they are, can realise.
Players are fucking smart and they will figure out everything, even how to exploit the most obscure mechanics. Please don't EVER think something is "confusing". This comment alone makes me realize David Kim doesn't know anything about how the game (or any game for that matter) develops.
On March 13 2014 08:32 SpiritAshura wrote: So they refuse to change anything for the sake of change unless "it's awesome" and dodged questions on changes by saying "some people" like it the way it is (cough, it's pretty much only Blizzard who think this, cough).
"Players don't need to expand more than twice - We disagree. There's a lot of variety out there whether it's 2 base play, 3 base play, or constant expansion play. Take a look at ZvP: it's extremely common for Zerg to take the 4th base around the time Protoss takes the 3rd." LOL, no shit? Zergs almost always operate 1 base ahead ideally...worst example ever. I really want SC2 to succeed but I just can't see it ever really growing with this mindset from the developers.
How is that a bad example, that's the whole crux of the argument about "3base economies". that taking 4ths doesnt pay off. yet somehow it does for zerg...
There have been so few pro level 1-2 hour Swarm Host games that it's difficult to make a clear call in this area. For example, we're always analyzing games, and recently, the only pro game that came close to this was the HerO vs. Rogue game which lasted 37 min. With that said, we are aware on the EU ladder that this type of strategy is more common and we're still discussing it frequently with EU players and casters to see if we need to start testing other changes on the next balance test map.
Yes free units can have a place in RTS, and free doesn't mean it's OP. There's a cost to using Locusts and it's not completely free. You still need to make Swarm Hosts.
Q: Network spikes and high latency in Multiplayer. Is it possible to optimize the way SC2 communicates so that Observers don't cause latency or spikes for the players, as well as somehow improving Multiplayer latency responsiveness/performance in general?
A: I just want to reiterate that when this is an issue, it is a top priority issue for us.
What an excellent way of tricking people into believing they might do something about it when they obviously will never do anything about it (if that was the case they would've done so right after release)
Typical answer from the SC2 team @ Blizz. The answer should've been honest in which case it would've been "NO!"
On March 13 2014 06:22 Xiphos wrote: I wish people would stop using the word "considering" or "thinking about" when asking questions.
Do it explicit such as "Are you GOING to so and so."
When they confirm that they are considering or thinking about doing certain things asked by the communities. It means jack shit as oppose to actually doing it.
Same shit w/ "like to do this and that" as the answer.
All answers that doesn't state explicitly that they ARE GOING to change for the better are just as futile as not answering in the first place.
Looks like nothing substantial will be altered for LotV after all.
They do say they are going to do things. Its called patch notes. They come out when they release a patch and they have done things.
Don't divert.
I'm talking strictly about AMAs.
Patch Notes are just things that have already been done.
The whole point of AMAs is to get to the bottom of things on future plans and product insurance.
This is both the communities and DK's fault. The community for coming up w/ passive questions and DK taking that advantage of the passive questions w/ even more passive answers.
You cant say you are going to do something if they don't know they are going to do it. Blizzard has always made a practice of not saying they are going to do things until they are sure. People want solid answers on what DK is doing to do and he is saying he doesn't know yet, but they have some ideas.
As the quality of the questions improved, so too did the answers. Pretty standard Q&A for DK, only more informative when taken altogether. We'll see how all these "looking into"s and "addressing"s play out by LotV I guess. Thanks for the transcript.
On March 13 2014 06:22 Xiphos wrote: I wish people would stop using the word "considering" or "thinking about" when asking questions.
Do it explicit such as "Are you GOING to so and so."
When they confirm that they are considering or thinking about doing certain things asked by the communities. It means jack shit as oppose to actually doing it.
Same shit w/ "like to do this and that" as the answer.
All answers that doesn't state explicitly that they ARE GOING to change for the better are just as futile as not answering in the first place.
Looks like nothing substantial will be altered for LotV after all.
They do say they are going to do things. Its called patch notes. They come out when they release a patch and they have done things.
Don't divert.
I'm talking strictly about AMAs.
Patch Notes are just things that have already been done.
The whole point of AMAs is to get to the bottom of things on future plans and product insurance.
This is both the communities and DK's fault. The community for coming up w/ passive questions and DK taking that advantage of the passive questions w/ even more passive answers.
You cant say you are going to do something if they don't know they are going to do it. Blizzard has always made a practice of not saying they are going to do things until they are sure. People want solid answers on what DK is doing to do and he is saying he doesn't know yet, but they have some ideas.
Then that's poor planning and preparation on their part.
AMAs are meant to have prepare statements by the official company.
A decent company should have a nicely set up "To-do" list to complete after each meeting to address issues.
Judging by DK's passiveness from this AMAs, both of the above conditions are not satisfied.
Be sure first and THEN hold AMAs. That's also poor timing right there.
If these factors aren't met first, well you got the current backslash we have toward them.
AMAs are suppose to improve on their image instead they are tarnishing it one piece at a time.
But I'm sure that Blizzard trustees and employees aren't imbecile at what they do.
On March 13 2014 08:32 SpiritAshura wrote: So they refuse to change anything for the sake of change unless "it's awesome" and dodged questions on changes by saying "some people" like it the way it is (cough, it's pretty much only Blizzard who think this, cough).
"Players don't need to expand more than twice - We disagree. There's a lot of variety out there whether it's 2 base play, 3 base play, or constant expansion play. Take a look at ZvP: it's extremely common for Zerg to take the 4th base around the time Protoss takes the 3rd." LOL, no shit? Zergs almost always operate 1 base ahead ideally...worst example ever. I really want SC2 to succeed but I just can't see it ever really growing with this mindset from the developers.
How is that a bad example, that's the whole crux of the argument about "3base economies". that taking 4ths doesnt pay off. yet somehow it does for zerg...
I'm saying DK took a cheap way out of answering by using an example of Z as a race that strategically out expands opponents. This hasn't changed since SC1, let alone anything done since SC2's inception. "Constant expansion play" is a politician type answer offering no examples of anything innovative from T or P matchups. Looking from P/T side it's a joke because he doesn't offer ANY examples expanding beyond 3 base play.
The entire interview dodging questions with generalities rubbed me the wrong way. It has the feel of an AMA that's been done purely for PR. It's the exact opposite of the Gabe Newell AMA answering questions with specific examples and goals for the future.
On March 13 2014 08:58 Psychobabas wrote: LOL so it's the mech Terrans fault that Zerg makes 20 swarm hosts?
If you don't make Ravens vs Swarm hosts as a mech player you are dead, plain and simple.
if you don't make swarm hosts vs mech you're dead too unless you hit a timing, and if that timing fails you're also dead. mech players who turtle competently usually don't break from yolo mass roach or yolo mass muta
On March 13 2014 08:58 Psychobabas wrote: LOL so it's the mech Terrans fault that Zerg makes 20 swarm hosts?
If you don't make Ravens vs Swarm hosts as a mech player you are dead, plain and simple.
Q: What do you feel is the biggest issue with 2 hour long SH games in ZvZ ZvP and ZvT(Mech), and would you consider a complete rework of the unit or would you prefer sticking to tweaking other units/abilities to make it less... Boring(?) to watch. - Hide Spoiler - A: We believe ZvP is the biggest concern of the three matchups. The issue here is a combination of Swarm Hosts, base defenses, Vipers, and Corruptors. We've tested the Tempest changes and discussed with some knowledgeable casters/players around the world. We came to the conclusion that while this change is solid to solve this ZvP issue, it hasn't really been happening in tournament games recently, so it's better to wait before making any further changes. For ZvT, we believe this sort of stalemate happens not because of Swarm Hosts, but mostly because of the strength of Mass Ravens in the late game. We haven't been seeing as many of these games compared to the late game PvZ games. When we evaluate these games, it looks to us like Terran players are sometimes delaying moving out because reaching a critical mass of Ravens could win the game, if they can reach that point at a decently even economy. There have been so few pro level 1-2 hour Swarm Host games that it's difficult to make a clear call in this area. For example, we're always analyzing games, and recently, the only pro game that came close to this was the HerO vs. Rogue game which lasted 37 min. With that said, we are aware on the EU ladder that this type of strategy is more common and we're still discussing it frequently with EU players and casters to see if we need to start testing other changes on the next balance test map.
This is one of the most disappointing things I've read from blizzard in a while. The community and the majority of reasonable players all have told blizzard the swarmhost is the problem and needs a re-design...instead he picks another Terran unit to be sent the nerfbat?
As psychobabas above said...mech cannot beat swarmhost without ravens. Even bio has trouble without ravens vs swarmhost if the Zerg turtles hard enough.
Does he not understand or has he not watched all of the ZvP/ZvT swarmhost games? Swarmhost is the issue, not ravens. Ravens are a response (and the only counter) to swarmhosts.
Protoss plays out similarly vs swarmhost. There is no counter to swarmhost turtle other than turtling into mass tempest/templar with mothership and critical mass of collosus/void rays.
On March 13 2014 06:22 Xiphos wrote: I wish people would stop using the word "considering" or "thinking about" when asking questions.
Do it explicit such as "Are you GOING to so and so."
When they confirm that they are considering or thinking about doing certain things asked by the communities. It means jack shit as oppose to actually doing it.
Same shit w/ "like to do this and that" as the answer.
All answers that doesn't state explicitly that they ARE GOING to change for the better are just as futile as not answering in the first place.
Looks like nothing substantial will be altered for LotV after all.
They do say they are going to do things. Its called patch notes. They come out when they release a patch and they have done things.
Don't divert.
I'm talking strictly about AMAs.
Patch Notes are just things that have already been done.
The whole point of AMAs is to get to the bottom of things on future plans and product insurance.
This is both the communities and DK's fault. The community for coming up w/ passive questions and DK taking that advantage of the passive questions w/ even more passive answers.
You cant say you are going to do something if they don't know they are going to do it. Blizzard has always made a practice of not saying they are going to do things until they are sure. People want solid answers on what DK is doing to do and he is saying he doesn't know yet, but they have some ideas.
Then that's poor planning and preparation on their part.
AMAs are meant to have prepare statements by the official company.
A decent company should have a nicely set up "To-do" list to complete after each meeting to address issues.
Judging by DK's passiveness from this AMAs, both of the above conditions are not satisfied.
Be sure first and THEN hold AMAs. That's also poor timing right there.
If these factors aren't met first, well you got the current backslash we have toward them.
AMAs are suppose to improve on their image instead they are tarnishing it one piece at a time.
But I'm sure that Blizzard trustees and employees aren't imbecile at what they do.
I thought AMAs, were supposed to be somewhat casual and answers that also match the somewhat casual nature AMAs have. If we wanted prepared statements, definitive information let's have a PR or like a state of game meeting.
If they are honestly saying they have ideas, but they do not know how or when they are going to test implementations, then we shouldn't really expect them to give anything but vague answers. With how knee-jerky this community is, if David Kim espoused any of the balance teams ideas on balance, the community would overreact. As stated in the transcript, some of the ideas are crazy ideas, some are subtle ideas. They are experimenting on how they want to balance the game. The best answers we are going to get are vague answers until they release the next balance test map which I don't know if anyone asked that, but it would be good to know when to expect the next one.
Also, have you given thought that David Kim and the balance team cannot give definitive answers especially regarding LotV? It may have been for the best that they didn't do this AMA, but people have been requesting one from David Kim for a while.
Blizzard isn't incentivized to improve SC2 because they've already sold most of the copies that they are ever going to sell. Making large updates that go beyond changing unit stat values costs Blizzard development time that they could be putting into making other games. If anything, Blizzard wants to save big changes for when they make a new game so they can actually make money off of it.
It shouldn't be a surprise that D.K. made comments that expressed that no changes would be made to the game. When there are imbalances in the game, it's not Blizzard's "incompetence" that allows it to remain in the game. It's the fact that there is no reason to spend money on making the game better. As a long-term ladderer myself, I would love to changes to FF, Swarm Host, or broodlord infestor back in the day. Blizzard is never going to remove the Swarm Host (something that cost them development graphics, animations, etc.), spend more money to replace it with a new unit, and charge you 0$ to use it in their game. Blizzard doesn't even really care if you play their game as long as you're going to buy their future products.
Blizzard was willing to remove the warhound early on because adding a terrible unit was going to cost them sales after release. SC2 isn't a charity run by Blizzard. Blizzard is willing to make the game fun for you as long as they get the money. You have to deal with it since Blizzard is the only game developer willing to develop RTS games.
Q: What do you feel is the biggest issue with 2 hour long SH games in ZvZ ZvP and ZvT(Mech), and would you consider a complete rework of the unit or would you prefer sticking to tweaking other units/abilities to make it less... Boring(?) to watch. - Hide Spoiler - A: We believe ZvP is the biggest concern of the three matchups. The issue here is a combination of Swarm Hosts, base defenses, Vipers, and Corruptors. We've tested the Tempest changes and discussed with some knowledgeable casters/players around the world. We came to the conclusion that while this change is solid to solve this ZvP issue, it hasn't really been happening in tournament games recently, so it's better to wait before making any further changes. For ZvT, we believe this sort of stalemate happens not because of Swarm Hosts, but mostly because of the strength of Mass Ravens in the late game. We haven't been seeing as many of these games compared to the late game PvZ games. When we evaluate these games, it looks to us like Terran players are sometimes delaying moving out because reaching a critical mass of Ravens could win the game, if they can reach that point at a decently even economy. There have been so few pro level 1-2 hour Swarm Host games that it's difficult to make a clear call in this area. For example, we're always analyzing games, and recently, the only pro game that came close to this was the HerO vs. Rogue game which lasted 37 min. With that said, we are aware on the EU ladder that this type of strategy is more common and we're still discussing it frequently with EU players and casters to see if we need to start testing other changes on the next balance test map.
This is one of the most disappointing things I've read from blizzard in a while. The community and the majority of reasonable players all have told blizzard the swarmhost is the problem and needs a re-design...instead he picks another Terran unit to be sent the nerfbat?
As psychobabas above said...mech cannot beat swarmhost without ravens. Even bio has trouble without ravens vs swarmhost if the Zerg turtles hard enough.
Does he not understand or has he not watched all of the ZvP/ZvT swarmhost games? Swarmhost is the issue, not ravens. Ravens are a response (and the only counter) to swarmhosts.
Protoss plays out similarly vs swarmhost. There is no counter to swarmhost turtle other than turtling into mass tempest/templar with mothership and critical mass of collosus/void rays.
There doesn't always have to be a direct counter to the army, despite what people think deathballs don't have to crashed into one another to win, but it makes the game harder, and people don't like that. Maybe it is broken though, and maybe it isn't; the point is that the games core design makes it next to impossible to avoid problems like the ones we see currently.
The thing I find funny though, is if people really hate the state of sc2 that much, why are there only 38 people on the starbow client right now? Take all your whining energy and direct it towards downloading the starbow client.
seems that blizzard can gets things done in four years that riot or valve get done in one patch.
You guys are Blizzard the company that start before Valve and Riot. You guys let Valve steal one of your mods to WC3 and make it a standalone game. You fail to give the NA Sc2 pro scene stability. You guys are so concerned about the players playing the game the way it is. Many of the players are backed by teams that have a good background and e-sports. There is way more tournaments for them to compete in. I'm sure you guys have the money to make SC2 bigger, better and attract a bigger crowd. Its sad to see that the region with the best players have the lowest amount of people on ladder.
Pls Blizzard do something to make SC2 bigger instead of preserving the state it is in
And the way Blizzard is taking Hearthstone (completely off topic but). taking the riot Games approach to a Free game. At least Riot has gotten better to fix FEW of the bugs before the next patch fix. There was like NO Changes during HS open beta. NONE. I was truly disappointed by no changes to bugs or cards. Also nerfing cards to never be seen again is also a characteristic of Riot. They wait till open beta is over to make the changes. WELL GJ OF AN OPEN BETA. THATS BASICALLY EARLY ACCESS
Avilo is wrong, at least partly. Swarmhost are very strong versus mech, probably OP. But what we see the most, and what Avilo is playing a lot, is turtle into mass raven. It's not mech, it's skyterran. People play it because mass raven is stupidly strong even though it's the most boring style ever. It's terrans plan to turtle in the first place. Swarmshots are good for pressure, but can't break it. But terran would be turtling even if swarmhosts weren't there, because mass raven is so good. It's completely different situation than in ZvP where it's Z who is turtling. Anyway DK has it right in this (only?) case. Raven is the problem. But that's the problem with skyterran. In case of mech, I don't think mech is all too viable. The only games we see are some timing attacks relying on unprepared opponent or damage dealt early. Good change would be to nerf raven and make true mech viable and fun in TvZ. Although they have to redesign swarmhosts and make mech good in TvP too, so it's a lot of work. If it were for me, I would just nerf raven. TvZ bio is already the best matchup and they should focus on other things than making mech viable in TvZ.
On March 13 2014 08:54 qcHanHan wrote: I liked it. Don't listen to the mob. You know what's best.
gg wp
I did not it. Don't listen to the self entitled minority. The community, who is a step removed from the creation process, knows what's best (there is a reason doctors can't operate on someone they're too personally close to).
Changes to game mechanics - No [Saw that one coming unfortunately...]
New map mechanics - Not unless Dustin Browder likes it and it's related to rocks! (ie, nothing good proposed by professional map makers)
Stance on big changes to the game - No, but IF there's something that's CLEARLY broken and ruins the game entirely, we'll sit on it and maybe we'll do something to give the other side a chance. [Yeah, they've been pretty good on not fixing certain glaring issues right away...]
Ideas on changing stuff that 100% sucks balls - No, we don't want a repeat of the Carrier incident. Somehow, there's hidden majority of you waiting to tear our faces off if we talk about changing the Nydus Worm. Also, we don't like changing units that aren't mainstream (of course, we're lying; remember the Queen and Warp Prism changes? trollololol).
Soooo... Big game remake to get rid of all the ways you guys fucked up? (one last chance?) - No. We know what we're doing guys. SC2 is perfect as it is, we just gotta tweak the numbers cause tweaking numbers slightly always fixes inherently broken mechanics! The guys at Riot are doing it wrong. You're supposed to leave a OP mechanic as it is instead of reworking/taking it out entirely.
Swarmhosts?... Please...? - Nope. We don't see a problem with them.
Online automatic tournaments? - Maybe in LotV. [Woot!]
How do you design a unit? - We act like Tea from Yu-Gi-Oh The Abridged Series! FRIENDSHIP!!!!
How do you feel about the fact that Starbow is kinda taking some of the shine away from your game? - We don't care. We'll just shut it down once it gets big. On another note, *Insert Hearthstone Plug Here*. (BLIZZARD COMMANDS YOU, PLAY HEARTHSTONE!)
Soooo... How do you feel about free units...? If you're so into them, can we at least have Carriers spawn free units too??? - NO! That would clearly be OP! I mean, then it'd just be a flying air unit that spawns free units. We totally can't have that in the game! [Oh wait...]
Lategame is boring to watch, we gonna change that anytime soon? - No, you're wrong! We love how the current lategame works!
Since maps have an effect on balance, any chance you're gonna say fuck it and move on to map balance instead of game balance? - Yes, we like different maps. Maps that change the way the game is played (but without using the intelligent advice of pro map makers). Expect plenty more broken maps like Daedalus Point, please look forward to them in your nightmares.
tl;dr Blizzard: We like the game as it is, so we'll make only just enough changes to get you guys to bitch at us less.
Honestly, if they disliked changing the game so fucking much, why even have expansions? Oh wait, money for them in the hopes that they actually fixed the game. Welp... I would still get it for the campaign though. Wanna know how the story ends. And it'll also have more stuff for the custom map makers, so maybe custom games (aka Arcade; I'm used to WC3 terms) will just make up for SC2. And we can always hope LotV will be the chosen savior of SC2.
On March 13 2014 08:54 qcHanHan wrote: I liked it. Don't listen to the mob. You know what's best.
gg wp
I did not it. Don't listen to the self entitled minority. The community, who is a step removed from the creation process, knows what's best (there is a reason doctors can't operate on someone they're too personally close to).
Lol, the community knows best. I guess we are a hive mind, all thinking the same thoughts.
On March 13 2014 09:29 NoobCrunch wrote: Blizzard isn't incentivized to improve SC2 because they've already sold most of the copies that they are ever going to sell. Making large updates that go beyond changing unit stat values costs Blizzard development time that they could be putting into making other games. If anything, Blizzard wants to save big changes for when they make a new game so they can actually make money off of it.
It shouldn't be a surprise that D.K. made comments that expressed that no changes would be made to the game. When there are imbalances in the game, it's not Blizzard's "incompetence" that allows it to remain in the game. It's the fact that there is no reason to spend money on making the game better. As a long-term ladderer myself, I would love to changes to FF, Swarm Host, or broodlord infestor back in the day. Blizzard is never going to remove the Swarm Host (something that cost them development graphics, animations, etc.), spend more money to replace it with a new unit, and charge you 0$ to use it in their game. Blizzard doesn't even really care if you play their game as long as you're going to buy their future products.
Blizzard was willing to remove the warhound early on because adding a terrible unit was going to cost them sales after release. SC2 isn't a charity run by Blizzard. Blizzard is willing to make the game fun for you as long as they get the money. You have to deal with it since Blizzard is the only game developer willing to develop RTS games.
On March 13 2014 08:54 qcHanHan wrote: I liked it. Don't listen to the mob. You know what's best.
gg wp
I did not it. Don't listen to the self entitled minority. The community, who is a step removed from the creation process, knows what's best (there is a reason doctors can't operate on someone they're too personally close to).
Lol, the community knows best. I guess we are a hive mind, all thinking the same thoughts.
It's called consensus fool...
edit: how many people have to complain about FF and SH before blizzard realizes they are not good for the game?
On March 13 2014 08:54 qcHanHan wrote: I liked it. Don't listen to the mob. You know what's best.
gg wp
I did not it. Don't listen to the self entitled minority. The community, who is a step removed from the creation process, knows what's best (there is a reason doctors can't operate on someone they're too personally close to).
Lol, the community knows best. I guess we are a hive mind, all thinking the same thoughts.
It's called consensus fool...
I stand by my original, scarcastic statement. I guess we all think alike and consensus would come easy.
On March 13 2014 08:54 qcHanHan wrote: I liked it. Don't listen to the mob. You know what's best.
gg wp
I did not it. Don't listen to the self entitled minority. The community, who is a step removed from the creation process, knows what's best (there is a reason doctors can't operate on someone they're too personally close to).
Lol, the community knows best. I guess we are a hive mind, all thinking the same thoughts.
It's called consensus fool...
I stand by my original, scarcastic statement. I guess we all think alike and consensus would come easy.
There are a million and one things the SC community disagree on..obviously..but to act like there are not a few things that we are in consensus about is the height of fanboy foolishness. Go troll someone else loser.
On March 13 2014 08:54 qcHanHan wrote: I liked it. Don't listen to the mob. You know what's best.
gg wp
I did not it. Don't listen to the self entitled minority. The community, who is a step removed from the creation process, knows what's best (there is a reason doctors can't operate on someone they're too personally close to).
On March 13 2014 08:54 qcHanHan wrote: I liked it. Don't listen to the mob. You know what's best.
gg wp
I did not it. Don't listen to the self entitled minority. The community, who is a step removed from the creation process, knows what's best (there is a reason doctors can't operate on someone they're too personally close to).
Lol, the community knows best. I guess we are a hive mind, all thinking the same thoughts.
It's called consensus fool...
I stand by my original, scarcastic statement. I guess we all think alike and consensus would come easy.
There are a million and one things the SC community disagree on..obviously..but to act like there are not a few things that we are in consensus about is the height of fanboy foolishness. Go troll someone else loser.
Are we counting the people who complain against those that don't because they think it is fine? How do we count those who don't complain about force fields against those that do?
Consensus is hard and mostly the community is split three ways, right down racial lines.
Just to touch on some popular topics to finish things off: - We think the BW high ground mechanic is not necessarily better than SC2. Each has its pros and cons. Force field - we're discussing whether there needs to be more counters, but we believe Force Fields themselves, when used very well, are in a good place. Units clumping naturally - This really rewards split micro which is one of the coolest micro moments SC2 provides. If units auto spread, marine splitting vs. Banelings won't be as cool to watch. Players don't need to expand more than twice - We disagree. There's a lot of variety out there whether it's 2 base play, 3 base play, or constant expansion play. Take a look at ZvP: it's extremely common for Zerg to take the 4th base around the time Protoss takes the 3rd.
I'm glad I stopped playing SC2. I know this is somewhat hyperbolic but these are some of the biggest issues with the game and part of the reason it's not as popular here and amongst progamers than BW was. They're just ignoring clearly giant flaws with the game for the sake of saying "well we think it's fine".
SC2, in my personal opinion is not a good competitive game. The fact that games are often one off of the back of a single 5 second fight into a snowball effect make me very apprehensive to even watch the game anymore. I mean I'll watch the odd game and admittedily I found it much better during HoTS, but it's still fundamentally broken.
What bothers me the most is, as I have said in some earlier thread, that Blizzard states they are happy with status quo. They aren't considering taking some risk to take sc2 to the next level.
Another thing that is less important is that Blizzard chose to do their Q/A on Reddit instead of TL. I am not being biased, but TL has always been a solid game portal for StarCraft. They could have taken their discussion to the bnet website to be even more objective.
On March 13 2014 09:29 NoobCrunch wrote: Blizzard isn't incentivized to improve SC2 because they've already sold most of the copies that they are ever going to sell. Making large updates that go beyond changing unit stat values costs Blizzard development time that they could be putting into making other games. If anything, Blizzard wants to save big changes for when they make a new game so they can actually make money off of it.
It shouldn't be a surprise that D.K. made comments that expressed that no changes would be made to the game. When there are imbalances in the game, it's not Blizzard's "incompetence" that allows it to remain in the game. It's the fact that there is no reason to spend money on making the game better. As a long-term ladderer myself, I would love to changes to FF, Swarm Host, or broodlord infestor back in the day. Blizzard is never going to remove the Swarm Host (something that cost them development graphics, animations, etc.), spend more money to replace it with a new unit, and charge you 0$ to use it in their game. Blizzard doesn't even really care if you play their game as long as you're going to buy their future products.
Blizzard was willing to remove the warhound early on because adding a terrible unit was going to cost them sales after release. SC2 isn't a charity run by Blizzard. Blizzard is willing to make the game fun for you as long as they get the money. You have to deal with it since Blizzard is the only game developer willing to develop RTS games.
So if that's the case Blizzard being greedy, then can't we all threaten them to boycott LotV? This would surely scare them a little bit at least. Possible problem may be that the TL staff may not support such riot.
Edit: Alternatively, we may start a petition to ask for a better game with the LotV release. Not better as in "a few new features", but some more serious work.
On March 13 2014 08:54 qcHanHan wrote: I liked it. Don't listen to the mob. You know what's best.
gg wp
I did not it. Don't listen to the self entitled minority. The community, who is a step removed from the creation process, knows what's best (there is a reason doctors can't operate on someone they're too personally close to).
Christ, that's ironic. Get over yourself.
Its really not though, crack open a dictionary chief
Q: Has the recent popularity of Starbow and its Brood-War-like gameplay influenced your approach to LotV in any way? Most people agree that large-scale fights that end in a matter of seconds aren't fun, or good for the competitive scene (not for the progamers, and certainly not for the audience). They don't reward skill, since there's usually not enough time to execute any micro maneuvers beyond the most basic splits and casting a few aoe spells. - Hide Spoiler - A: We definitely look at popular mods for ideas for SC2. Not only mods, but it's just very common for our designers to just explore games they are playing currently. One interesting story I'd like to share is back when the last Hearthstone alpha started internally, so many of us were playing the game so much that our multiplayer meetings were full of TCG-like ability ideas which took us to interesting areas creatively. Of course we can't do things like "when this unit enters play, something disruptive happens to the enemy," but often times crazy ideas lead to reasonable ideas that can actually work in a completely different type of game.
It took me a moment to realize what happened, haha.
On March 13 2014 08:54 qcHanHan wrote: I liked it. Don't listen to the mob. You know what's best.
gg wp
I did not it. Don't listen to the self entitled minority. The community, who is a step removed from the creation process, knows what's best (there is a reason doctors can't operate on someone they're too personally close to).
Lol, the community knows best. I guess we are a hive mind, all thinking the same thoughts.
It's called consensus fool...
I stand by my original, scarcastic statement. I guess we all think alike and consensus would come easy.
There are a million and one things the SC community disagree on..obviously..but to act like there are not a few things that we are in consensus about is the height of fanboy foolishness. Go troll someone else loser.
Are we counting the people who complain against those that don't because they think it is fine? How do we count those who don't complain about force fields against those that do?
Consensus is hard and mostly the community is split three ways, right down racial lines.
Do you know what consensus is? Of course we would include people who complain against those that don't think it is fine. Idk if you were on the reddit thread while DK was taking questions, but the majority of people were not in that group, and that's why the consensus would be against FF and SH (among other things). Why do you think he took the time for special mention about FF at the end genius? Because there were so many people on there complaining about it (along with mining mechanics and deathballs). If the community was "split down racial lines" (which has nothing to do with the problems of clumping and mining which affect each race) why would he have singled out these issues for special mention? He wouldn't have..
On March 13 2014 07:02 Survivor61316 wrote: I wonder how difficult it would be to start a petition to get DK fired/demoted..? He is choking the life out of this game one step at a time due to sheer incompetence. Free units have a cost? 10+ Carriers a-moving isn't fun to watch, but 20+ SH chilling in the middle of the map not moving at all is? They will only put a change through if its "completely awesome" (gotta love corporate buzzwords)??
Honestly, this situation reminds me a lot of how Halo ended up dying as a competitive game and an esports scene.. The developers got all these crazy ideas in their heads that the only way to move forward was to completely change the game from one installment to the next (i.e. Halo Reach) instead of just sticking with tried and true methods. Blizzard seems to be under the same misconception as Bungie was at the end of their Halo career..they think SC is popular because they made it, when in reality they are popular because they made a good game.
That won't happen unless either:
A) Viewership for WCS and GSL plummets.
B) Legacy of the Void fails to sell copies.
C) Big leagues not associated with WCS like MLG, Red Bull, OnGameNet, SPOTV and Dreamhack switched en masse to Starbow, citing complaints about SC2's balance and game design.
D) Starbow grows to the point where it becomes a legitimate competitor to SC2 as a professional sport.
E) Valve secretly buy out the Starbow team and unveil a true free to play successor to Brood War running on a modified version of the Source Engine with units redesigned to prevent Blizzard from suing.
In other words, not going to happen. David Kim would literally have to kill the game or pull a communication cock-up on the level of Jay Wilson's "Fuck that loser" gaffe in order to be fired or demoted here. And that's the sad truth because apparently the 1.4.3 Balance Update wasn't enough to prove his utter incompetence.
How about thinking first before making statement like "supply limit with unit X is op = must be nerfed" "unit X can't be nerfed because i dont like it's design so it must be removed " How can you claim SH been op at the top level ZvP if high level protoses keep doing insanely stupid mistakes probably because if they will not adjust this unit will be nerfed - so why bother let's just whine!!! But finally some mentally advanced protoses started to use revelation on vipers to counter abducts and on spores + some decent warp prism harass. If only they learn to not overkill single spore crawler with like 20 tempests or use feedback or mb split expensive units or how about not pressing damn Prismatic Alignment on queens because IT DOES NOTHING! Personally i'm sure that this kind of ZvP is major step forward for the game. To be strong zerg's army needs allmoust all units in game and 3 core casters with proper proportions and constant usage of like 5 army hotkeys while this strategy makes protoss do some multitasking and harassments instead of boring a-move timing facerolls. It might need some balance adjustments but for now it's more about lack of proper skill set which wasn't developed by protoss pleyers because avoiding a-move is new mechanics to the race and it makes ppl frustrated. Concerning free units its total BS. You're building your arguments around game states without context and progression and if you claim that locusts are free than swarm hosts are damn overpriced because they cant do anything on their own. It's all about initial investment. You can't get some SH becuase it will benefit your army composition much less then even cuple of roaches. You must do instant switch like with mutalisks and it will open you to an attack. If you do not have huge advantage(so this game is basically won) than when you get 20 swarm hosts your opponent will have army that at this moment will be much stronger than yours because swarm hosts aren't cost efficient or strong at the moment when they acuired but they become efficient in time so you will have some weak spot like air defence of lack of static at expands and smart opponent can exploit it. But standart protoss twitch reflex will be going home, bunkerering up and starting to build THE deathball. That's why sometimes we can see 2h games. Nor zerg nor protoss can efficiently breake each other because while ago someone in the game gone full retard. So yeah it has solution. Make protoss lose hope in defeating SH with the deathball so protoss will start to play aggressive and make those anti SH timings more exposed so protoss will be unable to ignore them. Personally i would like to see rise in mineral cost of SH so zerg will not have minerals to get them and statics/queens at the same moment and will be exposed to harassment.
On the other hand, there are good elements to Starbow as a game that might be worth a look at, regardless of the E-sports apparatus that doesn't support it.
Anyway, standard for this AMA.
Look end of the day, if they're not going to touch core mechanics that annoy you, don't buy LoTV. Just don't buy it. I'm starting to swing that way myself, but I mean beside from voting with your feet I don't see what is gained from interacting with Blizzard on these things.
They just don't want to address certain grievances, or try certain things. They don't have to, but they can't not be aware of the ideas that are floating around the community, it's not a matter of exposing them, it's a matter of Blizzard implementing them.
On March 13 2014 10:29 Wombat_NI wrote: On the other hand, there are good elements to Starbow as a game that might be worth a look at, regardless of the E-sports apparatus that doesn't support it.
Anyway, standard for this AMA.
Look end of the day, if they're not going to touch core mechanics that annoy you, don't buy LoTV. Just don't buy it. I'm starting to swing that way myself, but I mean beside from voting with your feet I don't see what is gained from interacting with Blizzard on these things.
They just don't want to address certain grievances, or try certain things. They don't have to, but they can't not be aware of the ideas that are floating around the community, it's not a matter of exposing them, it's a matter of Blizzard implementing them.
People said the same about HotS when late Wings was literally Zerg dominated because punishing 15 minute Infestor Brood Lord was impossible thanks to an unnecessary balance update that gave Queens +2 attack range, implemented for no other reason than Zerg actually losing when they play greedy-as-shit.
What happened there? HotS broke sales records, people forgave Blizzard and continued to go full fanboy mode on the series.
On March 13 2014 07:30 Beastyqt wrote: Typical answers from him like from every interview since 2010.
Q: "X is op, are you going to do anything about it?" A: "We are looking into and and we feel we need to see more games so we can actually say that is op." - after something being broken for more than 6 months.
Q: "Are you going to add normal battle net or daily tournaments that was done 10 years ago in WC3 and SC1?" A: "I mean we are currently working on it as our priority for next expansion and should be up by 2017, because technology isn't there yet."
Q: "Swarm hosts are op can you fix them?" A: "We talked to a lot of pros and decided to make completely useless change that doesn't even come close to fixing this problem, because we have no idea what we are doing anyway."
I don't understand how can someone be so clueless and stubborn after 4 years of SC2, every interview same "answers", no solution and no plans for future changes.
This is the same reason i went back to bw and also i play a lot of battlefield 4, hope to make a come back on LOVT
On March 13 2014 10:29 Wombat_NI wrote: On the other hand, there are good elements to Starbow as a game that might be worth a look at, regardless of the E-sports apparatus that doesn't support it.
Anyway, standard for this AMA.
Look end of the day, if they're not going to touch core mechanics that annoy you, don't buy LoTV. Just don't buy it. I'm starting to swing that way myself, but I mean beside from voting with your feet I don't see what is gained from interacting with Blizzard on these things.
They just don't want to address certain grievances, or try certain things. They don't have to, but they can't not be aware of the ideas that are floating around the community, it's not a matter of exposing them, it's a matter of Blizzard implementing them.
People said the same about HotS when late Wings was literally Zerg dominated because punishing 15 minute Infestor Brood Lord was impossible thanks to an unnecessary balance update that gave Queens +2 attack range, implemented for no other reason than Zerg actually losing when they play greedy-as-shit.
What happened there? HotS broke sales records, people forgave Blizzard and continued to go full fanboy mode on the series.
Or there was more to like than to dislike. People could have liked the game. It is possible.
On March 13 2014 10:29 Wombat_NI wrote: On the other hand, there are good elements to Starbow as a game that might be worth a look at, regardless of the E-sports apparatus that doesn't support it.
Anyway, standard for this AMA.
Look end of the day, if they're not going to touch core mechanics that annoy you, don't buy LoTV. Just don't buy it. I'm starting to swing that way myself, but I mean beside from voting with your feet I don't see what is gained from interacting with Blizzard on these things.
They just don't want to address certain grievances, or try certain things. They don't have to, but they can't not be aware of the ideas that are floating around the community, it's not a matter of exposing them, it's a matter of Blizzard implementing them.
People said the same about HotS when late Wings was literally Zerg dominated because punishing 15 minute Infestor Brood Lord was impossible thanks to an unnecessary balance update that gave Queens +2 attack range, implemented for no other reason than Zerg actually losing when they play greedy-as-shit.
What happened there? HotS broke sales records, people forgave Blizzard and continued to go full fanboy mode on the series.
In that case, to be fair initially HoTS did look a bit of a step up, but then figure out how to use the tools given to them to their utmost potential and the game too has stagnated a little.
On March 13 2014 09:45 Tuczniak wrote: Avilo is wrong, at least partly. Swarmhost are very strong versus mech, probably OP. But what we see the most, and what Avilo is playing a lot, is turtle into mass raven. It's not mech, it's skyterran. People play it because mass raven is stupidly strong even though it's the most boring style ever. It's terrans plan to turtle in the first place. Swarmshots are good for pressure, but can't break it. But terran would be turtling even if swarmhosts weren't there, because mass raven is so good. It's completely different situation than in ZvP where it's Z who is turtling. Anyway DK has it right in this (only?) case. Raven is the problem. But that's the problem with skyterran. In case of mech, I don't think mech is all too viable. The only games we see are some timing attacks relying on unprepared opponent or damage dealt early. Good change would be to nerf raven and make true mech viable and fun in TvZ. Although they have to redesign swarmhosts and make mech good in TvP too, so it's a lot of work. If it were for me, I would just nerf raven. TvZ bio is already the best matchup and they should focus on other things than making mech viable in TvZ.
And you would be wrong about me being wrong.
I have played hundreds of 40 min + games vs swarmhosts with mech into ravens. I called out the swarmhost/raven scenario months ago, and posted about it many times, and made it known months ago. No one was playing mech then though because bio/mine was good until dkim nerfed the widow mine into oblivion.
Now that bio/mine is not viable, lots of people came over to the mech vs zerg side of things and people started to adopt my style of mech into ravens...and there is a good reason for that. If you go mech, tanks are not cost efficient enough to attack with. Thors are not efficient anti air either...until you have critical mass of these.
Meaning you must turtle with mech if you want to play mech. Zerg builds swarmhosts and when normally a mech Terran would want to finally push out, it's impossible because you cannot trade vespene gas units for free units over and over again.
So where normally without swarmhosts, mech vs Zerg would be lots of roach/hydra/viper and ultras and muta tech switches, and constant trades of hellions, mines, etc...the swarmhost completely obliterates those trades and forces mech to slowly lose over time by trading free units for actual money.
There is only one way to then be able to fight that, and that is to accumulate ravens for PDD so that you can inch across the map and advance against swarmhosts without losing vespene gas over and over to free units.
Mech alone will NEVER, i repeat, NEVER beat a good Zerg that builds swarmhosts. You are forced to turtle into 7+ ravens or you die a slow death just like Protoss does.
So yes, you're right Terran mech would turtle vs Zerg without swarmhosts, but that is because mech is only efficient once you have a critical mass of units because of how weak siege tanks are in low numbers, and same with thors vs mutas in low numbers. But you are clueless if you think the raven is the problem. It's the swarmhost that is the first level that forces Terran into the only response possible that allows us to fight against free units.
Swarmhosts are not necessary vs mech in the first place - the viper alone allows Zerg to fight against turtle meching Terrans.
Despite any "Protoss OP" talk and disregarding TvP...Protoss has similar issues against the swarm host - you cannot trade vespene gas units like collosus, sentries, stalkers, archons....against free units. You will just lose the game very slowly. So Protoss does the same thing Mech Terran does - you have to basically sit there and turtle until you have mass tempest/templar + mothership in order to actually advance or make a dent into swarmhosts.
The swarmhost is the root of the issue because Terran and Protoss cannot trade vespene gas units over and over versus free units. What ends up happening is it forces the game to stalemates and long 1 hr turtle games because it puts a halt to any unit trading interactions that should occur in a high paced RTS like SC2.
That is the root of the issue - you cannot trade units vs swarmhosts ever or you lose. Versus things like mass roach/hydra, mass ling/muta, etc. you can trade units with the Zerg because you know those units take up resources and larva. Swarmhost locusts don't even cost energy.
On March 13 2014 10:54 avilo wrote: Swarmhosts are not necessary vs mech in the first place - the viper alone allows Zerg to fight against turtle meching Terrans.
a terran who's not good enough to play in wcs explaining how he knows more about zerg than zergs who are good enough to play in wcs, buffered by a 1000-page theorycraft essay with repeated references to how you literally invented the concept of constructing a raven
i would know this is avilo even without seeing the name
On March 13 2014 10:54 avilo wrote: Swarmhosts are not necessary vs mech in the first place - the viper alone allows Zerg to fight against turtle meching Terrans.
a terran who's not good enough to play in wcs explaining how he knows more about zerg than zergs who are good enough to play in wcs, buffered by a 1000-page theorycraft essay with repeated references to how you literally invented the concept of constructing a raven
i would know this is avilo even without seeing the name
I wasn't aware people weren't allowed to know things about other races than just the one they play.
On March 13 2014 10:54 avilo wrote: Swarmhosts are not necessary vs mech in the first place - the viper alone allows Zerg to fight against turtle meching Terrans.
a terran who's not good enough to play in wcs explaining how he knows more about zerg than zergs who are good enough to play in wcs, buffered by a 1000-page theorycraft essay with repeated references to how you literally invented the concept of constructing a raven
i would know this is avilo even without seeing the name
I wasn't aware people weren't allowed to know things about other races than just the one they play.
You've helped me see the light.
yup, that was definitely my point, it couldn't have been that avilo is a blowhard troll with a history of raging on forums about things above his skill level
For the Carrier, we believe the issue is that Carriers are mostly just A move capital ships. The main cool factor of this unit is that they see play once in a while. If they were seen often, We don't think 10+ Carriers being A moved is all that interesting to play with or watch.
Really? Who made them boring units? The way it's worded makes it sounds like he's complaining about his own game.
On March 13 2014 10:52 Nauseam wrote: A) Viewership for WCS and GSL plummets.
Hasn't viewership for WCS and GSL already plummeted a LOT since after Blizzcon?
Nope. If you have watched the viewer counts this season as opposed to season 3 of last year the everyday WCS/GSL's are getting more viewers as is Proleague.
People who say things like "Blizzard doesn't understand or care about the game. Blizzard doesn't care about the community." are my favorite people ever. Always good for a little laugh
These answers are depressing and not making me want to invest any more time playing this game than I have in the past year. I strongly believe they're are too afraid to take risks and that it will lead this game to staleness not matter what they do.
And this time there isn't a 3rd expansion. The deadline to make this game fundamentally good is LotV, you don't have another one.
Players don't need to expand more than twice - We disagree. There's a lot of variety out there whether it's 2 base play, 3 base play, or constant expansion play. Take a look at ZvP: it's extremely common for Zerg to take the 4th base around the time Protoss takes the 3rd.
I really wish he wouldn't strawman the argument that there's a soft 3 base cap as "players don't need to expand more than twice", because it just stifles the conversation. Even in WCS casts the 3 base soft cap (in terms of economy, not total number of expansions by the end of the game) is mentioned as fact, with Zerg largely being the exception because it's not uncommon to go to 90 - 100 drones.
For the Carrier, we believe the issue is that Carriers are mostly just A move capital ships. The main cool factor of this unit is that they see play once in a while. If they were seen often, We don't think 10+ Carriers being A moved is all that interesting to play with or watch.
Really? Who made them boring units? The way it's worded makes it sounds like he's complaining about his own game.
It's cool like, it's not as if there are videos about Carriers specifically, and air units in general and their microability that. Also it's not like the Carrier was microable in Brood War... god.
On March 13 2014 11:06 Parcelleus wrote: David Kim is correct, stop whining and get better (basically). However, given how many foreigners love to whine, I expect the whining to continue.
Thanks David, keep to your guns and listen to korean top pros.
AKA some of THE whiniest players out there?
It's not a balance issue for many in the community anyway, it's a fun/enjoyability, no amount of 'get better' fixes that
On March 13 2014 11:06 Parcelleus wrote: David Kim is correct, stop whining and get better (basically). However, given how many foreigners love to whine, I expect the whining to continue.
Thanks David, keep to your guns and listen to korean top pros.
AKA some of THE whiniest players out there?
It's not a balance issue for many in the community anyway, it's a fun/enjoyability, no amount of 'get better' fixes that
Half the people are saying "Blizz is catering to the casuals and don't even care about competitive play" and the rest say the opposite. They just can't win. They try their best and they just get flamed, so they'd rather be conservative with their changes
On March 13 2014 11:06 Parcelleus wrote: David Kim is correct, stop whining and get better (basically). However, given how many foreigners love to whine, I expect the whining to continue.
Thanks David, keep to your guns and listen to korean top pros.
AKA some of THE whiniest players out there?
It's not a balance issue for many in the community anyway, it's a fun/enjoyability, no amount of 'get better' fixes that
I enjoy the game as do many others as you can see by the thousands of players that are online playing the game.
The real question is : how many BW players are disappointed by SC2 and want it to be like BW ? I think that is what is most telling about the 'questions' to DK.
For the Carrier, we believe the issue is that Carriers are mostly just A move capital ships. The main cool factor of this unit is that they see play once in a while. If they were seen often, We don't think 10+ Carriers being A moved is all that interesting to play with or watch.
Really? Who made them boring units? The way it's worded makes it sounds like he's complaining about his own game.
It's cool like, it's not as if there are videos about Carriers specifically, and air units in general and their microability that. Also it's not like the Carrier was microable in Brood War... god.
For the Carrier, we believe the issue is that Carriers are mostly just A move capital ships. The main cool factor of this unit is that they see play once in a while. If they were seen often, We don't think 10+ Carriers being A moved is all that interesting to play with or watch.
Really? Who made them boring units? The way it's worded makes it sounds like he's complaining about his own game.
It's cool like, it's not as if there are videos about Carriers specifically, and air units in general and their microability that. Also it's not like the Carrier was microable in Brood War... god.
???
'Carrier is an A-move unit' - Videos exist that Blizzard HAVE WATCHED that explain the factors that made Brood War carriers microable and they don't implement them and then return to 'Carrier is an A-move unit' as if it's some immutable and unchangeable fact of life.
It's infuriating to me, they could have just disregarded the 'Save the Carrier' campaign and scrapped it altogether if they weren't going to make it an interesting unit.
For the Carrier, we believe the issue is that Carriers are mostly just A move capital ships. The main cool factor of this unit is that they see play once in a while. If they were seen often, We don't think 10+ Carriers being A moved is all that interesting to play with or watch.
Really? Who made them boring units? The way it's worded makes it sounds like he's complaining about his own game.
It's cool like, it's not as if there are videos about Carriers specifically, and air units in general and their microability that. Also it's not like the Carrier was microable in Brood War... god.
???
He's not slamming you he's talking about all the effort LaLush and others put into making videos that explain how to make air units more micro intensive in SC2
It's really upsetting that no one ever thinks about non 1v1 gametypes.
Carriers are used very frequently in 2v2. Seriously. I'd say I end up making carriers every 10 games or so, and 1 in 5 Protoss I play will make carriers. About 1 in every 15 games vs Terran will see them making BCs too. It's a completely different world there. With completely different balance concerns (mostly around maps).
If Blizzard paid a bit of attention to team gametypes (and FFA too, I suppose), you might see a lot more people playing SC2 in general which would only be a boost to the scene as a whole, even if 1v1 remained the only pro gametype.
For the Carrier, we believe the issue is that Carriers are mostly just A move capital ships. The main cool factor of this unit is that they see play once in a while. If they were seen often, We don't think 10+ Carriers being A moved is all that interesting to play with or watch.
Really? Who made them boring units? The way it's worded makes it sounds like he's complaining about his own game.
It's cool like, it's not as if there are videos about Carriers specifically, and air units in general and their microability that. Also it's not like the Carrier was microable in Brood War... god.
???
'Carrier is an A-move unit' - Videos exist that Blizzard HAVE WATCHED that explain the factors that made Brood War carriers microable and they don't implement them and then return to 'Carrier is an A-move unit' as if it's some immutable and unchangeable fact of life.
It's infuriating to me, they could have just disregarded the 'Save the Carrier' campaign and scrapped it altogether if they weren't going to make it an interesting unit.
Sorry I did not know about those videos so I completely misunderstood your previous post. Yes it is infuriating ;;
Don't bring team games into this. It is soooooooooooooo frickin hard to balance a three race game as it is without making all the units do the same thing just with different appearances. If you think they're gonna put serious effort into trying to balance team games you're out of your mind
On March 13 2014 11:25 Yorkie wrote: Don't bring team games into this. It is soooooooooooooo frickin hard to balance a three race game as it is without making all the units do the same thing just with different appearances. If you think they're gonna put serious effort into trying to balance team games you're out of your mind
They could feasibly have slightly different stats for different gametypes. For example, increasing the build time of spawning pools in 2v2 because of the strength of double zerg 1 base ling all ins. Or something, I don't know, I'm not a balance designer.
The attitude of "don't bring team games into this" is way too common. Playing 1v1 is pretty lonely at times. The game would have a lot more appeal if playing with your buddies was more enjoyable than it is at the moment.
Team games could be balanced with maps. Instead of current map design, someone should try a "moba-like" map where each player on the team gets a "lane" that slowly collapses into an open map after X minutes. Basically it's 2/3/4 1v1s on the same map in the early and mid game before it becomes all out war in the late game. This will discourage most (but not all) early game rushes and add an interesting dynamic to the game.
I find it hilarious that everyone's heaping abuse on David Kim for swarm hosts and force fields when he isn't the design lead... he simply balances the existing units.
It is not David Kim who created these units and mechanics... nor do I believe it is his call to remove them.
On March 13 2014 11:45 lichter wrote: Team games could be balanced with maps. Instead of current map design, someone should try a "moba-like" map where each player on the team gets a "lane" that slowly collapses into an open map after X minutes. Basically it's 2/3/4 1v1s on the same map in the early and mid game before it becomes all out war in the late game. This will discourage most (but not all) early game rushes and add an interesting dynamic to the game.
Map design is the major issue for sure. If the pool got updated as much as 1v1 it would probably not be an issue. But the current pool has maps on it that'd be equivalent to Daybreak and Cloud Kingdom still being in 1v1, and they've brought out a map that kinda resembles Steppes of War in rush distance. The 7 roach rush is incredibly viable on it. Seriously.
Going moba would be interesting, but I wouldn't like to reduce all team games to it. Maybe just a game type. Could even have a 5v5 game mode which is moba like.
If nothing substantial comes out for LotV I will not be purchasing it. As it is, my interest in SC2 has waned to an all-time low. I really hope they announce the expansion soon.
On March 13 2014 10:54 avilo wrote: Swarmhosts are not necessary vs mech in the first place - the viper alone allows Zerg to fight against turtle meching Terrans.
a terran who's not good enough to play in wcs explaining how he knows more about zerg than zergs who are good enough to play in wcs, buffered by a 1000-page theorycraft essay with repeated references to how you literally invented the concept of constructing a raven
i would know this is avilo even without seeing the name
I wasn't aware people weren't allowed to know things about other races than just the one they play.
You've helped me see the light.
yup, that was definitely my point, it couldn't have been that avilo is a blowhard troll with a history of raging on forums about things above his skill level
Seeing as how Avilo's skill level is higher than 99.8% of players, I think he is more than qualified to speak to the balance of the game at the highest level
On March 13 2014 11:06 Parcelleus wrote: David Kim is correct, stop whining and get better (basically). However, given how many foreigners love to whine, I expect the whining to continue.
Thanks David, keep to your guns and listen to korean top pros.
AKA some of THE whiniest players out there?
It's not a balance issue for many in the community anyway, it's a fun/enjoyability, no amount of 'get better' fixes that
Half the people are saying "Blizz is catering to the casuals and don't even care about competitive play" and the rest say the opposite. They just can't win. They try their best and they just get flamed, so they'd rather be conservative with their changes
Really? Because I have never seen anyone say Blizzard is catering to the casuals...
On March 13 2014 11:06 Parcelleus wrote: David Kim is correct, stop whining and get better (basically). However, given how many foreigners love to whine, I expect the whining to continue.
Thanks David, keep to your guns and listen to korean top pros.
AKA some of THE whiniest players out there?
It's not a balance issue for many in the community anyway, it's a fun/enjoyability, no amount of 'get better' fixes that
Half the people are saying "Blizz is catering to the casuals and don't even care about competitive play" and the rest say the opposite. They just can't win. They try their best and they just get flamed, so they'd rather be conservative with their changes
Really? Because I have never seen anyone say Blizzard is catering to the casuals...
Clearly you don't remember when they put the worker counts above the town halls. Or when they changed up the command icons.
On March 13 2014 06:35 andrewlt wrote: Not sure why SC2 team is like this when all other Blizzard teams view expansions as a hard reset starting from BW. BW, LoD, TFT, all WoW expansions and RoS contain drastic changes. HotS had fewest changes of any Blizz expansion pack to date, aside from the Sierra created Diablo 1 xpac. BW/TFT had major e-sports scenes so it's not like SC2 is unique in this regard.
I'm tempted to agree with you, but at the same time I'm not. WoW, Diablo, etc. aren't really solid comparisons because RTS games are different, but as far as WC3 is concerned...
TFT did bring a lot to RoC (one hero for each race, racial shop, some maps I believe, the EXP threshold on creeps, etc..) but the core elements of the game were the same. I wouldn't go as far as to call TFT a hard reset of RoC, but it was definitely an astonishing improvement that quickly let TFT become competitive. It's true that HotS was nowhere near that.
The sad truth is, Blizzard was never a company known for making bold changes. Don't get me wrong, SC, BW, RoC and TFT were all revolutions in their own rights in terms of gaming, but even in those games, Blizzard never made any major change to the core gameplay post-release. The same is happening with SC2, and while people were already whining on WC3 about Blizzard not making big changes, it is becoming a bigger issue now because you have other popular games doing huge tweaks to their gameplay to keep the players interested and to freshen things up.
DK once again didn't really provide any interesting answer. It's rather clear now that they do not intend to do any sort of overhaul, SC2 will stay vaguely the same. It's truly weird, as when you compare it to WC3, the expansions really do not hold up in terms of improvements and changes... I feel like Blizzard has grown too cautious, and wishes to stay away from unexplored grounds as much as possible.
How is making warp in, forcefields, free units etc not bold change?
Its an expansion pack, if it's truly problematic, then obviously there will be changes. But asking for a complete rework of these mechanics is unrealistic, because like they said, the problem is not the mechanics itself, it's the lack of options to deal with forcefields etc
Warp in and forcefield are not fun to watch? Look at one of the best game this year has, hero vs jd game 5 iem.
How big is the pro scene really going to be when LotV drops? SC2 isn't exactly growing. The people who are still playing right now who are happy enough to play it are going to play whatever LotV is. People who don't like it will just move on, as most people already have.
On March 13 2014 11:45 lichter wrote: Team games could be balanced with maps. Instead of current map design, someone should try a "moba-like" map where each player on the team gets a "lane" that slowly collapses into an open map after X minutes. Basically it's 2/3/4 1v1s on the same map in the early and mid game before it becomes all out war in the late game. This will discourage most (but not all) early game rushes and add an interesting dynamic to the game.
There are maps that are kind of like that, but the more you isolate players from the rest of the team the more potent it becomes to just double rush one of the players. When you coutner that by making the bases invulnerabe for early rushes then you promote a turtle style that would be even more boring imo.
I think some of the newer 2v2 maps do a very good job in creating interesting team games. For 3v3 and 4v4 I could imagine army size restrictions to work really well. If you have a 100 food limit it would promote aggressive play and fast tech.
I think most of the complains about team games come from player who think early aggression is somehow dishonorable when it is just how you have to play that game mode.
On March 13 2014 12:38 hariooo wrote: How big is the pro scene really going to be when LotV drops? SC2 isn't exactly growing. The people who are still playing right now who are happy enough to play it are going to play whatever LotV is. People who don't like it will just move on, as most people already have.
I don't think that's as dramatic as people make it out to be. There will be a big boost when lotv comes out, then it will slowly die off and then we get WC4. I'm completely fine with that. Nothing can or should live forever.
On March 13 2014 11:06 Parcelleus wrote: David Kim is correct, stop whining and get better (basically). However, given how many foreigners love to whine, I expect the whining to continue.
Thanks David, keep to your guns and listen to korean top pros.
AKA some of THE whiniest players out there?
It's not a balance issue for many in the community anyway, it's a fun/enjoyability, no amount of 'get better' fixes that
Half the people are saying "Blizz is catering to the casuals and don't even care about competitive play" and the rest say the opposite. They just can't win. They try their best and they just get flamed, so they'd rather be conservative with their changes
Really? Because I have never seen anyone say Blizzard is catering to the casuals...
Clearly you don't remember when they put the worker counts above the town halls. Or when they changed up the command icons.
Oh you mean that change that took place over a year ago..definitely has a lot of weight with balance discussion today
I think the fact that you had to go so far into the past to come up with an example only proves my point..
On March 13 2014 11:45 lichter wrote: Team games could be balanced with maps. Instead of current map design, someone should try a "moba-like" map where each player on the team gets a "lane" that slowly collapses into an open map after X minutes. Basically it's 2/3/4 1v1s on the same map in the early and mid game before it becomes all out war in the late game. This will discourage most (but not all) early game rushes and add an interesting dynamic to the game.
There are maps that are kind of like that, but the more you isolate players from the rest of the team the more potent it becomes to just double rush one of the players. When you coutner that by making the bases invulnerabe for early rushes then you promote a turtle style that would be even more boring imo.
I think some of the newer 2v2 maps do a very good job in creating interesting team games. For 3v3 and 4v4 I could imagine army size restrictions to work really well. If you have a 100 food limit it would promote aggressive play and fast tech.
I think most of the complains about team games come from player who think early aggression is somehow dishonorable when it is just how you have to play that game mode.
Each lane is isolated enough so that double rushes aren't as feasible, but 1v1 cheeses are still viable. A long rush distance to do a double rush could dissuade it enough that only the most spectacular of builds will work.
Because the game is balanced for 1v1, approaching team map design similar to 1v1 (main base, natural, third, open area, etc) is a mistake. The dynamics are naturally different, so the map structure has to be different.
Back in 2010 I had no problem holding off 2v2 rushes as a 1base Zerg at the top of the ladder. Pretty sure it should be easier now.
On March 13 2014 12:38 hariooo wrote: How big is the pro scene really going to be when LotV drops? SC2 isn't exactly growing. The people who are still playing right now who are happy enough to play it are going to play whatever LotV is. People who don't like it will just move on, as most people already have.
I don't think that's as dramatic as people make it out to be. There will be a big boost when lotv comes out, then it will slowly die off and then we get WC4. I'm completely fine with that. Nothing can or should live forever.
Let's be real there's no WC4 coming. No way Blizzard is going to pursue another title that doesn't use the Hearthstone or HeroesotS business model. And that makes me sad because it kind of kills the RTS genre.
And another thing. BW might not have lived forever but Blizzard personally pushed it out. BW died not because it wasn't fun anymore or of any other "natural cause" (well match-fixing didn't help), but Blizzard pushed Kespa to support the new game. It's their right as a business but BW could definitely have lived a long time. Its current resurrection in Korea is evidence for that.
On March 13 2014 11:06 Parcelleus wrote: David Kim is correct, stop whining and get better (basically). However, given how many foreigners love to whine, I expect the whining to continue.
Thanks David, keep to your guns and listen to korean top pros.
AKA some of THE whiniest players out there?
It's not a balance issue for many in the community anyway, it's a fun/enjoyability, no amount of 'get better' fixes that
Half the people are saying "Blizz is catering to the casuals and don't even care about competitive play" and the rest say the opposite. They just can't win. They try their best and they just get flamed, so they'd rather be conservative with their changes
Really? Because I have never seen anyone say Blizzard is catering to the casuals...
Clearly you don't remember when they put the worker counts above the town halls. Or when they changed up the command icons.
Oh you mean that change that took place over a year ago..definitely has a lot of weight with balance discussion today
I think the fact that you had to go so far into the past to come up with an example only proves my point..
You mean slightly more than a year ago? That's really not that far.
On March 13 2014 12:52 LastDance wrote: So disappointed at these answers. it's like he isn't even trying to understand the community.
Disagreed. The most vocal PART of the community are the people who think SC2 should be like BW. Not everyone in the community agrees, I dont. I think DK is aware of this, hence his consistent position (SC2 isnt trying or want to be BW).
What David said about No Fly zones could really help team games and make them more mainstream. Also adding base recall as a special 15min cool down on teams only so you don't get that BS stuff where all teams rush units to 1 guy and kill that guy then it goes to 2v3, now your buddies can warp in and help you quickly.
On March 13 2014 12:38 hariooo wrote: How big is the pro scene really going to be when LotV drops? SC2 isn't exactly growing. The people who are still playing right now who are happy enough to play it are going to play whatever LotV is. People who don't like it will just move on, as most people already have.
I don't think that's as dramatic as people make it out to be. There will be a big boost when lotv comes out, then it will slowly die off and then we get WC4. I'm completely fine with that. Nothing can or should live forever.
Let's be real there's no WC4 coming. No way Blizzard is going to pursue another title that doesn't use the Hearthstone or HeroesotS business model. And that makes me sad because it kind of kills the RTS genre.
And another thing. BW might not have lived forever but Blizzard personally pushed it out. BW died not because it wasn't fun anymore or of any other "natural cause" (well match-fixing didn't help), but Blizzard pushed Kespa to support the new game. It's their right as a business but BW could definitely have lived a long time. Its current resurrection in Korea is evidence for that.
Man HeroesotS is a bad way to call that game... just call it Heroes, HEotS, or something else :/
And how do you know there's no WC4 coming?
They are a multi-team game development studio. They are working on Project Titan (if its in development), WoW expansions, Diablo 3, Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm, and Legacy of the Void. Nothing says they will not eventually go back to the Warcraft RTS roots. When they go back to the development of another RTS, they have to go back in with another business model so that it stays with the current gaming trends. Blizzard has already bent SC2 as much as they can currently by making it "free-to-play" as much as possible without going against their business plan. Probably when WoW has run its course and makes way for whatever Project Titan is, probably by 2016 or 2017, and LotV is out, people will probably hear news about a WC4 possibly being developed.
On March 13 2014 06:29 _SpiRaL_ wrote: Another disappointing interview showing David Kim doesn't understand the community or even the game.
There is a strawman Starcraft player like the average guy in the midwest American TV viewer that doesn't actually exist in any significant number to even consider, yet they base decisions around these mythological people.
Longest SH game recently was 37 mins, really?
Doesn't want to mess with core mechanics because big changes are worse than small ones without making any analytical points whatsoever to say why other than using a dreadfully irrelevant example. Claiming wholesale changes that almost everyone agrees are required are simply what mods are for. Man, just such a terribly disappointing interview that just sucked all remaining vestiges of hope for LoTV right out the window.
Thanks David.
Time for the community to carry the torch since Blizzard do not seem competent enough.
He's been GM with all three races on NA, which I'll wager is better than you, and requires a pretty extensive knowledge of the game. He's still very high masters/GM. If he wasn't disallowed from competition (being on the balance team of the game) he'd probably be one of the best foreigners. You should probably take a look into what you're talking about before you spout uninformed shit.
On March 13 2014 11:06 Parcelleus wrote: David Kim is correct, stop whining and get better (basically). However, given how many foreigners love to whine, I expect the whining to continue.
Thanks David, keep to your guns and listen to korean top pros.
AKA some of THE whiniest players out there?
It's not a balance issue for many in the community anyway, it's a fun/enjoyability, no amount of 'get better' fixes that
Half the people are saying "Blizz is catering to the casuals and don't even care about competitive play" and the rest say the opposite. They just can't win. They try their best and they just get flamed, so they'd rather be conservative with their changes
Really? Because I have never seen anyone say Blizzard is catering to the casuals...
Clearly you don't remember when they put the worker counts above the town halls. Or when they changed up the command icons.
Oh you mean that change that took place over a year ago..definitely has a lot of weight with balance discussion today
I think the fact that you had to go so far into the past to come up with an example only proves my point..
You mean slightly more than a year ago? That's really not that far.
Umm..yes it is. Especially in the video game world. And especially for a game that's only been out (including WoL beta) for just over 4 years.
On March 13 2014 07:30 Beastyqt wrote: Typical answers from him like from every interview since 2010.
Q: "X is op, are you going to do anything about it?" A: "We are looking into and and we feel we need to see more games so we can actually say that is op." - after something being broken for more than 6 months.
Q: "Are you going to add normal battle net or daily tournaments that was done 10 years ago in WC3 and SC1?" A: "I mean we are currently working on it as our priority for next expansion and should be up by 2017, because technology isn't there yet."
Q: "Swarm hosts are op can you fix them?" A: "We talked to a lot of pros and decided to make completely useless change that doesn't even come close to fixing this problem, because we have no idea what we are doing anyway."
I don't understand how can someone be so clueless and stubborn after 4 years of SC2, every interview same "answers", no solution and no plans for future changes.
Considering protoss and terran manage to win games all the time with colossus voidray storm or raven tank deathballs, it's pretty obvious that zerg needs free units lategame to even keep up. What that means is that to patch swarhmosts without screwing zerg in the lategame means patching colossi/voidrays, ravens, and tanks. Guess what that screws up? Literally every matchup but zvz. But no, the genii mid plat of TL know everything about balance and have flawless and revolutionary ideas like reducing the spawn rate of locusts that will totally change the entirety of sc2 mechanics and instantly spawn us back to the glorious good ol' brood war days, right guys? Right.
On March 13 2014 12:52 LastDance wrote: So disappointed at these answers. it's like he isn't even trying to understand the community.
Disagreed. The most vocal PART of the community are the people who think SC2 should be like BW. Not everyone in the community agrees, I dont. I think DK is aware of this, hence his consistent position (SC2 isnt trying or want to be BW).
Its funny, of all these people saying the fundamentals of SC2 are flawed, hardly any of them also say that the game should be more like BW. I don't have to want SC2 to be like BW to think that its fundamental mechanics could use some tweaking. I never played BW, never watched BW, and yet somehow I am able to comprehend there are some changes that need to be made to make this game better. And to your point that SC2 isn't trying or doesn't want to be BW, that's automatically a bit naive and wrong to a certain extent..if Blizzard wanted to make a game entirely separated from BW they should't have named it Starcraft at all. By continuing the series, whether they want it to or not, this game builds on the last, and will forever be connected to it. It doesn't have to be the exact same game, but lets not pretend that the two installments are completely independent of one another, because that is impossible.
It's funny how predictable his behavior is. He literally says the exact same things every-time that affirms that he doesn't care about the players and isn't changing anything.
On March 13 2014 10:54 avilo wrote: Swarmhosts are not necessary vs mech in the first place - the viper alone allows Zerg to fight against turtle meching Terrans.
a terran who's not good enough to play in wcs explaining how he knows more about zerg than zergs who are good enough to play in wcs, buffered by a 1000-page theorycraft essay with repeated references to how you literally invented the concept of constructing a raven
i would know this is avilo even without seeing the name
I wasn't aware people weren't allowed to know things about other races than just the one they play.
You've helped me see the light.
yup, that was definitely my point, it couldn't have been that avilo is a blowhard troll with a history of raging on forums about things above his skill level
You happen to be a Zerg player, so in context of that comment you can't call bias from him because you're obviously responding defend your race from nerfs. Furthermore, if you're going to bring up skill level, Avilo happens to be above your skill level because he plays Z at GM.
On March 13 2014 14:33 DemigodcelpH wrote: It's funny how predictable his behavior is. He literally says the exact same things every-time that affirms that he doesn't care about the players and isn't changing anything.
On March 13 2014 10:54 avilo wrote: Swarmhosts are not necessary vs mech in the first place - the viper alone allows Zerg to fight against turtle meching Terrans.
a terran who's not good enough to play in wcs explaining how he knows more about zerg than zergs who are good enough to play in wcs, buffered by a 1000-page theorycraft essay with repeated references to how you literally invented the concept of constructing a raven
i would know this is avilo even without seeing the name
I wasn't aware people weren't allowed to know things about other races than just the one they play.
You've helped me see the light.
yup, that was definitely my point, it couldn't have been that avilo is a blowhard troll with a history of raging on forums about things above his skill level
You happen to be a Zerg player, so in context of that comment you can't call bias from him because you're obviously responding defend your race from nerfs. Furthermore, if you're going to bring up skill level, Avilo happens to be above your skill level because he plays Z at GM.
On March 13 2014 06:29 _SpiRaL_ wrote: Another disappointing interview showing David Kim doesn't understand the community or even the game.
There is a strawman Starcraft player like the average guy in the midwest American TV viewer that doesn't actually exist in any significant number to even consider, yet they base decisions around these mythological people.
Longest SH game recently was 37 mins, really?
Doesn't want to mess with core mechanics because big changes are worse than small ones without making any analytical points whatsoever to say why other than using a dreadfully irrelevant example. Claiming wholesale changes that almost everyone agrees are required are simply what mods are for. Man, just such a terribly disappointing interview that just sucked all remaining vestiges of hope for LoTV right out the window.
Thanks David.
Time for the community to carry the torch since Blizzard do not seem competent enough.
He's been GM with all three races on NA, which I'll wager is better than you, and requires a pretty extensive knowledge of the game. He's still very high masters/GM. If he wasn't disallowed from competition (being on the balance team of the game) he'd probably be one of the best foreigners. You should probably take a look into what you're talking about before you spout uninformed shit.
I got 100 bucks here saying you are wrong , I doubt DK is higher than plat on na.
Other than his word , there is no evidence to support these claims......and his balance changes are certainly not something a GM would do.
On March 13 2014 07:02 Survivor61316 wrote: I wonder how difficult it would be to start a petition to get DK fired/demoted..? He is choking the life out of this game one step at a time due to sheer incompetence. Free units have a cost? 10+ Carriers a-moving isn't fun to watch, but 20+ SH chilling in the middle of the map not moving at all is? They will only put a change through if its "completely awesome" (gotta love corporate buzzwords)??
you obviously have no idea what youre talking about... it costs money to make swarm hosts. hence why locusts cost money. it is their attack. you dont get charged every time a marine or colossus fires an attack do you? the only contrast to this is the carrier. but the carrier is an air ship and the DPS is nuts. not to mention they arent on the ground really and fly super fast so fungaling them are super hard.
and if they change swarm host, colossi void ray now cannot be fought against. not to mention, protoss gets their third base so fast now with msc that toss's 160-200 army of colossi/gateway units will crush any type of composition zerg throws at em (if scouted correctly). the swarm hosts helps level that playing field.
On March 13 2014 06:29 _SpiRaL_ wrote: Another disappointing interview showing David Kim doesn't understand the community or even the game.
There is a strawman Starcraft player like the average guy in the midwest American TV viewer that doesn't actually exist in any significant number to even consider, yet they base decisions around these mythological people.
Longest SH game recently was 37 mins, really?
Doesn't want to mess with core mechanics because big changes are worse than small ones without making any analytical points whatsoever to say why other than using a dreadfully irrelevant example. Claiming wholesale changes that almost everyone agrees are required are simply what mods are for. Man, just such a terribly disappointing interview that just sucked all remaining vestiges of hope for LoTV right out the window.
Thanks David.
Time for the community to carry the torch since Blizzard do not seem competent enough.
He's been GM with all three races on NA, which I'll wager is better than you, and requires a pretty extensive knowledge of the game. He's still very high masters/GM. If he wasn't disallowed from competition (being on the balance team of the game) he'd probably be one of the best foreigners. You should probably take a look into what you're talking about before you spout uninformed shit.
Dude shut up. You have absolutely no proof for any of this crap. I sincerely doubt he is in GM at all, and would guess that he is only a mid-masters player at best, which is hardly an accomplishment (hell my roommate is mid-masters). The last information I can find anywhere regarding his league rank is from June 2011 when he was top 500. In fact, he hasn't even been ranked on his main account for at least the past two seasons..so why don't you get your facts straight first dipshit.
And you think someone who is only top masters would be one of the best foreigners?? Can I have some of what you're smoking please?
On March 13 2014 06:29 _SpiRaL_ wrote: Another disappointing interview showing David Kim doesn't understand the community or even the game.
There is a strawman Starcraft player like the average guy in the midwest American TV viewer that doesn't actually exist in any significant number to even consider, yet they base decisions around these mythological people.
Longest SH game recently was 37 mins, really?
Doesn't want to mess with core mechanics because big changes are worse than small ones without making any analytical points whatsoever to say why other than using a dreadfully irrelevant example. Claiming wholesale changes that almost everyone agrees are required are simply what mods are for. Man, just such a terribly disappointing interview that just sucked all remaining vestiges of hope for LoTV right out the window.
Thanks David.
Time for the community to carry the torch since Blizzard do not seem competent enough.
He's been GM with all three races on NA, which I'll wager is better than you, and requires a pretty extensive knowledge of the game. He's still very high masters/GM. If he wasn't disallowed from competition (being on the balance team of the game) he'd probably be one of the best foreigners. You should probably take a look into what you're talking about before you spout uninformed shit.
I got 100 bucks here saying you are wrong , I doubt DK is higher than plat on na.
Other than his word , there is no evidence to support these claims......and his balance changes are certainly not something a GM would do.
i will definitely make that bet with you. you know he was a BW pro right? idiot. stop flaming a person just because he doesn't make every change that YOU want. he talks to alot of pros. now get off his back.
On March 13 2014 06:29 _SpiRaL_ wrote: Another disappointing interview showing David Kim doesn't understand the community or even the game.
There is a strawman Starcraft player like the average guy in the midwest American TV viewer that doesn't actually exist in any significant number to even consider, yet they base decisions around these mythological people.
Longest SH game recently was 37 mins, really?
Doesn't want to mess with core mechanics because big changes are worse than small ones without making any analytical points whatsoever to say why other than using a dreadfully irrelevant example. Claiming wholesale changes that almost everyone agrees are required are simply what mods are for. Man, just such a terribly disappointing interview that just sucked all remaining vestiges of hope for LoTV right out the window.
Thanks David.
Time for the community to carry the torch since Blizzard do not seem competent enough.
He's been GM with all three races on NA, which I'll wager is better than you, and requires a pretty extensive knowledge of the game. He's still very high masters/GM. If he wasn't disallowed from competition (being on the balance team of the game) he'd probably be one of the best foreigners. You should probably take a look into what you're talking about before you spout uninformed shit.
For the Carrier, we believe the issue is that Carriers are mostly just A move capital ships.
Hey David Kim, guess what? The community, especially protoss players have been asking for Carriers to be micro'ed since the beginning of Wings of Liberty.
If you know this issue, then why haven't you fixed it? it's been nearly 4 years.
For the Carrier, we believe the issue is that Carriers are mostly just A move capital ships.
Hey David Kim, guess what? The community, especially protoss players have been asking for Carriers to be micro'ed since the beginning of Wings of Liberty.
If you know this issue, then why haven't you fixed it? it's been nearly 4 years.
I thougth he addressed that video? Or was it the video that explained stop-micro?
For the Carrier, we believe the issue is that Carriers are mostly just A move capital ships.
Hey David Kim, guess what? The community, especially protoss players have been asking for Carriers to be micro'ed since the beginning of Wings of Liberty.
If you know this issue, then why haven't you fixed it? it's been nearly 4 years.
I thougth he addressed that video? Or was it the video that explained stop-micro?
They implemented the leash range changes NoNy talked about, but I believe they were implemented poorly. However, they have said they are looking at different ideas for the Carrier for LOTV. Something decent might come out of the carrier yet.
Same answers to the same questions of the last 4 years. LoTV is going to add nothing new or give the game the shake up it needs to be entertaining to play and watch, i would be surprised if 50% of the current player base cough up for it unless they sell it for about $15 or less.
I find his answer about ZvT very strange. He doesn't think the problem is SH?
I guess there are some people who actually want to turtle behind planetary fortress and mass ravens and only then try to do something like attacking but I think that main reason we see such games is actually the SH. If zerg's economy is not crippled early in the game with helion runbys there will be hardly any timing for mech ground army to exploit. SH not only deals damage but more importantly physically blocks ground movement of units, not to mention its long range on creep. This all makes it impossible to reach zerg base because you will never be able to out DPS the locusts fast enough.
And since both sides enter into this passive game, there are no trades and fights that would cause any bigger losses than occasional unit. Combined with the easiness of obtaining 4 bases means that is all you need to get that super strong terran late game army with bc-ravens-vikings (like Mvp had vs. Firecake on Frost).
But again it all starts from SH and how ground army can't really move out against higher SH numbers. And since SH are bad in low numbers,there will always be a lot of them when zerg chooses to go for them.
standard policitical answers, blizzard still thinks customers are bunch of sheeps. Whatever... they'll sell thegame, but atleast they killed the franchise, we cannot expect anymore harm from them. so glad they didn't get to do dota/lol.
On March 13 2014 03:28 Naniwa wrote: my team gave me a great contract, its not about money for those who wonder. i am taking a break untill i get motivation back but if that doesnt happen then ofcourse i wont continue. i just dont like the game anymore and i feel like blizzard will take a super long time to fix it. i am tired of complaining about it so instead i just choose this instead
Yeah, typical corporate style of thinking. Don't take risks anywhere because if you screw up you can get fired, while if you succeed you won't get raise anyways (or anything else, really...).
I don't think SC2 is gonna change until the corporate culture in Blizzard changes. All hope in Starbow, seems like... I would love something big (like IEM, let's say) to switch to Starbow instead of HoTS. Or, maybe not... It might be just the same corporate culture. If so it could paralyze any changes to Starbow and givie us more AMAs like this one instead :-/.
That's it, guys. If nothing big happens there is no hope. I think we should all start playing Starbow now.
I don't think it's really David Kim's fault as he's only there to balance the game. Its all a result of dustin browder carrying over his red alert experience. Check out the previous games he worked on before sc2 and you'll see that they are full of gimmicky, shallow units or what he would call "cool".
He had very little understanding of how to actually design units that are multidimensional instead of just big beefy units with a powerful auto attack.
On March 13 2014 16:29 Qwerty85 wrote: I find his answer about ZvT very strange. He doesn't think the problem is SH?
I guess there are some people who actually want to turtle behind planetary fortress and mass ravens and only then try to do something like attacking but I think that main reason we see such games is actually the SH. If zerg's economy is not crippled early in the game with helion runbys there will be hardly any timing for mech ground army to exploit. SH not only deals damage but more importantly physically blocks ground movement of units, not to mention its long range on creep. This all makes it impossible to reach zerg base because you will never be able to out DPS the locusts fast enough.
And since both sides enter into this passive game, there are no trades and fights that would cause any bigger losses than occasional unit. Combined with the easiness of obtaining 4 bases means that is all you need to get that super strong terran late game army with bc-ravens-vikings (like Mvp had vs. Firecake on Frost).
But again it all starts from SH and how ground army can't really move out against higher SH numbers. And since SH are bad in low numbers,there will always be a lot of them when zerg chooses to go for them.
The fish stinks from both ends. It starts before the swarm host, which is necessary to combat tank/viking combos. You're not going to do that with with roach, hydra, ultra based play around the max. mutalisks are great but eventually the terran can stabilize against them if he wants and it would be even easier if the terran didnt have to think about defending SHs. And even when you can keep the momentum wih mutas, you still build SHs with them to prevent the Terran from just pushing his way to victory with thor/tank/viking combos.
Also yes, there are players that turtle behind their PFs regardless. It's not like Zergs first take on developing a standard vs Mech was to sit behind spores and locusts forever. But that is what you have to do unless you did massive damage early on.
"For ZvT, we believe this sort of stalemate happens not because of Swarm Hosts, but mostly because of the strength of Mass Ravens in the late game."
Thank god I'm not playing this game anymore.. They are ging nerf Ravens into oblivion so we are back to late WoL days. I feel so sorry for all Terrans who are still trying to play mech.
Baffling. How can you talk about fun and enjoyment as if these are meaningful things to you, when you won't remove/revamp a unit that NO ONE enjoys playing with/against/or watching. Moreover, if you can struggle so much to fix mech and balance things like blink stalkers, why would you have the audacity to think you can balance free units, even if they were enjoyable.
A fun idea to me is admitting that maybe you need a new person in the balance team.
David Kim is the expert having QA's without giving any more information than what was said at the release party of Wings of Liberty.
It's the same thing over and over again and I don't understand why he even gives a QA. It's the same story each time. The community (whether it's the vocal minority, hardcore or majority) wants to see the game changed, hoping that the game will grow and become as big as BW was.They want the epic feeling from GSL 1 when Fruitdealer won.
David Kim and his crew are happy because the game is OK and have earned Blizzard enough money as it is. No need for additional risks alienating the remainder of the players.
And these QAs are just a pain to read.
TLDR: They are happy with core mechanics, some tweaks will be made, don't expect any big changes, more rocks could be added.
On March 13 2014 17:56 aTnClouD wrote: What else did you expect. If he was good at his job or even cared a little to develop a great game it wouldn't have been as it is now.
Wtf are you saying? David Kim is a genius in my opinion... He's always one step ahead of everyone here it seems. I've always agreed with DK and will continue to do so unless i see changes in the game that are retarded (for example like changing the core mechanics/gameplay). So far this game is awesome and i've been playing it very happily since the start of WoL. I tried Starbow and its a fun game, but i feel like there are a lot of people who just want the same feeling they had when they played BW, and Starbow is the closest they can get to that.. But then there are people like me, the modern SC2 player, who doesn't give a fuck about a dead game like BW.. Its old, and its out.. and SC2 is the new shit.. So deal with it and stop living in the past! Shoutout to David Kim! You're awesome! Keep doing what you're doing!
On March 13 2014 17:56 aTnClouD wrote: What else did you expect. If he was good at his job or even cared a little to develop a great game it wouldn't have been as it is now.
I can't believe that it's a case of ineptitude at such a huge company. It feels more like they are critically underfunded, like a couple of guys that know nothing of programming and can only do some minor changes in the editor as far as multiplayer goes.
Incontrol said it at one time, Blizzard in regards to SC2 feels, like a very small and noobish company that can't do big things at all, and it takes them inexplicable large time frames to do the smallest of changes.
On March 13 2014 06:29 _SpiRaL_ wrote: Another disappointing interview showing David Kim doesn't understand the community or even the game.
There is a strawman Starcraft player like the average guy in the midwest American TV viewer that doesn't actually exist in any significant number to even consider, yet they base decisions around these mythological people.
Longest SH game recently was 37 mins, really?
Doesn't want to mess with core mechanics because big changes are worse than small ones without making any analytical points whatsoever to say why other than using a dreadfully irrelevant example. Claiming wholesale changes that almost everyone agrees are required are simply what mods are for. Man, just such a terribly disappointing interview that just sucked all remaining vestiges of hope for LoTV right out the window.
Thanks David.
Time for the community to carry the torch since Blizzard do not seem competent enough.
He's been GM with all three races on NA, which I'll wager is better than you, and requires a pretty extensive knowledge of the game. He's still very high masters/GM. If he wasn't disallowed from competition (being on the balance team of the game) he'd probably be one of the best foreigners. You should probably take a look into what you're talking about before you spout uninformed shit.
I got 100 bucks here saying you are wrong , I doubt DK is higher than plat on na.
Other than his word , there is no evidence to support these claims......and his balance changes are certainly not something a GM would do.
i will definitely make that bet with you. you know he was a BW pro right? idiot. stop flaming a person just because he doesn't make every change that YOU want. he talks to alot of pros. now get off his back.
You're on.
BW pro doesn't equal "must be masters with all 3 races" , I'm just saying there is no evidence to support it , and the changes the pros seems to talk about and suggest make MUCH more sense than what he does , indicating that he is no where near their level.....so all we have is his past + self claims , which is heavily doubtful.
When did I mention the changes I wanted ? you're reading too much into this dude , get off his back ? I ( and everyone else ) paid around 120 US dollars for this game , I can ride his back as much as I want.
Ok, this Q&A sucked. DK basically said, HotS is perfect, we are not going to change anything of note... well DK because of this policy SC2 has lost many buyers and players and viewers and LotV without major changes is not going to bring them back!!
This is just another proof that Starbow can only save Starcraft.
TLDR: They are happy with core mechanics, some tweaks will be made, don't expect any big changes, more rocks could be added. Bunker build time reduced by 5s.
On March 13 2014 17:56 aTnClouD wrote: What else did you expect. If he was good at his job or even cared a little to develop a great game it wouldn't have been as it is now.
Wtf are you saying? David Kim is a genius in my opinion...He's always one step ahead of everyone here it seems. I've always agreed with DK and will continue to do so unless i see changes in the game that are retarded (for example like changing the core mechanics/gameplay). So far this game is awesome and i've been playing it very happily since the start of WoL. I tried Starbow and its a fun game, but i feel like there are a lot of people who just want the same feeling they had when they played BW, and Starbow is the closest they can get to that.. But then there are people like me, the modern SC2 player, who doesn't give a fuck about a dead game like BW.. Its old, and its out.. and SC2 is the new shit.. So deal with it and stop living in the past! Shoutout to David Kim! You're awesome! Keep doing what you're doing!
Do you also grip david kim's balls while you're licking it?
On March 13 2014 16:29 Qwerty85 wrote: I find his answer about ZvT very strange. He doesn't think the problem is SH?
I guess there are some people who actually want to turtle behind planetary fortress and mass ravens and only then try to do something like attacking but I think that main reason we see such games is actually the SH. If zerg's economy is not crippled early in the game with helion runbys there will be hardly any timing for mech ground army to exploit. SH not only deals damage but more importantly physically blocks ground movement of units, not to mention its long range on creep. This all makes it impossible to reach zerg base because you will never be able to out DPS the locusts fast enough.
And since both sides enter into this passive game, there are no trades and fights that would cause any bigger losses than occasional unit. Combined with the easiness of obtaining 4 bases means that is all you need to get that super strong terran late game army with bc-ravens-vikings (like Mvp had vs. Firecake on Frost).
But again it all starts from SH and how ground army can't really move out against higher SH numbers. And since SH are bad in low numbers,there will always be a lot of them when zerg chooses to go for them.
The fish stinks from both ends. It starts before the swarm host, which is necessary to combat tank/viking combos. You're not going to do that with with roach, hydra, ultra based play around the max. mutalisks are great but eventually the terran can stabilize against them if he wants and it would be even easier if the terran didnt have to think about defending SHs. And even when you can keep the momentum wih mutas, you still build SHs with them to prevent the Terran from just pushing his way to victory with thor/tank/viking combos.
Also yes, there are players that turtle behind their PFs regardless. It's not like Zergs first take on developing a standard vs Mech was to sit behind spores and locusts forever. But that is what you have to do unless you did massive damage early on.
I didn't say the problem is exclusively in SH but saying that SH is not a problem and raven is is not an accurate assessment of the mech TvZ from David Kim, at least in my opinion.
Also I saw some zergs deal with mech without going for SH play. There are other ways to deal with mech but the problem is they are not as reliable as going into SH. For example, if you watch Innovation's or Supernova's stream, they often mech against zerg and Korean zergs often go for a muta play. So you basically can deal with it either by outmaneuvering your opponent (like with mutas) or with using your racial advantages like tech switches. On those mentioned streams I saw zergs who would go for some early roach aggression against terran when mech is still weak (and that is also a factor in mech TvZ - the fact that mech can't really move out before at least 150 supply) forcing terran into tanks and then doing muta switches etc. I am pretty sure most zergs are happy to trade roaches for thors or tanks.
But as I said, SH is most reliable way of playing against mech. At the same time, terran mech army gets strong at around 150-160 supply, doing any pushes with a couple of tanks and thors will just get shut down easily by zerg. So by the time mech is ready to move out, zerg already has enough SH out to stop that timing (if critical damage isn't dealt to zerg early on) and then we go into that turtle and sky terran.
But blaming it on the terran and the raven and acting like all terrans choose to turtle into sky terran instead of being forced into it by game design is both unfair and wrong.
Honestly I think that nerfing SH and buffing infestor's anti-mech abilities like NP or IT would be much better because we would probably see more trades in the mid game but infestors could be a valuable addition in dealing with late game sky terran army. Of course some sweet spot would need to be found to avoid making them as strong as they were in WoL.
I would prefer that to simply nerfing the raven as DK obviously plans if we start to see more and more long mech games.
On March 13 2014 05:42 davidjayhawk wrote: ... the soft 3 base income cap ...
What does he mean by this? Is it the fact that Protoss and especially Terran can survive on a 3 base economy for 25+ Minutes in a game and still put out a sizeable army?
On March 13 2014 16:29 Qwerty85 wrote: I find his answer about ZvT very strange. He doesn't think the problem is SH?
I guess there are some people who actually want to turtle behind planetary fortress and mass ravens and only then try to do something like attacking but I think that main reason we see such games is actually the SH. If zerg's economy is not crippled early in the game with helion runbys there will be hardly any timing for mech ground army to exploit. SH not only deals damage but more importantly physically blocks ground movement of units, not to mention its long range on creep. This all makes it impossible to reach zerg base because you will never be able to out DPS the locusts fast enough.
And since both sides enter into this passive game, there are no trades and fights that would cause any bigger losses than occasional unit. Combined with the easiness of obtaining 4 bases means that is all you need to get that super strong terran late game army with bc-ravens-vikings (like Mvp had vs. Firecake on Frost).
But again it all starts from SH and how ground army can't really move out against higher SH numbers. And since SH are bad in low numbers,there will always be a lot of them when zerg chooses to go for them.
The fish stinks from both ends. It starts before the swarm host, which is necessary to combat tank/viking combos. You're not going to do that with with roach, hydra, ultra based play around the max. mutalisks are great but eventually the terran can stabilize against them if he wants and it would be even easier if the terran didnt have to think about defending SHs. And even when you can keep the momentum wih mutas, you still build SHs with them to prevent the Terran from just pushing his way to victory with thor/tank/viking combos.
Also yes, there are players that turtle behind their PFs regardless. It's not like Zergs first take on developing a standard vs Mech was to sit behind spores and locusts forever. But that is what you have to do unless you did massive damage early on.
I didn't say the problem is exclusively in SH but saying that SH is not a problem and raven is is not an accurate assessment of the mech TvZ from David Kim, at least in my opinion.
Also I saw some zergs deal with mech without going for SH play. There are other ways to deal with mech but the problem is they are not as reliable as going into SH. For example, if you watch Innovation's or Supernova's stream, they often mech against zerg and Korean zergs often go for a muta play. So you basically can deal with it either by outmaneuvering your opponent (like with mutas) or with using your racial advantages like tech switches. On those mentioned streams I saw zergs who would go for some early roach aggression against terran when mech is still weak (and that is also a factor in mech TvZ - the fact that mech can't really move out before at least 150 supply) forcing terran into tanks and then doing muta switches etc. I am pretty sure most zergs are happy to trade roaches for thors or tanks.
But as I said, SH is most reliable way of playing against mech. At the same time, terran mech army gets strong at around 150-160 supply, doing any pushes with a couple of tanks and thors will just get shut down easily by zerg. So by the time mech is ready to move out, zerg already has enough SH out to stop that timing (if critical damage isn't dealt to zerg early on) and then we go into that turtle and sky terran.
But blaming it on the terran and the raven and acting like all terrans choose to turtle into sky terran instead of being forced into it by game design is both unfair and wrong.
Honestly I think that nerfing SH and buffing infestor's anti-mech abilities like NP or IT would be much better because we would probably see more trades in the mid game but infestors could be a valuable addition in dealing with late game sky terran army. Of course some sweet spot would need to be found to avoid making them as strong as they were in WoL.
I would prefer that to simply nerfing the raven as DK obviously plans if we start to see more and more long mech games.
He is also not "just" blaming the Raven. He is saying that Terrans could move out, but massing more Ravens seems to be better for them. And I actually agree with him. Building 10 Ravens to the rest of your Mech+Viking army may be required against an all turtled up SH-Zerg, waiting for 30 of them so you don't need any other antiair anymore is not.
I'm not saying the SH is no problem. Again, the fish stinks from both sides. But I gotta say it pisses me off when I hear all the Terran and Protoss whine about how boring it is to play against SHs and that it is that unit alone. Meanwhile the SH is the only unit that gives you a reasonable playstyle to beat a Protoss or Terran that just sits on 3-4bases and maxes and then takes another base and builds more defense and even better units.
And yes, those mutalisk strategies are viable. 100% of the time you will still see swarm hosts in those games. Remember Innovation vs Soulkey on Heavy Rain? Heavy mutalisk play from Soulkey, what did he have at home? 15swarm hosts to prevent Innovation from just crossing the map and winning. Remember the proleague match of Mvp vs RorO? Mvp was hardpressed to mine from 3bases, RorO had 5-6bases mining. Eventually Mvp decided to move out and wiped out 3bases with hardly any losses. What did the trick eventually? remaxing on 30swarm hosts. That's what happens if you don't build SHs against Mech. The Meching player just wins when he maxes and you don't have SHs.
david kims answers are so neutral and nothingy, its actually painful to read them all. every time he does one of these community AMA's he types so much and conveys so little.
Game sucks, when are you losers going to move on already? Lol
Deathball A click mechanic killed this game a very long time ago. And if you haven't yet noticed, there is always something broken lol I suspect this is because the underlying mechanics of each race are broken, but who the hell cares at this point. DK you suck!
On March 13 2014 16:29 Qwerty85 wrote: I find his answer about ZvT very strange. He doesn't think the problem is SH?
I guess there are some people who actually want to turtle behind planetary fortress and mass ravens and only then try to do something like attacking but I think that main reason we see such games is actually the SH. If zerg's economy is not crippled early in the game with helion runbys there will be hardly any timing for mech ground army to exploit. SH not only deals damage but more importantly physically blocks ground movement of units, not to mention its long range on creep. This all makes it impossible to reach zerg base because you will never be able to out DPS the locusts fast enough.
And since both sides enter into this passive game, there are no trades and fights that would cause any bigger losses than occasional unit. Combined with the easiness of obtaining 4 bases means that is all you need to get that super strong terran late game army with bc-ravens-vikings (like Mvp had vs. Firecake on Frost).
But again it all starts from SH and how ground army can't really move out against higher SH numbers. And since SH are bad in low numbers,there will always be a lot of them when zerg chooses to go for them.
The fish stinks from both ends. It starts before the swarm host, which is necessary to combat tank/viking combos. You're not going to do that with with roach, hydra, ultra based play around the max. mutalisks are great but eventually the terran can stabilize against them if he wants and it would be even easier if the terran didnt have to think about defending SHs. And even when you can keep the momentum wih mutas, you still build SHs with them to prevent the Terran from just pushing his way to victory with thor/tank/viking combos.
Also yes, there are players that turtle behind their PFs regardless. It's not like Zergs first take on developing a standard vs Mech was to sit behind spores and locusts forever. But that is what you have to do unless you did massive damage early on.
I didn't say the problem is exclusively in SH but saying that SH is not a problem and raven is is not an accurate assessment of the mech TvZ from David Kim, at least in my opinion.
Also I saw some zergs deal with mech without going for SH play. There are other ways to deal with mech but the problem is they are not as reliable as going into SH. For example, if you watch Innovation's or Supernova's stream, they often mech against zerg and Korean zergs often go for a muta play. So you basically can deal with it either by outmaneuvering your opponent (like with mutas) or with using your racial advantages like tech switches. On those mentioned streams I saw zergs who would go for some early roach aggression against terran when mech is still weak (and that is also a factor in mech TvZ - the fact that mech can't really move out before at least 150 supply) forcing terran into tanks and then doing muta switches etc. I am pretty sure most zergs are happy to trade roaches for thors or tanks.
But as I said, SH is most reliable way of playing against mech. At the same time, terran mech army gets strong at around 150-160 supply, doing any pushes with a couple of tanks and thors will just get shut down easily by zerg. So by the time mech is ready to move out, zerg already has enough SH out to stop that timing (if critical damage isn't dealt to zerg early on) and then we go into that turtle and sky terran.
But blaming it on the terran and the raven and acting like all terrans choose to turtle into sky terran instead of being forced into it by game design is both unfair and wrong.
Honestly I think that nerfing SH and buffing infestor's anti-mech abilities like NP or IT would be much better because we would probably see more trades in the mid game but infestors could be a valuable addition in dealing with late game sky terran army. Of course some sweet spot would need to be found to avoid making them as strong as they were in WoL.
I would prefer that to simply nerfing the raven as DK obviously plans if we start to see more and more long mech games.
He is also not "just" blaming the Raven. He is saying that Terrans could move out, but massing more Ravens seems to be better for them. And I actually agree with him. Building 10 Ravens to the rest of your Mech+Viking army may be required against an all turtled up SH-Zerg, waiting for 30 of them so you don't need any other antiair anymore is not.
I am not sure when could meching terran actually move out against SH army and out DPS the locust fast enough to reach zerg base before losing expensive gas units to waves of free locusts. Tanks always need to be sieged and you need at least of 1/2 of SH numbers just to kill locusts before they do enough damage. To actually be able to cross the map and deal some real damage you would need to out DPS the locusts much faster than that which isn't possible.
Only SH game I saw recently where terran won with a mech timing was that game between Snute and Mvp on Alterzim when Mvp basically hit when Snute had only a couple of SH and the rest of supply in roaches. But in game against Firecake he never had any timing to exploit.
Mech is very weak before a certain supply is reached, apart from early game helion or helion+banshee play, you can't be out on the map and do a mech push on something like 80-100 supply because roaches would easily overwhelm that army. And then you are dead.
And I also said I agree that other choices are not reliable enough. That is why I said buffing infestor anti-mech abilities and nerfing SH would be much better for mech TvZ than nerfing the raven.
On March 13 2014 16:29 Qwerty85 wrote: I find his answer about ZvT very strange. He doesn't think the problem is SH?
I guess there are some people who actually want to turtle behind planetary fortress and mass ravens and only then try to do something like attacking but I think that main reason we see such games is actually the SH. If zerg's economy is not crippled early in the game with helion runbys there will be hardly any timing for mech ground army to exploit. SH not only deals damage but more importantly physically blocks ground movement of units, not to mention its long range on creep. This all makes it impossible to reach zerg base because you will never be able to out DPS the locusts fast enough.
And since both sides enter into this passive game, there are no trades and fights that would cause any bigger losses than occasional unit. Combined with the easiness of obtaining 4 bases means that is all you need to get that super strong terran late game army with bc-ravens-vikings (like Mvp had vs. Firecake on Frost).
But again it all starts from SH and how ground army can't really move out against higher SH numbers. And since SH are bad in low numbers,there will always be a lot of them when zerg chooses to go for them.
The fish stinks from both ends. It starts before the swarm host, which is necessary to combat tank/viking combos. You're not going to do that with with roach, hydra, ultra based play around the max. mutalisks are great but eventually the terran can stabilize against them if he wants and it would be even easier if the terran didnt have to think about defending SHs. And even when you can keep the momentum wih mutas, you still build SHs with them to prevent the Terran from just pushing his way to victory with thor/tank/viking combos.
Also yes, there are players that turtle behind their PFs regardless. It's not like Zergs first take on developing a standard vs Mech was to sit behind spores and locusts forever. But that is what you have to do unless you did massive damage early on.
I didn't say the problem is exclusively in SH but saying that SH is not a problem and raven is is not an accurate assessment of the mech TvZ from David Kim, at least in my opinion.
Also I saw some zergs deal with mech without going for SH play. There are other ways to deal with mech but the problem is they are not as reliable as going into SH. For example, if you watch Innovation's or Supernova's stream, they often mech against zerg and Korean zergs often go for a muta play. So you basically can deal with it either by outmaneuvering your opponent (like with mutas) or with using your racial advantages like tech switches. On those mentioned streams I saw zergs who would go for some early roach aggression against terran when mech is still weak (and that is also a factor in mech TvZ - the fact that mech can't really move out before at least 150 supply) forcing terran into tanks and then doing muta switches etc. I am pretty sure most zergs are happy to trade roaches for thors or tanks.
But as I said, SH is most reliable way of playing against mech. At the same time, terran mech army gets strong at around 150-160 supply, doing any pushes with a couple of tanks and thors will just get shut down easily by zerg. So by the time mech is ready to move out, zerg already has enough SH out to stop that timing (if critical damage isn't dealt to zerg early on) and then we go into that turtle and sky terran.
But blaming it on the terran and the raven and acting like all terrans choose to turtle into sky terran instead of being forced into it by game design is both unfair and wrong.
Honestly I think that nerfing SH and buffing infestor's anti-mech abilities like NP or IT would be much better because we would probably see more trades in the mid game but infestors could be a valuable addition in dealing with late game sky terran army. Of course some sweet spot would need to be found to avoid making them as strong as they were in WoL.
I would prefer that to simply nerfing the raven as DK obviously plans if we start to see more and more long mech games.
He is also not "just" blaming the Raven. He is saying that Terrans could move out, but massing more Ravens seems to be better for them. And I actually agree with him. Building 10 Ravens to the rest of your Mech+Viking army may be required against an all turtled up SH-Zerg, waiting for 30 of them so you don't need any other antiair anymore is not.
I am not sure when could meching terran actually move out against SH army and out DPS the locust fast enough to reach zerg base before losing expensive gas units to waves of free locusts.
Only SH game I saw recently where terran won with a mech timing was that game between Snute and Mvp on Alterzim when Mvp basically hit when Snute had only a couple of SH and the rest of supply in roaches. But in game against Firecake he never had any timing to exploit.
Mech is very weak before a certain supply is reached, apart from early game helion or helion+banshee play, you can't be out on the map and do a mech push on something like 80-100 supply because roaches would easily overwhelm that army. And then you are dead.
Im not saying you shouldn't build Ravens or attack unmaxed (things that happen in the first 12-15mins). I'm saying you don't have to wait 30mins to attack.
On March 13 2014 16:29 Qwerty85 wrote: I find his answer about ZvT very strange. He doesn't think the problem is SH?
I guess there are some people who actually want to turtle behind planetary fortress and mass ravens and only then try to do something like attacking but I think that main reason we see such games is actually the SH. If zerg's economy is not crippled early in the game with helion runbys there will be hardly any timing for mech ground army to exploit. SH not only deals damage but more importantly physically blocks ground movement of units, not to mention its long range on creep. This all makes it impossible to reach zerg base because you will never be able to out DPS the locusts fast enough.
And since both sides enter into this passive game, there are no trades and fights that would cause any bigger losses than occasional unit. Combined with the easiness of obtaining 4 bases means that is all you need to get that super strong terran late game army with bc-ravens-vikings (like Mvp had vs. Firecake on Frost).
But again it all starts from SH and how ground army can't really move out against higher SH numbers. And since SH are bad in low numbers,there will always be a lot of them when zerg chooses to go for them.
The fish stinks from both ends. It starts before the swarm host, which is necessary to combat tank/viking combos. You're not going to do that with with roach, hydra, ultra based play around the max. mutalisks are great but eventually the terran can stabilize against them if he wants and it would be even easier if the terran didnt have to think about defending SHs. And even when you can keep the momentum wih mutas, you still build SHs with them to prevent the Terran from just pushing his way to victory with thor/tank/viking combos.
Also yes, there are players that turtle behind their PFs regardless. It's not like Zergs first take on developing a standard vs Mech was to sit behind spores and locusts forever. But that is what you have to do unless you did massive damage early on.
I didn't say the problem is exclusively in SH but saying that SH is not a problem and raven is is not an accurate assessment of the mech TvZ from David Kim, at least in my opinion.
Also I saw some zergs deal with mech without going for SH play. There are other ways to deal with mech but the problem is they are not as reliable as going into SH. For example, if you watch Innovation's or Supernova's stream, they often mech against zerg and Korean zergs often go for a muta play. So you basically can deal with it either by outmaneuvering your opponent (like with mutas) or with using your racial advantages like tech switches. On those mentioned streams I saw zergs who would go for some early roach aggression against terran when mech is still weak (and that is also a factor in mech TvZ - the fact that mech can't really move out before at least 150 supply) forcing terran into tanks and then doing muta switches etc. I am pretty sure most zergs are happy to trade roaches for thors or tanks.
But as I said, SH is most reliable way of playing against mech. At the same time, terran mech army gets strong at around 150-160 supply, doing any pushes with a couple of tanks and thors will just get shut down easily by zerg. So by the time mech is ready to move out, zerg already has enough SH out to stop that timing (if critical damage isn't dealt to zerg early on) and then we go into that turtle and sky terran.
But blaming it on the terran and the raven and acting like all terrans choose to turtle into sky terran instead of being forced into it by game design is both unfair and wrong.
Honestly I think that nerfing SH and buffing infestor's anti-mech abilities like NP or IT would be much better because we would probably see more trades in the mid game but infestors could be a valuable addition in dealing with late game sky terran army. Of course some sweet spot would need to be found to avoid making them as strong as they were in WoL.
I would prefer that to simply nerfing the raven as DK obviously plans if we start to see more and more long mech games.
He is also not "just" blaming the Raven. He is saying that Terrans could move out, but massing more Ravens seems to be better for them. And I actually agree with him. Building 10 Ravens to the rest of your Mech+Viking army may be required against an all turtled up SH-Zerg, waiting for 30 of them so you don't need any other antiair anymore is not.
I am not sure when could meching terran actually move out against SH army and out DPS the locust fast enough to reach zerg base before losing expensive gas units to waves of free locusts.
Only SH game I saw recently where terran won with a mech timing was that game between Snute and Mvp on Alterzim when Mvp basically hit when Snute had only a couple of SH and the rest of supply in roaches. But in game against Firecake he never had any timing to exploit.
Mech is very weak before a certain supply is reached, apart from early game helion or helion+banshee play, you can't be out on the map and do a mech push on something like 80-100 supply because roaches would easily overwhelm that army. And then you are dead.
Im not saying you shouldn't build Ravens or attack unmaxed (things that happen in the first 12-15mins). I'm saying you don't have to wait 30mins to attack.
But there is no standard timing to exploit. Usually, when terran is ready to move out around something like 150 supply, zerg already has enough SH out. Games like Mvp vs. Snute are rare exception to the rule.
On March 13 2014 16:29 Qwerty85 wrote: I find his answer about ZvT very strange. He doesn't think the problem is SH?
I guess there are some people who actually want to turtle behind planetary fortress and mass ravens and only then try to do something like attacking but I think that main reason we see such games is actually the SH. If zerg's economy is not crippled early in the game with helion runbys there will be hardly any timing for mech ground army to exploit. SH not only deals damage but more importantly physically blocks ground movement of units, not to mention its long range on creep. This all makes it impossible to reach zerg base because you will never be able to out DPS the locusts fast enough.
And since both sides enter into this passive game, there are no trades and fights that would cause any bigger losses than occasional unit. Combined with the easiness of obtaining 4 bases means that is all you need to get that super strong terran late game army with bc-ravens-vikings (like Mvp had vs. Firecake on Frost).
But again it all starts from SH and how ground army can't really move out against higher SH numbers. And since SH are bad in low numbers,there will always be a lot of them when zerg chooses to go for them.
The fish stinks from both ends. It starts before the swarm host, which is necessary to combat tank/viking combos. You're not going to do that with with roach, hydra, ultra based play around the max. mutalisks are great but eventually the terran can stabilize against them if he wants and it would be even easier if the terran didnt have to think about defending SHs. And even when you can keep the momentum wih mutas, you still build SHs with them to prevent the Terran from just pushing his way to victory with thor/tank/viking combos.
Also yes, there are players that turtle behind their PFs regardless. It's not like Zergs first take on developing a standard vs Mech was to sit behind spores and locusts forever. But that is what you have to do unless you did massive damage early on.
I didn't say the problem is exclusively in SH but saying that SH is not a problem and raven is is not an accurate assessment of the mech TvZ from David Kim, at least in my opinion.
Also I saw some zergs deal with mech without going for SH play. There are other ways to deal with mech but the problem is they are not as reliable as going into SH. For example, if you watch Innovation's or Supernova's stream, they often mech against zerg and Korean zergs often go for a muta play. So you basically can deal with it either by outmaneuvering your opponent (like with mutas) or with using your racial advantages like tech switches. On those mentioned streams I saw zergs who would go for some early roach aggression against terran when mech is still weak (and that is also a factor in mech TvZ - the fact that mech can't really move out before at least 150 supply) forcing terran into tanks and then doing muta switches etc. I am pretty sure most zergs are happy to trade roaches for thors or tanks.
But as I said, SH is most reliable way of playing against mech. At the same time, terran mech army gets strong at around 150-160 supply, doing any pushes with a couple of tanks and thors will just get shut down easily by zerg. So by the time mech is ready to move out, zerg already has enough SH out to stop that timing (if critical damage isn't dealt to zerg early on) and then we go into that turtle and sky terran.
But blaming it on the terran and the raven and acting like all terrans choose to turtle into sky terran instead of being forced into it by game design is both unfair and wrong.
Honestly I think that nerfing SH and buffing infestor's anti-mech abilities like NP or IT would be much better because we would probably see more trades in the mid game but infestors could be a valuable addition in dealing with late game sky terran army. Of course some sweet spot would need to be found to avoid making them as strong as they were in WoL.
I would prefer that to simply nerfing the raven as DK obviously plans if we start to see more and more long mech games.
He is also not "just" blaming the Raven. He is saying that Terrans could move out, but massing more Ravens seems to be better for them. And I actually agree with him. Building 10 Ravens to the rest of your Mech+Viking army may be required against an all turtled up SH-Zerg, waiting for 30 of them so you don't need any other antiair anymore is not.
I am not sure when could meching terran actually move out against SH army and out DPS the locust fast enough to reach zerg base before losing expensive gas units to waves of free locusts.
Only SH game I saw recently where terran won with a mech timing was that game between Snute and Mvp on Alterzim when Mvp basically hit when Snute had only a couple of SH and the rest of supply in roaches. But in game against Firecake he never had any timing to exploit.
Mech is very weak before a certain supply is reached, apart from early game helion or helion+banshee play, you can't be out on the map and do a mech push on something like 80-100 supply because roaches would easily overwhelm that army. And then you are dead.
Im not saying you shouldn't build Ravens or attack unmaxed (things that happen in the first 12-15mins). I'm saying you don't have to wait 30mins to attack.
But there is no standard timing to exploit. Usually, when terran is ready to move out around something like 150 supply, zerg already has enough SH out. Games like Mvp vs. Snute are rare exception to the rule.
There are standard timings. Flash is doing a 3base Thor/Tank/Hellbat timing everygame. Then there are blue flame hellion timings. Unless you are looking for timings that cannot backfire at all, you can find at least some. But again, that's not what I'm even going at. As I said, there is a huge difference between the requirement to max out and build some Ravens before moving out, and a Terran sacrificing SCVs, Hellions/Hellbats/Mines to build more Ravens.
It's really frustrating to see Blizzard have to put up with the sheer amount of ignorance and immaturity in the Reddit community. David Kim, whom is representing a billion dollar company, one of the most successful, by far in the world has to put up with comments like:
"In other words he is useless as a productive member of society. I am not getting a useful word of all this PC crap so far. Nothing new or interesting. Apart from his zeal to nerf terran more so his game can sink even more to the bottom of the charts. The guy is an idiot that needs to be fired." by DaveDroid.
Troll or not, the community is giving itself a reputation as a whole, riddled with immaturity which is spreading the most negative ideas and propaganda around. I fear the day that a proper comparison can be made between reddit and the battle.net forums, because we are fast approaching that day.
The design team for StarCraft II has done a marvelous job and you would be dead wrong if you disagreed. Obviously there are issues with the game, as there are issues with any game but it is the substance and quality the game provides which allows millions of copies to be sold, keeps hundreds of thousands of multi-player accounts active, and not to mention the thousands actively participating in the community and the professional scene. People are not sitting on battle.net twiddling their thumbs, the game is in it's developing stages, and it's absolutely disgusting to see people blast the game and blizzard for issues they in reality are completely ignorant to. Anyone who has played various Blizzard games can tell you that this company has a very long, drawn out process of making games, and make an effort to share as little information about the game before it is absolutely necessary for feedback, for a number of reasons.
If anyone is aware of the issues to the game, and reasonable and practical improvements which CAN be made, it is Blizzard. The design team is not sitting in their offices playing darts and arm wrestling; they are more likely reading community feedback, brainstorming ideas , doing administrative work, as well as a plethora of other things.
There are many people whom are seemingly unaware to this, but the biggest factor in the success of a game is the investment which goes into it. This means the amount of people hired to take on the project and the quality and quantity of resources devoted to the project. Blizzard and the community can have the best ideas in the world, but if there is no interest from people providing the money, then it just simply is not going to fucking happen. That is the reality of the situation. Not to say Blizzard have limited resources; They are quite a wealthy company with many investors and a bunch of capital, but if there is no interest from investors, there is only so much that can be done. The people investing money into the game don't give a shit about anything besides their investment making them money, so unless it does that, there is no reason for them to make investments.
My point is, this community is shaping the way it is viewed, and the impression it gives to others, as well as those inside the community. It is very negative as a company, i'm sure, to have to read countless upon countless remarks based entirely upon ignorance and emotion. No investor will want to throw their money at a game all the kids are calling "daed". The success of this game relies on more than blizzard, it also relies on its community members sustenance through difficult parts of the game's development, as well as the collective solidarity to bridle negative, nonconstructive feedback. The success of a game is also quite dependent on the attitude of it's players, just as the success of a countries government and economy is dependent on its people. The community have all the power and all the energy to shape the game into what it needs to be. Blizzard's ability is to orchestrate that energy is only further diminished by the nonconstructive feedback being provided by the community. You can complain about Blizzard's process all you want, but at the end of the day they are the company that have crafted a brilliant legacy of games, with the aid of the community; and it is very sad to see that community begin to be deteriorated by an emotional roller coaster of players whos only agenda it seems is to further plunge itself into darkness.
There is much more i could say on this topic, and i know the majority of people will skim over this post and pose gestures towards my "Blizzard Favoritism", but that is life. This game is amazing, but it could be so much more if the community as a whole recognized the practical hardships which go into making and balancing a game of this complexity, none the less any game; and until this is understood we will be lost within this void of pessimism and self decay. I very much welcome comments and criticism to this post, unless its nonconstructive, off topic or just straight up stupid, additionally, please do not engage me by being passive aggressive. Please try to respect this as my opinion.
I don't understand blizzard i really don't. Even though i still enjoy watching SC2 and probably will never completly stop watching it as long as there are games to watch their mentality of only making small changes seems wrong to me. If its just a balance change then it should be small thats correct imo but i think they should take the opportunity of the next Expansion to make huge changes to it. The game is good as it is but it could be amazing if the right changes are made to overall mechanics and not just units. But maybe im just too much of BW fan to accept SC2 as it is.
Even tho I am not surprised, I am still disappointed. Nothing new... I hope that the LotV additions are gonna compensate the current flaws, but I am not convinced.
On March 13 2014 19:35 Genetic wrote: Game sucks, when are you losers going to move on already? Lol
Deathball A click mechanic killed this game a very long time ago. And if you haven't yet noticed, there is always something broken lol I suspect this is because the underlying mechanics of each race are broken, but who the hell cares at this point. DK you suck!
User was warned for this post
DK will fix that. He will add free units to every faction => perfect balance!
On March 13 2014 21:14 pieroog wrote: How cool it would be to enter upkeep from WC3? (ofc different % for difference races)? Same stuff with high-grund mechanix from BW.
Upkeep = no thx High ground = yes but will never happen
On March 13 2014 05:42 davidjayhawk wrote: ... the soft 3 base income cap ...
What does he mean by this? Is it the fact that Protoss and especially Terran can survive on a 3 base economy for 25+ Minutes in a game and still put out a sizeable army?
You dont gain any mineral-income-advantage of you have more bases than your opponent, if mineralworkers are the same. This is one of the biggest problems in lategame.
I am not sure about ZvP Lategame vs TvP Lategame. playing perspective: TvP is more unplayable but from watching perspective ZvP is lesser exciting than TvP.
"Hey david kim are you gona make it more like starbow since starbow is so much better and exciting to watch"
Someone just had to do it... I knew it was going to be in there the second I saw the headline, but there was a glimmer of hope in my heart that I was wrong. Nope.
What worries me the most and not just after reading this Q&A is that Blizzard is emitting the impression of beeing almost utter clueless of the direction they want to develop the game.
I was very active in both beta phases of WoL and HotS and the amount and severeness of changes they performed during both beta phases left me with the impression, that they are just doing a "trial-and-error" approach and have absolutely no solid plan how they want the game to pan out.
Just take a step back and look at units like the oracle or the whole debacle with the warhound or look again at the HotS Promotion-Panel Videos from Blizzcon 2011. To completely rework most new units or even cut them alltogether in a beta phase just blows my mind on so many levels.
In my opinion they should have had a plan or at least a rough roadmap before the release of wings of liberty about the races in their final state, but from what i read they most certainly don't have that.
It leaves the impression, they are sitting in their meetings throwing ideas around about what can be changed and put in or left out, but what really seems to be missing is a mastermind game engineer who has a vision, of how the races should work, what units fullfill which roles and which mechanics make for an exciting gameplay.
what a surprise another 'we could do anything but we choose not too' outreach campaign... I'm surprised people still bother to participate. Almost all the issues raised are disregarded with the passive response, their is little point in the community suggesting anything other "x unit OP" that's clearly all they are looking for with their super slow process to keep the game alive.
This means, LoTV is the final chance for blizzard to get the multi-player part of the game right. HotS is a good opportunity for sweeping changes to collect the best data in prep for LoTV. the response that changes hurts player careers is a piss poor one, how many careers for pro players were ended because of the dismantlement of BW Korean scene thanks to Blizzards push to SC2.
On March 13 2014 21:35 reapsen wrote: What worries me the most and not just after reading this Q&A is that Blizzard is emitting the impression of beeing almost utter clueless of the direction they want to develop the game.
I was very active in both beta phases of WoL and HotS and the amount and severeness of changes they performed during both beta phases left me with the impression, that they are just doing a "trial-and-error" approach and have absolutely no solid plan how they want the game to pan out.
Just take a step back and look at units like the oracle or the whole debacle with the warhound or look again at the HotS Promotion-Panel Videos from Blizzcon 2011. To completely rework most new units or even cut them alltogether in a beta phase just blows my mind on so many levels.
In my opinion they should have had a plan or at least a rough roadmap before the release of wings of liberty about the races in their final state, but from what i read they most certainly don't have that.
It leaves the impression, they are sitting in their meetings throwing ideas around about what can be changed and put in or left out, but what really seems to be missing is a mastermind game engineer who has a vision, of how the races should work, what units fullfill which roles and which mechanics make for an exciting gameplay.
I agree with this. Though i didnt really understand what you meant with
To completely rework most new units or even cut them alltogether in a beta phase just blows my mind on so many levels.
But you dont have to answer that, i agreed on the bolded parts so your point got across
ppl whining, but these q&a have been the same since the beta why do you cry ? they've been saying they wont do any major change to their game for as long i can remember
edit : also, and i m certainly wrong on this, but did you ever consider they don't have the manforce to make any drastic core change to the game ? (as in the number of people assigned to work on the sc2 team)
Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Community: Blizzard doesn't listen to us, they have no clue how to design a game. Blizzard: Come participate in our AMA!
Community: Blizzard claims to listen to us, but never does nothing. Blizzard: Removes shredder and warhound from the game.
Community: Blizzard always plays it safe, refuses to ever make sweeping changes to the game. Blizzard: See above.
Community: We want SC2 to be more like Broodwar! Blizzard: And how many times did we make sweeping patches to Broodwar?
Community: It's all David Kim's fault. He has no idea how to make a game. Blizzard: But David Kim isn't even part of the design team; he's just a balancer of existing units.
I'm all for constructive criticism, but clearly the community has a very short-term memory and doesn't even know the proper party to issue concerns to (Browder and Co.). What's worse is that I often hear a lot of people complaining that Blizzard "ruins the game by issuing too many patches," which prevents the metagame from settling and players from developing strategies. This suggests to me that a lot of times even the community is pretty confused and inconsistent about exactly what they want.
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
To completely rework most new units or even cut them alltogether in a beta phase just blows my mind on so many levels.
But you dont have to answer that, i agreed on the bolded parts so your point got across
I am a software engineer myself and getting a piece of software in a beta test, typically means it is full-featured and you want to test the technical aspects, i.e. if its bug-free, if it sustains higher loads and maybe have a few adjustments (hotfixes) on your features based on customer feedback.
If you transfer this over to starcraft, which is also nothing else but a piece of software, the beta phase (especially the HotS) Beta showed complete removals of units (warhound), complete reworking of units (oracle, widow mine, mothership core, ... ) and the changes/removal of spells and abilities (ultraliks charge fore example) which are integral feature changes.
That should not be part of a beta! It just emitts what i mentioned in the previous post, that there is no plan or vision what the game in its final state should look like.
Publishing videos on your own convention (Blizzcon 2011) and then have almost none of the promoted changes in the final product is just another indicator that they have no inherent clue how to design the multiplayer part and all the results come from the trial-and-error approach.
I speculate that they pursue design-ideas almost entirely on the "awesomeness-factor" rather if they fit the global plan/vision of how the game should be in its final state.
By the way, i really would like to express that i think, that the game is technically crafted well from a software engineering standpoint. In this regard Blizzard always delivers flawless products.
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I would argue that questions about warp gate and force fields are the least important questions than can be asked. We know the answers.
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
The problem is DK try to do as few changes as possible. But patchs are not important just for balance. Patchs are what increase the lengthtime of the game. If you look at LOL/Dota2, they patch heroes, release new one. Each new season brings a new meta, different ways to play, and it's what keep players on the game, and make the game popular.
But on SC2 we have a minor patch each 3 months. And they don't bring new ways to play or make them more entertaining. And if you look at HOTS patch history they have nearly only nerf OP stuff. They only add no real content to the game, making the number of viewers to decrease, but they take very long to patch some broken stuff. They act like they don't want to recognize something is too strong or they've made a mistake, so they let the thing a lot of time ("we wait the players learn to play to see if it needs a change").
And after they're blocked. Deathball toss are too strong, but Zerg has learn the only way to deal with it is to never engage it, and slowly kill it with SH. same with the new mech (due to DK's buff of raven/tank/banshee). So they say the game are too long and sometimes boring, but if they nerf SH, they would crush balance because zerg wouldn't be able to win in late. So they can't really nerf SH now, beacause they haven't fixed the issue of lategame Toss when we have reported them.
Or DK makes 3-6 months to fix something obviously imbalance. Is it some nerf players wasn't asking for months he made ? Hellbats drops, WM, buff ghost, MSC nerf, etc... All the things he has done is waiting the longer he can before making something which has to be done, or make insignifiant change, or broken one's("hey it would be could if oracle are as fast as a mutalisk and kill a mineral line just when you press a touch").
On March 13 2014 17:56 aTnClouD wrote: What else did you expect. If he was good at his job or even cared a little to develop a great game it wouldn't have been as it is now.
Wtf are you saying? David Kim is a genius in my opinion... He's always one step ahead of everyone here it seems. I've always agreed with DK and will continue to do so unless i see changes in the game that are retarded (for example like changing the core mechanics/gameplay). So far this game is awesome and i've been playing it very happily since the start of WoL. I tried Starbow and its a fun game, but i feel like there are a lot of people who just want the same feeling they had when they played BW, and Starbow is the closest they can get to that.. But then there are people like me, the modern SC2 player, who doesn't give a fuck about a dead game like BW.. Its old, and its out.. and SC2 is the new shit.. So deal with it and stop living in the past! Shoutout to David Kim! You're awesome! Keep doing what you're doing!
exactly my opinion. although sometimes there are little problems in the game (SHs, TvP), he's always working on fixing them. and to the people who think warpgate and forcefields are bad design: while sometimes it can be frustrating to deal with forcefields, they really make protoss feel fun and unique. imagine protoss without forcefields and warpgate but with stronger gateway units (like so many people suggest). they would be very similar to terran and would have even less micro potential than now. the thing i most like about the game is that you have three races that are completely different. removing warpgate and forcefield would just destroy the protoss race and they would lose all their uniqueness.
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
On March 13 2014 12:38 hariooo wrote: How big is the pro scene really going to be when LotV drops? SC2 isn't exactly growing. The people who are still playing right now who are happy enough to play it are going to play whatever LotV is. People who don't like it will just move on, as most people already have.
I don't think that's as dramatic as people make it out to be. There will be a big boost when lotv comes out, then it will slowly die off and then we get WC4. I'm completely fine with that. Nothing can or should live forever.
Let's be real there's no WC4 coming. No way Blizzard is going to pursue another title that doesn't use the Hearthstone or HeroesotS business model. And that makes me sad because it kind of kills the RTS genre.
And another thing. BW might not have lived forever but Blizzard personally pushed it out. BW died not because it wasn't fun anymore or of any other "natural cause" (well match-fixing didn't help), but Blizzard pushed Kespa to support the new game. It's their right as a business but BW could definitely have lived a long time. Its current resurrection in Korea is evidence for that.
Man HeroesotS is a bad way to call that game... just call it Heroes, HEotS, or something else :/
And how do you know there's no WC4 coming?
They are a multi-team game development studio. They are working on Project Titan (if its in development), WoW expansions, Diablo 3, Hearthstone, Heroes of the Storm, and Legacy of the Void. Nothing says they will not eventually go back to the Warcraft RTS roots. When they go back to the development of another RTS, they have to go back in with another business model so that it stays with the current gaming trends. Blizzard has already bent SC2 as much as they can currently by making it "free-to-play" as much as possible without going against their business plan. Probably when WoW has run its course and makes way for whatever Project Titan is, probably by 2016 or 2017, and LotV is out, people will probably hear news about a WC4 possibly being developed.
I am an absolute huge fan of WC3, and I don't believe for a second WC4 is coming (at least not until the next decade). It simply makes no sense on a business standpoint for Blizzard. They already have SC2 as a RTS, and WoW is still going strong. They've stated they have 3 expansions planned out for WoW, which is 3 to 6 years. LotV is set to release this or next year (?) and will keep drawing attention for a while.
If they were to release or even work on WC4, it would be after SC2 is done and starts going (more) downhill. But even by the time that happens (which I suspect won't be too long from after LotV's release), WoW will still be there. The new expansion, Warlords of Draenor, is probably going to be released roughly at the same time as LotV. Again, they said they have 2 o 3 more expansions already lined up for WoW. For WC4 to ever come, they need to either wrap up the WoW part of the storyline, or do some kind of weird alternate time line with the game.
It's a shame too, because I personally think MMOs are not suited for proper story telling. You only need to take a look at the lore since the beginning of WoW to see that it has decayed quite a bit from the quality we had back in RoC/TFT (albeit after WotLK, but still, now we have light-space ships, villains coming back to life left and right, good guys turning into villains, etc...).
There is still some hope, as they could always start a new franchise altogether, which is what they are doing with their new MMO, Titan. That means we could see a new RTS inspired from the mechanics of WC3, but in another universe. I personally wouldn't be against it, so long as Blizzard does a good job. Sadly, I don't think Blizzard is really the same, and I personally believe WC3 was a stroke of genius they won't ever be able to reproduce. Blizzard cut its teeth in the RTS genre, so in all fairness, I do have troubles imagining them giving up on the genre, but I think it will be a long while before we get a new title. It's also fairly possible that they'd decide to partially give up on it and focus on the current "evolution" of the RTS genre: MOBAs. Heroes of the Storm is yet another game that's coming, and it certainly has the potential to be more popular than SC2 if done right.
The issue is that Blizzard conveniently answers everything in such a way that it allows them to take the easiest path. You start to wonder if they really feel that way or if they're just PR statements to justify their inaction. And it's one thing if a community manager says something like that, but when developers give out meaningless PR statements it becomes annoying because it reduces trust in the people that are responsible for the game. There should be like a Hippocrates oath for developers to never give out fluff statements, or something.
On March 13 2014 22:14 Tyrhanius wrote: The problem is DK try to do as few changes as possible. But patchs are not important just for balance. Patchs are what increase the lengthtime of the game. If you look at LOL/Dota2, they patch heroes, release new one. Each new season brings a new meta, different ways to play, and it's what keep players on the game, and make the game popular.
But on SC2 we have a minor patch each 3 months. And they don't bring new ways to play or make them more entertaining. And if you look at HOTS patch history they have nearly only nerf OP stuff. They only add no real content to the game, making the number of viewers to decrease, but they take very long to patch some broken stuff. They act like they don't want to recognize something is too strong or they've made a mistake, so they let the thing a lot of time ("we wait the players learn to play to see if it needs a change").
And after they're blocked. Deathball toss are too strong, but Zerg has learn the only way to deal with it is to never engage it, and slowly kill it with SH. same with the new mech (due to DK's buff of raven/tank/banshee). So they say the game are too long and sometimes boring, but if they nerf SH, they would crush balance because zerg wouldn't be able to win in late. So they can't really nerf SH now, beacause they haven't fixed the issue of lategame Toss when we have reported them.
Or DK makes 3-6 months to fix something obviously imbalance. Is it some nerf players wasn't asking for months he made ? Hellbats drops, WM, buff ghost, MSC nerf, etc... All the things he has done is waiting the longer he can before making something which has to be done, or make insignifiant change, or broken one's("hey it would be could if oracle are as fast as a mutalisk and kill a mineral line just when you press a touch").
If you could stop comparing a boxed copy RTS game with free-to-play MOBA games and could point out an RTS game maker that does a better job at patching/expanding their games than Blizzard does, that's be nice.
On March 13 2014 22:14 Tyrhanius wrote: The problem is DK try to do as few changes as possible. But patchs are not important just for balance. Patchs are what increase the lengthtime of the game. If you look at LOL/Dota2, they patch heroes, release new one. Each new season brings a new meta, different ways to play, and it's what keep players on the game, and make the game popular.
But on SC2 we have a minor patch each 3 months. And they don't bring new ways to play or make them more entertaining. And if you look at HOTS patch history they have nearly only nerf OP stuff. They only add no real content to the game, making the number of viewers to decrease, but they take very long to patch some broken stuff. They act like they don't want to recognize something is too strong or they've made a mistake, so they let the thing a lot of time ("we wait the players learn to play to see if it needs a change").
And after they're blocked. Deathball toss are too strong, but Zerg has learn the only way to deal with it is to never engage it, and slowly kill it with SH. same with the new mech (due to DK's buff of raven/tank/banshee). So they say the game are too long and sometimes boring, but if they nerf SH, they would crush balance because zerg wouldn't be able to win in late. So they can't really nerf SH now, beacause they haven't fixed the issue of lategame Toss when we have reported them.
Or DK makes 3-6 months to fix something obviously imbalance. Is it some nerf players wasn't asking for months he made ? Hellbats drops, WM, buff ghost, MSC nerf, etc... All the things he has done is waiting the longer he can before making something which has to be done, or make insignifiant change, or broken one's("hey it would be could if oracle are as fast as a mutalisk and kill a mineral line just when you press a touch").
If you could stop comparing a boxed copy RTS game with free-to-play MOBA games and could point out an RTS game maker that does a better job at patching/expanding their games than Blizzard does, that's be nice.
On March 13 2014 22:10 reapsen wrote: I am a software engineer myself and getting a piece of software in a beta test, typically means it is full-featured and you want to test the technical aspects, i.e. if its bug-free, if it sustains higher loads and maybe have a few adjustments (hotfixes) on your features based on customer feedback.
If you transfer this over to starcraft, which is also nothing else but a piece of software, the beta phase (especially the HotS) Beta showed complete removals of units (warhound), complete reworking of units (oracle, widow mine, mothership core, ... ) and the changes/removal of spells and abilities (ultraliks charge fore example) which are integral feature changes.
That should not be part of a beta! It just emitts what i mentioned in the previous post, that there is no plan or vision what the game in its final state should look like.
Publishing videos on your own convention (Blizzcon 2011) and then have almost none of the promoted changes in the final product is just another indicator that they have no inherent clue how to design the multiplayer part and all the results come from the trial-and-error approach.
I speculate that they pursue design-ideas almost entirely on the "awesomeness-factor" rather if they fit the global plan/vision of how the game should be in its final state.
By the way, i really would like to express that i think, that the game is technically crafted well from a software engineering standpoint. In this regard Blizzard always delivers flawless products.
I agree, Blizzard is absolutely clueless when it comes to designing a multiplayer game. They just have no idea what they are doing, and whenever they make a change it's just something they randomly made up.
No instead they should program a perfectly thought out game inside their studio and not release it until it's utterly complete and final form, that's how great multiplayer games are made, unlike all the multiplayer game failures like Starcraft 2 that Blizzard usually release.
You should send them your ideas along with your CV, a great "software engineer" like you might just be what Blizzard need to be able to finally make good multiplayer games again.
This interview has really lowered my opinion of DK. He is worried about ending careers? There we have it. Afraid to take risks to improve the game, the opposite of what I had come to expect from blizzard.
Look at d3, complete fundamental changes to it, and wow changed major design gameplay aspects almost every patch. WC3 had a better b-net interface then sc2, which still lacks a social feel.
We STILL have no player *NAMED* custom game lobbies. It is the only way to see the arcade really grow. People like to choose from a list of things that are active. Change arcade open games list to the way UMS worked in BW or WC3. Honestly the biggest thing they could do to grow the player base.
On March 13 2014 22:14 Tyrhanius wrote: The problem is DK try to do as few changes as possible. But patchs are not important just for balance. Patchs are what increase the lengthtime of the game. If you look at LOL/Dota2, they patch heroes, release new one. Each new season brings a new meta, different ways to play, and it's what keep players on the game, and make the game popular.
But on SC2 we have a minor patch each 3 months. And they don't bring new ways to play or make them more entertaining. And if you look at HOTS patch history they have nearly only nerf OP stuff. They only add no real content to the game, making the number of viewers to decrease, but they take very long to patch some broken stuff. They act like they don't want to recognize something is too strong or they've made a mistake, so they let the thing a lot of time ("we wait the players learn to play to see if it needs a change").
And after they're blocked. Deathball toss are too strong, but Zerg has learn the only way to deal with it is to never engage it, and slowly kill it with SH. same with the new mech (due to DK's buff of raven/tank/banshee). So they say the game are too long and sometimes boring, but if they nerf SH, they would crush balance because zerg wouldn't be able to win in late. So they can't really nerf SH now, beacause they haven't fixed the issue of lategame Toss when we have reported them.
Or DK makes 3-6 months to fix something obviously imbalance. Is it some nerf players wasn't asking for months he made ? Hellbats drops, WM, buff ghost, MSC nerf, etc... All the things he has done is waiting the longer he can before making something which has to be done, or make insignifiant change, or broken one's("hey it would be could if oracle are as fast as a mutalisk and kill a mineral line just when you press a touch").
If you could stop comparing a boxed copy RTS game with free-to-play MOBA games and could point out an RTS game maker that does a better job at patching/expanding their games than Blizzard does, that's be nice.
Is it more difficult to make a new hero or to change hydralisk attack speed to 0.83 to 0.75 ? There is no reason a MOBA are more patch than a RTS. One of the reason a MOBA is more popular is they constantly add stuff, they have understood the new esport, and the new generation of players. But blizzard don't seem to have understood this. They are just : MOBA are popular ? I will make a MOBA too.
I just realized I only post on TL these days just to express my disappointment about these interviews. I feel it would be better if they didn't exist at all, at least we could then have the illusion of hope.
Instead we get a sad reminder that SC2 will remain a stiff and un-fun game to play and watch.
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
On March 13 2014 22:10 reapsen wrote: I am a software engineer myself and getting a piece of software in a beta test, typically means it is full-featured and you want to test the technical aspects, i.e. if its bug-free, if it sustains higher loads and maybe have a few adjustments (hotfixes) on your features based on customer feedback.
If you transfer this over to starcraft, which is also nothing else but a piece of software, the beta phase (especially the HotS) Beta showed complete removals of units (warhound), complete reworking of units (oracle, widow mine, mothership core, ... ) and the changes/removal of spells and abilities (ultraliks charge fore example) which are integral feature changes.
That should not be part of a beta! It just emitts what i mentioned in the previous post, that there is no plan or vision what the game in its final state should look like.
Publishing videos on your own convention (Blizzcon 2011) and then have almost none of the promoted changes in the final product is just another indicator that they have no inherent clue how to design the multiplayer part and all the results come from the trial-and-error approach.
I speculate that they pursue design-ideas almost entirely on the "awesomeness-factor" rather if they fit the global plan/vision of how the game should be in its final state.
By the way, i really would like to express that i think, that the game is technically crafted well from a software engineering standpoint. In this regard Blizzard always delivers flawless products.
I agree, Blizzard is absolutely clueless when it comes to designing a multiplayer game. They just have no idea what they are doing, and whenever they make a change it's just something they randomly made up.
No instead they should program a perfectly thought out game inside their studio and not release it until it's utterly complete and final form, that's how great multiplayer games are made, unlike all the multiplayer game failures like Starcraft 2 that Blizzard usually release.
You should send them your ideas along with your CV, a great "software engineer" like you might just be what Blizzard need to be able to finally make good multiplayer games again.
Yeah, you totally missed my point, which is that the sc2 game designers lack a vision of the finished product.
Alot of really great games have a visionary game designer, who has the game thoughtout in its basics before development even begins, i am talking here about people like Peter Molyneux, John Carmac, Sid Meier, etc. (and to some extend IceFrog). Those carry the idea who the final product should look like and push the development in this direction. This does not mean, that they have the perfect game in their heads right from the start, of course balance changes will always be necessary in the development process.
I don't see that vision in the development sc2 took until now...
On March 13 2014 10:57 Headnoob wrote: He should run for office, not many people can so so little in so many words.
Starbow is a wonderful alternative that's being so utterly ignored.
Seeing how the SC2 scene is currently streets ahead of the Starbow scene almost makes me want to begin a Kickstarter or Indiegogo campaign to raise funds for a huge Starbow Starleague.
If they were to release or even work on WC4, it would be after SC2 is done and starts going (more) downhill. But even by the time that happens (which I suspect won't be too long from after LotV's release), WoW will still be there. The new expansion, Warlords of Draenor, is probably going to be released roughly at the same time as LotV. Again, they said they have 2 o 3 more expansions already lined up for WoW. For WC4 to ever come, they need to either wrap up the WoW part of the storyline, or do some kind of weird alternate time line with the game.
I don't agree with your time frames at all. I think its almost 100% certain LotV will not come out this year since they have not even started hyping it up. I'd say its going to be in Q3 or Q4 next year at earliest, could even be later. Warlords of Draenor is pretty much confirmed for this year though and I'd guess its going to be released around october-ish.
On March 13 2014 10:54 avilo wrote: Swarmhosts are not necessary vs mech in the first place - the viper alone allows Zerg to fight against turtle meching Terrans.
a terran who's not good enough to play in wcs explaining how he knows more about zerg than zergs who are good enough to play in wcs, buffered by a 1000-page theorycraft essay with repeated references to how you literally invented the concept of constructing a raven
i would know this is avilo even without seeing the name
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
It's Reddit, of course stupid questions are going to make their way to the top. Reddit only wants to hear answers to questions they already have strong opinions on and where they already know how Blizzard thinks. It's part of their hivemind stuff.
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
People ask those questions over and over cause they are the most important ones hoping that Blizzard might have taken a new stance on them. Quite easy to understand. But if you wanna see him answer some questions about how he is gonna tweak some numbers on a unit which does little to nothing to actually CHANGE the game it's fine I suppose. Most people wanna see some real answers to the big questions though.
You are defeating your own arguments with your example. Why even have an AMA in the first place if they can't answer anything really?
Only thing they accomplish with AMA's like this one is lowering the confidence the SC2 community has in Blizzard. They don't "calm the community", they do the exact opposite of it.
People have high standards in a Blizzard title. They don't accept SC2 or Diablo3 just being good. It's supposed to be "fucking amazing cause it's Blizzard". If SC2 or Diablo3 were released by some random company I guarantee you that the amount of whine would be a fraction of what it is today and has been since their releases.
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
TBF though, the deathball, economy, high ground, etc questions, are more "this is what we want! please implement!" sort of feedback rather then just honest questions. It's Blizzards failure to categorically state their position that makes this sort of feedback keep coming up. This time though, he was very clear IMO about most of those things. Still, questions in the form of "wishlist" will still crop up.
Like the situation with mech. One week they say "we want mech, we made new units to make it work" next week they say "we don't want mech, it's boring" and then back to "we want mech again". What the Hell is one supposed to think? They needed a new lead game designer after WOL IMO, someone with focus and a clear vision.
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
TBF though, the deathball, economy, high ground, etc questions, are more "this is what we want! please implement!" sort of feedback rather then just honest questions. It's Blizzards failure to categorically state their position that makes this sort of feedback keep coming up. This time though, he was very clear IMO about most of those things. Still, questions in the form of "wishlist" will still crop up.
Like the situation with mech. One week they say "we want mech, we made new units to make it work" next week they say "we don't want mech, it's boring" and then back to "we want mech again". What the Hell is one supposed to think? They needed a new lead game designer after WOL IMO, someone with focus and a clear vision.
Something potentially interesting is for David Kim to contrast the Starbow implementation of all these things with the Blizzard implementation. That would be productive probably, and give a clear idea of David Kim's true opinion. But of course he is not going to do that.
Blizzard hasn't really given any meaningful statements on Starbow's design outside of implying that it serves a purpose in giving part of the fan base what it desires, but they haven't said that this reflects in any way on Starcraft 2.
To be quite honest, someone in David Kim's position should be highly interested in Starbow. It's essentially an alternative approach to the game that he is responsible for and which calls into question many decisions that he has made in the past. From a professional perspective it should be fascinating, unless, of course, Blizzard has no real interest in making any significant changes to SC2 anymore.
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
TBF though, the deathball, economy, high ground, etc questions, are more "this is what we want! please implement!" sort of feedback rather then just honest questions. It's Blizzards failure to categorically state their position that makes this sort of feedback keep coming up. This time though, he was very clear IMO about most of those things. Still, questions in the form of "wishlist" will still crop up.
Like the situation with mech. One week they say "we want mech, we made new units to make it work" next week they say "we don't want mech, it's boring" and then back to "we want mech again". What the Hell is one supposed to think? They needed a new lead game designer after WOL IMO, someone with focus and a clear vision.
They never said: "we dont want mech, it's boring". That's another one of those problems with the AMAs. People read into it what they want to read into it. And then circlejerk it up until "that is what they said". The comment you are referring to was something along the lines of "we don't want passive siege tank sitback play". Which is not the same as "we don't want siege tanks to be used" or even more "we don't want mech". There can be Mech without that aspect they don't want.
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
People ask those questions over and over cause they are the most important ones hoping that Blizzard might have taken a new stance on them. Quite easy to understand. But if you wanna see him answer some questions about how he is gonna tweak some numbers on a unit which does little to nothing to actually CHANGE the game it's fine I suppose. Most people wanna see some real answers to the big questions though.
You are defeating your own arguments with your example. Why even have an AMA in the first place if they can't answer anything really?
Only thing they accomplish with AMA's like this one is lowering the confidence the SC2 community has in Blizzard. They don't "calm the community", they do the exact opposite of it.
People have high standards in a Blizzard title. They don't accept SC2 or Diablo3 just being good. It's supposed to be "fucking amazing cause it's Blizzard". If SC2 or Diablo3 were released by some random company I guarantee you that the amount of whine would be a fraction of what it is today and has been since their releases.
OK, keep talking. What's a real answer as you put it to: Q: Are any "large scale" or "mechanic" redesigns being considering for Legacy of the Void? For example considering changing mechanics around high ground advantage, the soft 3 base income cap, warpgate, etc? give an example.
On March 13 2014 21:46 Foxxan wrote: Though i didnt really understand what you meant with
To completely rework most new units or even cut them alltogether in a beta phase just blows my mind on so many levels.
But you dont have to answer that, i agreed on the bolded parts so your point got across
I am a software engineer myself and getting a piece of software in a beta test, typically means it is full-featured and you want to test the technical aspects, i.e. if its bug-free, if it sustains higher loads and maybe have a few adjustments (hotfixes) on your features based on customer feedback.
If you transfer this over to starcraft, which is also nothing else but a piece of software, the beta phase (especially the HotS) Beta showed complete removals of units (warhound), complete reworking of units (oracle, widow mine, mothership core, ... ) and the changes/removal of spells and abilities (ultraliks charge fore example) which are integral feature changes.
That should not be part of a beta! It just emitts what i mentioned in the previous post, that there is no plan or vision what the game in its final state should look like.
Publishing videos on your own convention (Blizzcon 2011) and then have almost none of the promoted changes in the final product is just another indicator that they have no inherent clue how to design the multiplayer part and all the results come from the trial-and-error approach.
I speculate that they pursue design-ideas almost entirely on the "awesomeness-factor" rather if they fit the global plan/vision of how the game should be in its final state.
By the way, i really would like to express that i think, that the game is technically crafted well from a software engineering standpoint. In this regard Blizzard always delivers flawless products.
You are a software engineer, but not a game designer. A game, especially a mostly multiplayer focused game has a lot different requirements than the typical software solutions you would develop for a customer.
You want the game to be "fun" and "entertaining", but no matter how well you plan or research, you can never be sure your ideas work out. And creating a fun experience is most often not the result of careful planning, but by throwing around wild ideas and testing them through trial and error. So extensive playtesting is important more than anything else. And doing so in the beta provides Blizzard with a lot more feedback and experience than they'd ever get through their internal tests.
It may be true that Blizzard has no grand "plan" or "vision", but it might be because they have realized that stubbornly following your own plan and vision and creating a game that is played exactly the way you want it to be played may not lead to an enjoyable experience, and that they can use us players to provide them with feedback to make the game better for everyone.
On March 13 2014 10:57 Headnoob wrote: He should run for office, not many people can so so little in so many words.
Starbow is a wonderful alternative that's being so utterly ignored.
Seeing how the SC2 scene is currently streets ahead of the Starbow scene almost makes me want to begin a Kickstarter or Indiegogo campaign to raise funds for a huge Starbow Starleague.
This is actually a great idea. Try to see if SB devs would like to help you
On March 13 2014 22:10 reapsen wrote: I am a software engineer myself and getting a piece of software in a beta test, typically means it is full-featured and you want to test the technical aspects, i.e. if its bug-free, if it sustains higher loads and maybe have a few adjustments (hotfixes) on your features based on customer feedback.
If you transfer this over to starcraft, which is also nothing else but a piece of software, the beta phase (especially the HotS) Beta showed complete removals of units (warhound), complete reworking of units (oracle, widow mine, mothership core, ... ) and the changes/removal of spells and abilities (ultraliks charge fore example) which are integral feature changes.
That should not be part of a beta! It just emitts what i mentioned in the previous post, that there is no plan or vision what the game in its final state should look like.
Publishing videos on your own convention (Blizzcon 2011) and then have almost none of the promoted changes in the final product is just another indicator that they have no inherent clue how to design the multiplayer part and all the results come from the trial-and-error approach.
I speculate that they pursue design-ideas almost entirely on the "awesomeness-factor" rather if they fit the global plan/vision of how the game should be in its final state.
By the way, i really would like to express that i think, that the game is technically crafted well from a software engineering standpoint. In this regard Blizzard always delivers flawless products.
I agree, Blizzard is absolutely clueless when it comes to designing a multiplayer game. They just have no idea what they are doing, and whenever they make a change it's just something they randomly made up.
No instead they should program a perfectly thought out game inside their studio and not release it until it's utterly complete and final form, that's how great multiplayer games are made, unlike all the multiplayer game failures like Starcraft 2 that Blizzard usually release.
You should send them your ideas along with your CV, a great "software engineer" like you might just be what Blizzard need to be able to finally make good multiplayer games again.
Yeah, you totally missed my point, which is that the sc2 game designers lack a vision of the finished product.
Alot of really great games have a visionary game designer, who has the game thoughtout in its basics before development even begins, i am talking here about people like Peter Molyneux, John Carmac, Sid Meier, etc. (and to some extend IceFrog). Those carry the idea who the final product should look like and push the development in this direction. This does not mean, that they have the perfect game in their heads right from the start, of course balance changes will always be necessary in the development process.
I don't see that vision in the development sc2 took until now...
Nice try in a sarcastic approach tho...
A lot of great games might have a visionary game designer behind them, but a lot of great game don't have one. Since you talk about Carmack, I shall remind you that the initial "vision" of Carmack and Romero concerning Quake have absolutly nothing to do with what was released a few years later (the result was an awesome game). I can say the same thing about Age of Empires (the designers moved away from their initial concept after playing Warcraft 2 because it was way more fun) or even StarCraft (they restarted the game almost from scratch because of very bad feedback at E3 in 1996).
If they were to release or even work on WC4, it would be after SC2 is done and starts going (more) downhill. But even by the time that happens (which I suspect won't be too long from after LotV's release), WoW will still be there. The new expansion, Warlords of Draenor, is probably going to be released roughly at the same time as LotV. Again, they said they have 2 o 3 more expansions already lined up for WoW. For WC4 to ever come, they need to either wrap up the WoW part of the storyline, or do some kind of weird alternate time line with the game.
I don't agree with your time frames at all. I think its almost 100% certain LotV will not come out this year since they have not even started hyping it up. I'd say its going to be in Q3 or Q4 next year at earliest, could even be later. Warlords of Draenor is pretty much confirmed for this year though and I'd guess its going to be released around october-ish.
Earlier in my post, I added a (?) before the release of LotV, because I am unsure about it. Regarding WoD, Blizzard recently stated they planned it for 9 months from now, I think. I saw that somewhere in the TL WoD thread...
In any case, I think they'd like to release LotV in 2015, and it doesn't refute my point that WC4 is long, long ways away.
On March 13 2014 22:14 Tyrhanius wrote: The problem is DK try to do as few changes as possible. But patchs are not important just for balance. Patchs are what increase the lengthtime of the game. If you look at LOL/Dota2, they patch heroes, release new one. Each new season brings a new meta, different ways to play, and it's what keep players on the game, and make the game popular.
But on SC2 we have a minor patch each 3 months. And they don't bring new ways to play or make them more entertaining. And if you look at HOTS patch history they have nearly only nerf OP stuff. They only add no real content to the game, making the number of viewers to decrease, but they take very long to patch some broken stuff. They act like they don't want to recognize something is too strong or they've made a mistake, so they let the thing a lot of time ("we wait the players learn to play to see if it needs a change").
And after they're blocked. Deathball toss are too strong, but Zerg has learn the only way to deal with it is to never engage it, and slowly kill it with SH. same with the new mech (due to DK's buff of raven/tank/banshee). So they say the game are too long and sometimes boring, but if they nerf SH, they would crush balance because zerg wouldn't be able to win in late. So they can't really nerf SH now, beacause they haven't fixed the issue of lategame Toss when we have reported them.
Or DK makes 3-6 months to fix something obviously imbalance. Is it some nerf players wasn't asking for months he made ? Hellbats drops, WM, buff ghost, MSC nerf, etc... All the things he has done is waiting the longer he can before making something which has to be done, or make insignifiant change, or broken one's("hey it would be could if oracle are as fast as a mutalisk and kill a mineral line just when you press a touch").
If you could stop comparing a boxed copy RTS game with free-to-play MOBA games and could point out an RTS game maker that does a better job at patching/expanding their games than Blizzard does, that's be nice.
Why? No point cuz every rts we have are bad
I disagree, as Forged Alliance is as good as anything out there including SC2
On March 13 2014 22:14 Tyrhanius wrote: The problem is DK try to do as few changes as possible. But patchs are not important just for balance. Patchs are what increase the lengthtime of the game. If you look at LOL/Dota2, they patch heroes, release new one. Each new season brings a new meta, different ways to play, and it's what keep players on the game, and make the game popular.
But on SC2 we have a minor patch each 3 months. And they don't bring new ways to play or make them more entertaining. And if you look at HOTS patch history they have nearly only nerf OP stuff. They only add no real content to the game, making the number of viewers to decrease, but they take very long to patch some broken stuff. They act like they don't want to recognize something is too strong or they've made a mistake, so they let the thing a lot of time ("we wait the players learn to play to see if it needs a change").
And after they're blocked. Deathball toss are too strong, but Zerg has learn the only way to deal with it is to never engage it, and slowly kill it with SH. same with the new mech (due to DK's buff of raven/tank/banshee). So they say the game are too long and sometimes boring, but if they nerf SH, they would crush balance because zerg wouldn't be able to win in late. So they can't really nerf SH now, beacause they haven't fixed the issue of lategame Toss when we have reported them.
Or DK makes 3-6 months to fix something obviously imbalance. Is it some nerf players wasn't asking for months he made ? Hellbats drops, WM, buff ghost, MSC nerf, etc... All the things he has done is waiting the longer he can before making something which has to be done, or make insignifiant change, or broken one's("hey it would be could if oracle are as fast as a mutalisk and kill a mineral line just when you press a touch").
If you could stop comparing a boxed copy RTS game with free-to-play MOBA games and could point out an RTS game maker that does a better job at patching/expanding their games than Blizzard does, that's be nice.
Why? No point cuz every rts we have are bad
I disagree, as Forged Alliance is as good as anything out there including SC2
Part of me has been tempted to buy Command and Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars or wait until Age of Mythology: Extended Edition to come out on Steam to get my RTS fix.
I hated Company of Heroes and pretty much uninstalled it two hours in, I feel like Age of Empires II is badly designed from a balance and gameplay standpoint and has netcode too piss-poor for competitive play and I absolutely despise iCCup so Brood War is out of the question.
I no longer have faith in David Kim as a game designer and I feel like he should have been fired eighteen months ago. The 1.4.3 Balance Update I would have been willing to forgive if he admitted two or three months in that it was a terrible mistake and revoked it but 5 range Queens are still present now.
I also love how he doesn't see TvP as problematic when Protoss can defend any sort of one base or two base aggression that comes out from the Terran player thanks to the Mothership Core. This has rendered most aggressive builds from Terran absolutely obsolete, even when beforehand all Protoss needed to do was scout, prepare and micro accordingly with passably good forcefields.
And don't get me started on the Oracle buff... Jesus H. Christ that was a terrible idea and it pretty much exclaims the fact that you require Missile Turrets in your bases by the 6 - 7 minute mark else you outright get instagibbed by something that does 30DPS to light.
He needs to seriously stop ignoring every concern. I feel like this AMA was just him dodging question after question after question.
Does DK actually have any say in the design of the units per se?
Without any solid information, I would assume that he is presented with units and concepts from the designers, and he is then asked about his opinion regarding the potential balance problems said concepts could trigger. But does he contribute to the creative process at all?
In the end, and while his way of absolutely not answering questions is certainly not commendable, he does not have that much power, and should not hold such a big part of the blame.
On March 14 2014 02:12 404AlphaSquad wrote: Part of being a good rts designer seems that you have to be a good politician... Never admit mistakes, just ignore problems.
its the PR spin all companies must put on all communications with all customers. nothing special here.
david kim answered enough questions directly for my liking.
why don't u email EA and ask them how the next C&C is coming along. see what kind of response you get.
i've spent about $1000 on Starcraft since 2000. I'm happy with every dime i've spent. i still have my SC64 cartridge.
On March 13 2014 06:56 Zealos wrote: I like it. Basically it can be summed up: We hear your complaints. We are not changing anything.
i'm happy with teh game as is. considering what small amount of money Blizz makes on RTS i'm just happy they are supporting the game so well.
thanks Blizzard. thanks David Kim, Dustin Browder, et al.
I can appreciate most of his answers. I actually blame the community kept repeating the same questions over and over again about forcefields and a huge overhaul redesign, it's been answered so many times already.
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
TBF though, the deathball, economy, high ground, etc questions, are more "this is what we want! please implement!" sort of feedback rather then just honest questions. It's Blizzards failure to categorically state their position that makes this sort of feedback keep coming up. This time though, he was very clear IMO about most of those things. Still, questions in the form of "wishlist" will still crop up.
Like the situation with mech. One week they say "we want mech, we made new units to make it work" next week they say "we don't want mech, it's boring" and then back to "we want mech again". What the Hell is one supposed to think? They needed a new lead game designer after WOL IMO, someone with focus and a clear vision.
True, they were clear in this AMA and the last. Possibly too nice about it in saying "no" when a firmer "NO" would have been better. And as someone who is generally happy with the deathball, the economy, highground etc I am pleased there will be no major overhaul of core SC2 mechanics for LOTV. Any changes should come from within the existing framework of the game.
As for Mech (I take it you mean TvP) I think that's a response to the incessant pleading for it for 4 years. Blizzard do not really want to enable Mech in TvP (at least at the top level). If so, fair enough. Again, it's best if they just said "NO TANKS!".
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
TBF though, the deathball, economy, high ground, etc questions, are more "this is what we want! please implement!" sort of feedback rather then just honest questions. It's Blizzards failure to categorically state their position that makes this sort of feedback keep coming up. This time though, he was very clear IMO about most of those things. Still, questions in the form of "wishlist" will still crop up.
Like the situation with mech. One week they say "we want mech, we made new units to make it work" next week they say "we don't want mech, it's boring" and then back to "we want mech again". What the Hell is one supposed to think? They needed a new lead game designer after WOL IMO, someone with focus and a clear vision.
Something potentially interesting is for David Kim to contrast the Starbow implementation of all these things with the Blizzard implementation. That would be productive probably, and give a clear idea of David Kim's true opinion. But of course he is not going to do that.
Blizzard hasn't really given any meaningful statements on Starbow's design outside of implying that it serves a purpose in giving part of the fan base what it desires, but they haven't said that this reflects in any way on Starcraft 2.
To be quite honest, someone in David Kim's position should be highly interested in Starbow. It's essentially an alternative approach to the game that he is responsible for and which calls into question many decisions that he has made in the past. From a professional perspective it should be fascinating, unless, of course, Blizzard has no real interest in making any significant changes to SC2 anymore.
I'm not sure why you think they should do that. Starbow remains what it is, a good mod that is a BW and SC2 knock-off. What would he need to comment on in comparison to SC2 and why? And no, I don't imagine any significant changes to SC2.
We believe ZvP is the biggest concern of the three matchups
Really ? WTF ?
hes talking about swarmhost and in this case he is 100% correct ... perhaps you need to learn to read more then 1 word ... cry before reading everything is stupid as shit
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
TBF though, the deathball, economy, high ground, etc questions, are more "this is what we want! please implement!" sort of feedback rather then just honest questions. It's Blizzards failure to categorically state their position that makes this sort of feedback keep coming up. This time though, he was very clear IMO about most of those things. Still, questions in the form of "wishlist" will still crop up.
Like the situation with mech. One week they say "we want mech, we made new units to make it work" next week they say "we don't want mech, it's boring" and then back to "we want mech again". What the Hell is one supposed to think? They needed a new lead game designer after WOL IMO, someone with focus and a clear vision.
Something potentially interesting is for David Kim to contrast the Starbow implementation of all these things with the Blizzard implementation. That would be productive probably, and give a clear idea of David Kim's true opinion. But of course he is not going to do that.
Blizzard hasn't really given any meaningful statements on Starbow's design outside of implying that it serves a purpose in giving part of the fan base what it desires, but they haven't said that this reflects in any way on Starcraft 2.
To be quite honest, someone in David Kim's position should be highly interested in Starbow. It's essentially an alternative approach to the game that he is responsible for and which calls into question many decisions that he has made in the past. From a professional perspective it should be fascinating, unless, of course, Blizzard has no real interest in making any significant changes to SC2 anymore.
I'm not sure why you think they should do that. Starbow remains what it is, a good mod that is a BW and SC2 knock-off. What would he need to comment on in comparison to SC2 and why? And no, I don't imagine any significant changes to SC2.
Seeing David Kim saying once again that Carriers are boring A-move units as if nothing could be done about it while amateur devs were able to make it interesting in Starbow is just infuriating.
(I haven't played Starbow so my example of the Carrier might be inacurate, yet a lot of units behavior has been made more interesting in Starbow so the point still stands)
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
TBF though, the deathball, economy, high ground, etc questions, are more "this is what we want! please implement!" sort of feedback rather then just honest questions. It's Blizzards failure to categorically state their position that makes this sort of feedback keep coming up. This time though, he was very clear IMO about most of those things. Still, questions in the form of "wishlist" will still crop up.
Like the situation with mech. One week they say "we want mech, we made new units to make it work" next week they say "we don't want mech, it's boring" and then back to "we want mech again". What the Hell is one supposed to think? They needed a new lead game designer after WOL IMO, someone with focus and a clear vision.
Something potentially interesting is for David Kim to contrast the Starbow implementation of all these things with the Blizzard implementation. That would be productive probably, and give a clear idea of David Kim's true opinion. But of course he is not going to do that.
Blizzard hasn't really given any meaningful statements on Starbow's design outside of implying that it serves a purpose in giving part of the fan base what it desires, but they haven't said that this reflects in any way on Starcraft 2.
To be quite honest, someone in David Kim's position should be highly interested in Starbow. It's essentially an alternative approach to the game that he is responsible for and which calls into question many decisions that he has made in the past. From a professional perspective it should be fascinating, unless, of course, Blizzard has no real interest in making any significant changes to SC2 anymore.
I'm not sure why you think they should do that. Starbow remains what it is, a good mod that is a BW and SC2 knock-off. What would he need to comment on in comparison to SC2 and why? And no, I don't imagine any significant changes to SC2.
A LOT of things can be improved in SC2.
But oh wait if your thing is purely based upon a 15 minutes build into 10 seconds clash battle, then SC2 is definitely excellent for you.
However some us actually prefer to have multitasking all the over the map in attempt to kill expo and expo ourselves all over it to have more spread out battles, then we got a whole different philosophy going on.
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
TBF though, the deathball, economy, high ground, etc questions, are more "this is what we want! please implement!" sort of feedback rather then just honest questions. It's Blizzards failure to categorically state their position that makes this sort of feedback keep coming up. This time though, he was very clear IMO about most of those things. Still, questions in the form of "wishlist" will still crop up.
Like the situation with mech. One week they say "we want mech, we made new units to make it work" next week they say "we don't want mech, it's boring" and then back to "we want mech again". What the Hell is one supposed to think? They needed a new lead game designer after WOL IMO, someone with focus and a clear vision.
Something potentially interesting is for David Kim to contrast the Starbow implementation of all these things with the Blizzard implementation. That would be productive probably, and give a clear idea of David Kim's true opinion. But of course he is not going to do that.
Blizzard hasn't really given any meaningful statements on Starbow's design outside of implying that it serves a purpose in giving part of the fan base what it desires, but they haven't said that this reflects in any way on Starcraft 2.
To be quite honest, someone in David Kim's position should be highly interested in Starbow. It's essentially an alternative approach to the game that he is responsible for and which calls into question many decisions that he has made in the past. From a professional perspective it should be fascinating, unless, of course, Blizzard has no real interest in making any significant changes to SC2 anymore.
I'm not sure why you think they should do that. Starbow remains what it is, a good mod that is a BW and SC2 knock-off. What would he need to comment on in comparison to SC2 and why? And no, I don't imagine any significant changes to SC2.
A LOT of things can be improved in SC2.
But oh wait if your thing is purely based upon a 15 minutes build into 10 seconds clash battle, then SC2 is definitely excellent for you.
However some us actually prefer to have multitasking all the over the map in attempt to kill expo and expo ourselves all over it to have more spread out battles, then we got a whole different philosophy going on.
One is simpler while the other is more complex.
Starbow hipsters telling us how much better their indie mod is then mainstream SC2. Seriously, I think I hade the same discussion last weekend about music and one guy dropped the "some of us prefer music wih some depth and texture,".
Starbow and BW hipsters telling us how our personal tastes are wrong.
blizzard imbalance team seems like they rly dont care about protoss is the most ez race in the game, especially in TvP... even a lot of pros protosses know this issue.. that makes me feel very sadly about the game
On March 13 2014 22:07 Plansix wrote: [quote] Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
TBF though, the deathball, economy, high ground, etc questions, are more "this is what we want! please implement!" sort of feedback rather then just honest questions. It's Blizzards failure to categorically state their position that makes this sort of feedback keep coming up. This time though, he was very clear IMO about most of those things. Still, questions in the form of "wishlist" will still crop up.
Like the situation with mech. One week they say "we want mech, we made new units to make it work" next week they say "we don't want mech, it's boring" and then back to "we want mech again". What the Hell is one supposed to think? They needed a new lead game designer after WOL IMO, someone with focus and a clear vision.
Something potentially interesting is for David Kim to contrast the Starbow implementation of all these things with the Blizzard implementation. That would be productive probably, and give a clear idea of David Kim's true opinion. But of course he is not going to do that.
Blizzard hasn't really given any meaningful statements on Starbow's design outside of implying that it serves a purpose in giving part of the fan base what it desires, but they haven't said that this reflects in any way on Starcraft 2.
To be quite honest, someone in David Kim's position should be highly interested in Starbow. It's essentially an alternative approach to the game that he is responsible for and which calls into question many decisions that he has made in the past. From a professional perspective it should be fascinating, unless, of course, Blizzard has no real interest in making any significant changes to SC2 anymore.
I'm not sure why you think they should do that. Starbow remains what it is, a good mod that is a BW and SC2 knock-off. What would he need to comment on in comparison to SC2 and why? And no, I don't imagine any significant changes to SC2.
A LOT of things can be improved in SC2.
But oh wait if your thing is purely based upon a 15 minutes build into 10 seconds clash battle, then SC2 is definitely excellent for you.
However some us actually prefer to have multitasking all the over the map in attempt to kill expo and expo ourselves all over it to have more spread out battles, then we got a whole different philosophy going on.
One is simpler while the other is more complex.
Starbow hipsters telling us how much better their indie mod is then mainstream SC2. Seriously, I think I hade the same discussion last weekend about music and one guy dropped the "some of us prefer music wih some depth and texture,".
Starbow and BW hipsters telling us how our personal tastes are wrong.
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
TBF though, the deathball, economy, high ground, etc questions, are more "this is what we want! please implement!" sort of feedback rather then just honest questions. It's Blizzards failure to categorically state their position that makes this sort of feedback keep coming up. This time though, he was very clear IMO about most of those things. Still, questions in the form of "wishlist" will still crop up.
Like the situation with mech. One week they say "we want mech, we made new units to make it work" next week they say "we don't want mech, it's boring" and then back to "we want mech again". What the Hell is one supposed to think? They needed a new lead game designer after WOL IMO, someone with focus and a clear vision.
Something potentially interesting is for David Kim to contrast the Starbow implementation of all these things with the Blizzard implementation. That would be productive probably, and give a clear idea of David Kim's true opinion. But of course he is not going to do that.
Blizzard hasn't really given any meaningful statements on Starbow's design outside of implying that it serves a purpose in giving part of the fan base what it desires, but they haven't said that this reflects in any way on Starcraft 2.
To be quite honest, someone in David Kim's position should be highly interested in Starbow. It's essentially an alternative approach to the game that he is responsible for and which calls into question many decisions that he has made in the past. From a professional perspective it should be fascinating, unless, of course, Blizzard has no real interest in making any significant changes to SC2 anymore.
I'm not sure why you think they should do that. Starbow remains what it is, a good mod that is a BW and SC2 knock-off. What would he need to comment on in comparison to SC2 and why? And no, I don't imagine any significant changes to SC2.
A LOT of things can be improved in SC2.
But oh wait if your thing is purely based upon a 15 minutes build into 10 seconds clash battle, then SC2 is definitely excellent for you.
However some us actually prefer to have multitasking all the over the map in attempt to kill expo and expo ourselves all over it to have more spread out battles, then we got a whole different philosophy going on.
One is simpler while the other is more complex.
Starbow hipsters telling us how much better their indie mod is then mainstream SC2. Seriously, I think I hade the same discussion last weekend about music and one guy dropped the "some of us prefer music wih some depth and texture,".
Starbow and BW hipsters telling us how our personal tastes are wrong.
DK himself says that carriers are crappy.
WTF? He did not say that at all. The only way he said that is if you remove a bunch of words and add "crappy".
On March 14 2014 03:54 HelteR wrote: blizzard imbalance team seems like they rly dont care about protoss is the most ez race in the game, especially in TvP... even a lot of pros protosses know this issue.. that makes me feel very sadly about the game
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
TBF though, the deathball, economy, high ground, etc questions, are more "this is what we want! please implement!" sort of feedback rather then just honest questions. It's Blizzards failure to categorically state their position that makes this sort of feedback keep coming up. This time though, he was very clear IMO about most of those things. Still, questions in the form of "wishlist" will still crop up.
Like the situation with mech. One week they say "we want mech, we made new units to make it work" next week they say "we don't want mech, it's boring" and then back to "we want mech again". What the Hell is one supposed to think? They needed a new lead game designer after WOL IMO, someone with focus and a clear vision.
Something potentially interesting is for David Kim to contrast the Starbow implementation of all these things with the Blizzard implementation. That would be productive probably, and give a clear idea of David Kim's true opinion. But of course he is not going to do that.
Blizzard hasn't really given any meaningful statements on Starbow's design outside of implying that it serves a purpose in giving part of the fan base what it desires, but they haven't said that this reflects in any way on Starcraft 2.
To be quite honest, someone in David Kim's position should be highly interested in Starbow. It's essentially an alternative approach to the game that he is responsible for and which calls into question many decisions that he has made in the past. From a professional perspective it should be fascinating, unless, of course, Blizzard has no real interest in making any significant changes to SC2 anymore.
I'm not sure why you think they should do that. Starbow remains what it is, a good mod that is a BW and SC2 knock-off. What would he need to comment on in comparison to SC2 and why? And no, I don't imagine any significant changes to SC2.
A LOT of things can be improved in SC2.
But oh wait if your thing is purely based upon a 15 minutes build into 10 seconds clash battle, then SC2 is definitely excellent for you.
However some us actually prefer to have multitasking all the over the map in attempt to kill expo and expo ourselves all over it to have more spread out battles, then we got a whole different philosophy going on.
One is simpler while the other is more complex.
A lot of things can be improved in SC2, I agree. But, what they are and how they might be achieved and what it might take to achieve and whether that is possible are all points to consider. I do not think that core changes to SC2 are necessary. Even if it were, the window for that is gone with HOTS. If the game was radically overhauled for LOTV (as many want), I think the game would die as you lose multiple years of sunk costs and the game is effectively "re-set" for no certain gain. A shrinking of the overall player base would be the result.
As players relearn the game, the quality of the pro product would also be poor further affecting player uptake and spectator base. SC2, overall, is in a better place than it has ever been. IEM Cologne was evidence of that. As is the number of good games of SC2 we have had so far this year. Will there be blips along the way? Sure. But the trend line is positive and upward. There is no need for core change. The evidence does not support it.
(Even if major changes are required, patches and piecemeal solutions may fix it. Sure, they may be ugly. But, I am happy to trade off achievable ugly changes against the beautiful design in my mind. The main thing is that it works.)
As to what the rest of your post is about, apart from being a load of condescending shit, I don't agree. At the highest level of play games are played with multiple bases and multiple fights. I play like that too in some of my games, albeit on a smaller scale, especially PvZ and PvP (but I do so badly because my mechanics are bad). As such, I still enjoy the game, to play and to watch. I really don't care that you do not; nothing is preventing you from playing (or watching) more Starbow (or anything else).
As to Starbow, it is a good game. I have played it. Starbow is funny though, it's a free game that more people seem to actually talk about playing than actually playing. I prefer SC2: to play and to watch. So, for that matter, it seems do a lot of people even if some of them appear to spend most of it complaining about SC2.
Still, I guess it shows they still care about the game. And that can only be a good thing. Maybe.
On March 13 2014 22:14 Tyrhanius wrote: The problem is DK try to do as few changes as possible. But patchs are not important just for balance. Patchs are what increase the lengthtime of the game. If you look at LOL/Dota2, they patch heroes, release new one. Each new season brings a new meta, different ways to play, and it's what keep players on the game, and make the game popular.
But on SC2 we have a minor patch each 3 months. And they don't bring new ways to play or make them more entertaining. And if you look at HOTS patch history they have nearly only nerf OP stuff. They only add no real content to the game, making the number of viewers to decrease, but they take very long to patch some broken stuff. They act like they don't want to recognize something is too strong or they've made a mistake, so they let the thing a lot of time ("we wait the players learn to play to see if it needs a change").
And after they're blocked. Deathball toss are too strong, but Zerg has learn the only way to deal with it is to never engage it, and slowly kill it with SH. same with the new mech (due to DK's buff of raven/tank/banshee). So they say the game are too long and sometimes boring, but if they nerf SH, they would crush balance because zerg wouldn't be able to win in late. So they can't really nerf SH now, beacause they haven't fixed the issue of lategame Toss when we have reported them.
Or DK makes 3-6 months to fix something obviously imbalance. Is it some nerf players wasn't asking for months he made ? Hellbats drops, WM, buff ghost, MSC nerf, etc... All the things he has done is waiting the longer he can before making something which has to be done, or make insignifiant change, or broken one's("hey it would be could if oracle are as fast as a mutalisk and kill a mineral line just when you press a touch").
If you could stop comparing a boxed copy RTS game with free-to-play MOBA games and could point out an RTS game maker that does a better job at patching/expanding their games than Blizzard does, that's be nice.
Decemberscalm and his team over at starbow currently fit the description of what you're asking to be pointed towards.
On March 13 2014 22:14 Tyrhanius wrote: The problem is DK try to do as few changes as possible. But patchs are not important just for balance. Patchs are what increase the lengthtime of the game. If you look at LOL/Dota2, they patch heroes, release new one. Each new season brings a new meta, different ways to play, and it's what keep players on the game, and make the game popular.
But on SC2 we have a minor patch each 3 months. And they don't bring new ways to play or make them more entertaining. And if you look at HOTS patch history they have nearly only nerf OP stuff. They only add no real content to the game, making the number of viewers to decrease, but they take very long to patch some broken stuff. They act like they don't want to recognize something is too strong or they've made a mistake, so they let the thing a lot of time ("we wait the players learn to play to see if it needs a change").
And after they're blocked. Deathball toss are too strong, but Zerg has learn the only way to deal with it is to never engage it, and slowly kill it with SH. same with the new mech (due to DK's buff of raven/tank/banshee). So they say the game are too long and sometimes boring, but if they nerf SH, they would crush balance because zerg wouldn't be able to win in late. So they can't really nerf SH now, beacause they haven't fixed the issue of lategame Toss when we have reported them.
Or DK makes 3-6 months to fix something obviously imbalance. Is it some nerf players wasn't asking for months he made ? Hellbats drops, WM, buff ghost, MSC nerf, etc... All the things he has done is waiting the longer he can before making something which has to be done, or make insignifiant change, or broken one's("hey it would be could if oracle are as fast as a mutalisk and kill a mineral line just when you press a touch").
If you could stop comparing a boxed copy RTS game with free-to-play MOBA games and could point out an RTS game maker that does a better job at patching/expanding their games than Blizzard does, that's be nice.
Decemberscalm and his team over at starbow currently fit the description of what you're asking to be pointed towards.
Except that Starbow is not a commercial product, which is a key part of his point.
What's the point of an AMA when most of your responses are "we're looking into it" and "we would like" and "we hope"? I was hoping for something a little bit more concrete.
"We also mentioned we would prefer not to make design changes in patches because we don't think it's good for the game to change too much and confuse returning players or players who just don't keep up with every single change we make to the game."
This is just utterly confusing to me.
I was confused when HotS came out, but I loved every single moment of it because it felt fresh.
On March 14 2014 05:06 Frex wrote: "We also mentioned we would prefer not to make design changes in patches because we don't think it's good for the game to change too much and confuse returning players or players who just don't keep up with every single change we make to the game."
This is just utterly confusing to me.
I was confused when HotS came out, but I loved every single moment of it because it felt fresh.
so true this is just a ridiculous and tbh insulting statement to your playerbase
It's so annoying to hear so radical expectations about personal opinions.. Like seriously - give the man (and me as well ) a break.. --> highground mechanics ????????, warpgate ??, forcefields ??
If you ask me all those are fine working for, what however isn't working well is that there aren't units that are mitigating splash damage or the ones that dish out splash are relatively simple and/or easy to use.. more like - i'm stating that not forcefields and w-gate, but - the Colossus itself is being the main issue..
But yah - what's concerned about this AMA is that - this time we actually GOT opinions
Perhaps that's why the reaction is so radical all across the board --> yes - he said a lot, we just don't want to acknowledge it cause it didn't fit our "radical" mind enough to follow..
The mere fact that this time we're actually posting replies to his answers as opposed to talking about him as a "faceless" person, is an evidence enough that we got opinions rather than some PR bullsh*t that's being vague overall..
The thing is - I also agree on what he said though
--> The game was bad some 2 months ago... but the last patch literally changes most of all.. like - it sounds as a small impact, but in fact is really big.. like - enormous.. You could even try the Tank-mech BW style with the mines now.. Or even better - try some Biomech for what we know.. Now mines can actually force Protoss back-off
I am personally happy to hear DK thinking of TvZ issue not related or not same reason to the ZvP issue - he thinks that stalemates in TvZ happen because of reasons other than the swarmhost - i.e. - mass Raven.. could be right though - he also said that the team's working on figuring out the SHost..
Like - the words used to answer were constructed a lot in the PR ways, but he actually said his personal opinions with it for a change - it's really something that hasn't happened before
The AMA wasn't radical, but it's not a period when the game needs to be radical.. OK - maybe a bit more radicallity would work well ATM - like the following 2 things though:
--> Mothership (yes, the late-game never-used unit-thing), and the Swarmhost.. Also happy to hear that they're overlooking at the Raven as well ATM, so it's a good focus overall
Other than that - the game seems fine and dynamic enough overall
================================================
I personally have one disliking about this AMA session - the questions were picked by a random reddit thread rather than here on TL like in the basic/standard 20-20 form.. Would've been a lot more refreshing.. Even only-balance talk specifically - a 20-20 would've been in a more unofficial and/or a refreshing tone IMO
On March 13 2014 22:14 Tyrhanius wrote: The problem is DK try to do as few changes as possible. But patchs are not important just for balance. Patchs are what increase the lengthtime of the game. If you look at LOL/Dota2, they patch heroes, release new one. Each new season brings a new meta, different ways to play, and it's what keep players on the game, and make the game popular.
But on SC2 we have a minor patch each 3 months. And they don't bring new ways to play or make them more entertaining. And if you look at HOTS patch history they have nearly only nerf OP stuff. They only add no real content to the game, making the number of viewers to decrease, but they take very long to patch some broken stuff. They act like they don't want to recognize something is too strong or they've made a mistake, so they let the thing a lot of time ("we wait the players learn to play to see if it needs a change").
And after they're blocked. Deathball toss are too strong, but Zerg has learn the only way to deal with it is to never engage it, and slowly kill it with SH. same with the new mech (due to DK's buff of raven/tank/banshee). So they say the game are too long and sometimes boring, but if they nerf SH, they would crush balance because zerg wouldn't be able to win in late. So they can't really nerf SH now, beacause they haven't fixed the issue of lategame Toss when we have reported them.
Or DK makes 3-6 months to fix something obviously imbalance. Is it some nerf players wasn't asking for months he made ? Hellbats drops, WM, buff ghost, MSC nerf, etc... All the things he has done is waiting the longer he can before making something which has to be done, or make insignifiant change, or broken one's("hey it would be could if oracle are as fast as a mutalisk and kill a mineral line just when you press a touch").
If you could stop comparing a boxed copy RTS game with free-to-play MOBA games and could point out an RTS game maker that does a better job at patching/expanding their games than Blizzard does, that's be nice.
Is it more difficult to make a new hero or to change hydralisk attack speed to 0.83 to 0.75 ? There is no reason a MOBA are more patch than a RTS. One of the reason a MOBA is more popular is they constantly add stuff, they have understood the new esport, and the new generation of players. But blizzard don't seem to have understood this. They are just : MOBA are popular ? I will make a MOBA too.
Wouldn't new heros be more similar to new ladder maps (which we DO get more frequently now)... The problem isn't the difficulty in making the actual change, it's deciding what to change and how.
Relatively "small" changes in an RTS (like the hydra buff) have a large impact on the overall game (affecting 1/2 of the matchups). You change or add one hero in DotA and you might just end up changing the draw strategy.
It's also probably a lot more straightforward to say X hero is OP/UP because of Y, change Z. However, in an RTS you have to completely look at the overall game from start to finish. Look at what a drastic change giving queens extra range had on the way was able to play.
On March 14 2014 05:06 Frex wrote: "We also mentioned we would prefer not to make design changes in patches because we don't think it's good for the game to change too much and confuse returning players or players who just don't keep up with every single change we make to the game."
This is just utterly confusing to me.
I was confused when HotS came out, but I loved every single moment of it because it felt fresh.
so true this is just a ridiculous and tbh insulting statement to your playerbase
It's odd, because it never stopped Blizzard from making huge, sweeping changes every single patch in WoW. The game can be almost unrecognizable between expansions and for certain a vast number of people will have quit playing WoW because it didn't live up to a previous standard anymore. Blizzard accepts this and calculates that more people will continue to play the game by trying to improve it.
RTS games are different because any change disrupts the competitive scene, which is another factor to keep in mind. If deciding on completely reworking the game you'll have to start out by presuming that the quality of the professional scene will strongly degrade, even if it might improve again years in the future. It's hardly tenable to do this when so many parties have a stake in its continuation and it's only if there are very obvious benefits to change that it's acceptable. It has to be clear to everyone that it will lead to strong future growth, enough to off-set the temporary chaos.
Personally I think that the window for change has passed. Blizzard inexplicably never made any core changes to the game after the beta and instead devoted themselves to hyping up the multiplayer with near-million dollar tournaments. I think it was a mistake, they should have committed to constant fundamental changes until the release of Heart of the Swarm and only then officially launch Starcraft II as an e-sport. I don't know if it would have been the best decision financially, but at least more people would have been happy with the game.
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
TBF though, the deathball, economy, high ground, etc questions, are more "this is what we want! please implement!" sort of feedback rather then just honest questions. It's Blizzards failure to categorically state their position that makes this sort of feedback keep coming up. This time though, he was very clear IMO about most of those things. Still, questions in the form of "wishlist" will still crop up.
Like the situation with mech. One week they say "we want mech, we made new units to make it work" next week they say "we don't want mech, it's boring" and then back to "we want mech again". What the Hell is one supposed to think? They needed a new lead game designer after WOL IMO, someone with focus and a clear vision.
They never said: "we dont want mech, it's boring". That's another one of those problems with the AMAs. People read into it what they want to read into it. And then circlejerk it up until "that is what they said". The comment you are referring to was something along the lines of "we don't want passive siege tank sitback play". Which is not the same as "we don't want siege tanks to be used" or even more "we don't want mech". There can be Mech without that aspect they don't want.
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
People ask those questions over and over cause they are the most important ones hoping that Blizzard might have taken a new stance on them. Quite easy to understand. But if you wanna see him answer some questions about how he is gonna tweak some numbers on a unit which does little to nothing to actually CHANGE the game it's fine I suppose. Most people wanna see some real answers to the big questions though.
You are defeating your own arguments with your example. Why even have an AMA in the first place if they can't answer anything really?
Only thing they accomplish with AMA's like this one is lowering the confidence the SC2 community has in Blizzard. They don't "calm the community", they do the exact opposite of it.
People have high standards in a Blizzard title. They don't accept SC2 or Diablo3 just being good. It's supposed to be "fucking amazing cause it's Blizzard". If SC2 or Diablo3 were released by some random company I guarantee you that the amount of whine would be a fraction of what it is today and has been since their releases.
OK, keep talking. What's a real answer as you put it to: Q: Are any "large scale" or "mechanic" redesigns being considering for Legacy of the Void? For example considering changing mechanics around high ground advantage, the soft 3 base income cap, warpgate, etc? give an example.
Great comeback you had there neglecting my whole post.
A real answer would obviously look like: "Yes, we are going to change X" or "No, we are not going to change X". Now, that wasn't so hard was it?
And if Blizzard don't wanna reveal their plans for the future and therefore answers like David Kim did the AMA serves no purpose at all other than piss most people off.
On March 13 2014 22:07 Plansix wrote: [quote] Agreed. The fact that he was asked the same questions as last time is a bummer. I would have liked to see someone beyond "are you guys getting rid of warpgate and force field yet?"
Those questions are a lot more important than asking about some random all-in from Toss.
I dont care if they are more important to you personally. They dont yield anything. It's a waste of time to ask a firm about it's secrets...
And I don't care if you think changing some numbers on some units is important because it makes one random Toss all-in out of a thousand less strong.
Why even have an AMA if he can't answer any questions of substantial value? And besides, he did answer about their "secrets" although he answers like a politician. I find it pretty obvious from his answers that Blizzard thinks most of the core mechanics in SC2 are in a good state. Also, he said they won't risk changing anything fundamental unless it's "absolutely amazing" which means they won't change anything at all.
So no, those questions were not a waste of time.
Yes, he said that 5AMAs ago. Those are answers from 2011 and 2012. Why the fuck ask the same question again? It's a waste of time. He answered those things in the last AMA already, which was what, 2months ago.
Yes, he answered like a politician. If he didn't, instead of 10page os "omg, he doesn't say anything"-bullshit, we'd now be reading through 100pages of "omg, they are going to introduce another splash unit for Protoss. Haven't they learned anything from the Colossus???????????????????" (assuming he reveals they have experimented with anything splash related). It would be even worse, even though the unit would not even make it into the game. That's why he rather says nothing that isn't at least 10% confirmed. You know, what's the safest scenario for blizzard: a) "yup, we will try a highground advantage for LotV" in 2014 - just that it may get cut again in 2015 b) "no, we heard you but we won't include highground advantages. We tried them, they are shit" in 2014 c) "we are trying it guys. But if it does not fit the game it won't make it in" in 2014 It's c). If they are not sure, they will not tell you. End of story. It makes the most sense.
TBF though, the deathball, economy, high ground, etc questions, are more "this is what we want! please implement!" sort of feedback rather then just honest questions. It's Blizzards failure to categorically state their position that makes this sort of feedback keep coming up. This time though, he was very clear IMO about most of those things. Still, questions in the form of "wishlist" will still crop up.
Like the situation with mech. One week they say "we want mech, we made new units to make it work" next week they say "we don't want mech, it's boring" and then back to "we want mech again". What the Hell is one supposed to think? They needed a new lead game designer after WOL IMO, someone with focus and a clear vision.
Something potentially interesting is for David Kim to contrast the Starbow implementation of all these things with the Blizzard implementation. That would be productive probably, and give a clear idea of David Kim's true opinion. But of course he is not going to do that.
Blizzard hasn't really given any meaningful statements on Starbow's design outside of implying that it serves a purpose in giving part of the fan base what it desires, but they haven't said that this reflects in any way on Starcraft 2.
To be quite honest, someone in David Kim's position should be highly interested in Starbow. It's essentially an alternative approach to the game that he is responsible for and which calls into question many decisions that he has made in the past. From a professional perspective it should be fascinating, unless, of course, Blizzard has no real interest in making any significant changes to SC2 anymore.
I'm not sure why you think they should do that. Starbow remains what it is, a good mod that is a BW and SC2 knock-off. What would he need to comment on in comparison to SC2 and why? And no, I don't imagine any significant changes to SC2.
A LOT of things can be improved in SC2.
But oh wait if your thing is purely based upon a 15 minutes build into 10 seconds clash battle, then SC2 is definitely excellent for you.
However some us actually prefer to have multitasking all the over the map in attempt to kill expo and expo ourselves all over it to have more spread out battles, then we got a whole different philosophy going on.
One is simpler while the other is more complex.
A lot of things can be improved in SC2, I agree. But, what they are and how they might be achieved and what it might take to achieve and whether that is possible are all points to consider. I do not think that core changes to SC2 are necessary. Even if it were, the window for that is gone with HOTS. If the game was radically overhauled for LOTV (as many want), I think the game would die as you lose multiple years of sunk costs and the game is effectively "re-set" for no certain gain. A shrinking of the overall player base would be the result.
As players relearn the game, the quality of the pro product would also be poor further affecting player uptake and spectator base. SC2, overall, is in a better place than it has ever been. IEM Cologne was evidence of that. As is the number of good games of SC2 we have had so far this year. Will there be blips along the way? Sure. But the trend line is positive and upward. There is no need for core change. The evidence does not support it.
(Even if major changes are required, patches and piecemeal solutions may fix it. Sure, they may be ugly. But, I am happy to trade off achievable ugly changes against the beautiful design in my mind. The main thing is that it works.)
As to what the rest of your post is about, apart from being a load of condescending shit, I don't agree. At the highest level of play games are played with multiple bases and multiple fights. I play like that too in some of my games, albeit on a smaller scale, especially PvZ and PvP (but I do so badly because my mechanics are bad). As such, I still enjoy the game, to play and to watch. I really don't care that you do not; nothing is preventing you from playing (or watching) more Starbow (or anything else).
As to Starbow, it is a good game. I have played it. Starbow is funny though, it's a free game that more people seem to actually talk about playing than actually playing. I prefer SC2: to play and to watch. So, for that matter, it seems do a lot of people even if some of them appear to spend most of it complaining about SC2.
Still, I guess it shows they still care about the game. And that can only be a good thing. Maybe.
Great post. This is exactly what I think about SC2 right now!
Poll: Do you get confused, when a change in the game design happens?
No, changes are a natural part of the progress of the game. (35)
88%
Yes, i get confused, but after a couple of games, I get used to it. (4)
10%
I don't play the game alot, so changes to the game mechanics confuse me. (1)
3%
I get annoyed by the changes, but they are good for the overall game (0)
0%
I am a very confused person. This poll confuses me. Do not like change!! (0)
0%
40 total votes
Your vote: Do you get confused, when a change in the game design happens?
(Vote): No, changes are a natural part of the progress of the game. (Vote): Yes, i get confused, but after a couple of games, I get used to it. (Vote): I get annoyed by the changes, but they are good for the overall game (Vote): I don't play the game alot, so changes to the game mechanics confuse me. (Vote): I am a very confused person. This poll confuses me. Do not like change!!
On March 13 2014 22:02 Big J wrote: Btw the real sad story is how the most stupid questions get upvoted on reddit. There were reasonable questions like about Mech TvP, what he thinks about Immortal allins in ZvP, what about the one or other specific unit. You know, stuff where he could actually say something meaningful. Instead we get those "are there big chances coming, tell us everything about your companies secrets please". "Why don't you redesign the game in a patch" bullshit questions that have been asked before and are vague as shit.
That's why you should have a Blizz guy on TeamLiquid . I hate Reddit's upvote system because all it does is cater to some of the most obnoxious aspects of the community and all nuanced discussion is abandoned.
On March 14 2014 07:16 NeThZOR wrote: LotV will revitalize SC2, I hope.
Really, I get the opposite impression from this. They're not considering any core changes, they like forcefield, they like clumping, they like high-ground mechanics. Starbow showed they can work really well even without resorting to code changes yet he's dismissed them explicitly saying they don't in this AMA. It'll just be a small interest peak in the new units then it will fade away.
Reading this we can expect LotV to bring a handful of units and a new type of rocks.
There are people out there that want such major changes (which is sort of what the mod community is for), but there are also people out there who like the current core systems the way they are.
I'd like to see those.
Thanks for another bullshit interview Mr. Kim no one can dodge questions as you can.
There are people out there that want such major changes (which is sort of what the mod community is for), but there are also people out there who like the current core systems the way they are.
I'd like to see those.
Thanks for another bullshit interview Mr. Kim no one can dodge questions as you can.
They are in this thread. I know, its hard to believe, but its true.
I have to say the AMA was extremely disappointing, because they are too scared to make big changes. You know what? The game is not doing well and one of the things that they can do is to make big changes.
There are people out there that want such major changes (which is sort of what the mod community is for), but there are also people out there who like the current core systems the way they are.
I'd like to see those.
Thanks for another bullshit interview Mr. Kim no one can dodge questions as you can.
They are in this thread. I know, its hard to believe, but its true.
They're naturally becoming the majority, most of those who were hoping for a BW sequel have departed.
If he keeps giving us the same things eventually he'll be entirely correct about what's left of the player base wants. 15minute no rush deathball clash fans will be the majority.
Artosis has always been a big champion of that and (after getting hooked on starbow for a bit) he's drifting off to hearthstone. I suspect likewise large numbers of those saying everything is great will get bored too at some point... But they won't complain, then they'll move on to blindly loving something else. It's in their nature.
Of course there are others who just haven't seen what RTS can be. Broodwars engagements are excellent but it hurts the eyes of someone used to modern games, I personally find it very hard to watch.
Q: Today, are you globally satisfied of the balance of your game ? - Hide Spoiler - A: I think it's safe to say that our balance design team is satisfied enough. There is no perfect with an ever-changing metagame and so many variables, so they can't/don't/won't ever reach "global satisfaction". There are always concerns to be addressed.
........................ the game hardly evolves and becomes super 1 dimensional, thus more and more people quit the game. #satisfied
Units that aren't being used that much, but don't break anything aren't as high of a priority for patches. However, they are high priority for the next game. This list includes not just the Nydus Worm, but also units such as BCs, Carriers, Corruptors, etc.
I'm holding you to this DK! I want Corruptors to not be boring AA units.
There are people out there that want such major changes (which is sort of what the mod community is for), but there are also people out there who like the current core systems the way they are.
I'd like to see those.
Thanks for another bullshit interview Mr. Kim no one can dodge questions as you can.
I like warp in mechanics, I love how it makes warp prism so much more than just a transport unit. A player can choose to commit to warp in units or just drop units. It also encourages late game protoss to have a presence everywhere just by having pylons. Or PvP with warp prism zealot drop and warp in behind the colossus in a deathball battle.
I like forcefields when it is used perfectly and not spamming because he has too much. forcefields and building defense against mass speedling bust is one of the coolest all in defense game to watch.
I like clumping because spreading and maintaining concave are really awesome micro to watch. It makes AoE feels a lot more devastating to those who don't split and really shows who has the better micro by baiting with small groups of units
Units that aren't being used that much, but don't break anything aren't as high of a priority for patches. However, they are high priority for the next game. This list includes not just the Nydus Worm, but also units such as BCs, Carriers, Corruptors, etc.
I'm holding you to this DK! I want Corruptors to not be boring AA units.
That was also one of their goals for HotS, so I wouldn't get your hopes up.
i'm a little sad they didn't reach my question in the ama about giving hydra an instant/non projectile attack as a way of helping vs the mass raven late game as PDD wouldn't block them then. xD But oh well.
Overall i'm pretty happy about their responses tbh. I just wish they would be more liberal with testing stuff at least on test maps more than simply saying we don't like to test anything unless it is 'AMAZING!!' Would be a lot better than simply saying this. They are going to get flak either way but they might as well try to show some ideas that people are having lol.
On March 14 2014 17:08 UltiBahamut wrote: i'm a little sad they didn't reach my question in the ama about giving hydra an instant/non projectile attack as a way of helping vs the mass raven late game as PDD wouldn't block them then. xD But oh well.
Overall i'm pretty happy about their responses tbh. I just wish they would be more liberal with testing stuff at least on test maps more than simply saying we don't like to test anything unless it is 'AMAZING!!' Would be a lot better than simply saying this. They are going to get flak either way but they might as well try to show some ideas that people are having lol.
Then you realize that ravens can spawn free units that just kill them.
On March 14 2014 17:08 UltiBahamut wrote: i'm a little sad they didn't reach my question in the ama about giving hydra an instant/non projectile attack as a way of helping vs the mass raven late game as PDD wouldn't block them then. xD But oh well.
Overall i'm pretty happy about their responses tbh. I just wish they would be more liberal with testing stuff at least on test maps more than simply saying we don't like to test anything unless it is 'AMAZING!!' Would be a lot better than simply saying this. They are going to get flak either way but they might as well try to show some ideas that people are having lol.
Then you realize that ravens can spawn free units that just kill them.
Exactly. Instead of throwing more free units to deal with the free units i personally feel as though giving hydras a use would be interesting to watch and maybe play as hydralisks are definitely better than infested terrans. As infested terrans are the only AA unit zerg has atm that doesn't get blocked by a PDD. I doubt it would be a hard counter, but it would come down to micro i hope.
EDIT: Essentially saying that i think hydras as a response to the mass viking/raven would be more interesting than the current mass spore crawlers and infestors as the only thing that kind of is able to fight the ravens as hydra's currently can't get a shot off before exploding, Muta/corruptor which can't get a shot off before exploding, or queens which explode heal explode heal but still can't get a shot off At least the hydralisk could do some micro of moving forward, shooting and running away before the seeker goes off or you can micro the targeted hydralisk away (Unlikely xD So hard to grab them if more than 1 or 2 are targeted). But i still feel that even with this change people would still do infestors and spores vs viking/raven
On March 14 2014 17:08 UltiBahamut wrote: i'm a little sad they didn't reach my question in the ama about giving hydra an instant/non projectile attack as a way of helping vs the mass raven late game as PDD wouldn't block them then. xD But oh well.
Overall i'm pretty happy about their responses tbh. I just wish they would be more liberal with testing stuff at least on test maps more than simply saying we don't like to test anything unless it is 'AMAZING!!' Would be a lot better than simply saying this. They are going to get flak either way but they might as well try to show some ideas that people are having lol.
They didn't get to my question about the Colossus, either. I'm hoping they take a major look at that unit for LOTV. Also, testing things on a test map usually wouldn't indicate much of substance. The player quality on those maps varies hugely, and real meta-changes often take weeks, even months, to be seen. Their in-house testing is probably more robust than the test maps.
On March 14 2014 17:08 UltiBahamut wrote: i'm a little sad they didn't reach my question in the ama about giving hydra an instant/non projectile attack as a way of helping vs the mass raven late game as PDD wouldn't block them then. xD But oh well.
Overall i'm pretty happy about their responses tbh. I just wish they would be more liberal with testing stuff at least on test maps more than simply saying we don't like to test anything unless it is 'AMAZING!!' Would be a lot better than simply saying this. They are going to get flak either way but they might as well try to show some ideas that people are having lol.
Then you realize that ravens can spawn free units that just kill them.
Exactly. Instead of throwing more free units to deal with the free units i personally feel as though giving hydras a use would be interesting to watch and maybe play as hydralisks are definitely better than infested terrans. As infested terrans are the only AA unit zerg has atm that doesn't get blocked by a PDD. I doubt it would be a hard counter, but it would come down to micro i hope.
EDIT: Essentially saying that i think hydras as a response to the mass viking/raven would be more interesting than the current mass spore crawlers and infestors as the only thing that kind of is able to fight the ravens as hydra's currently can't get a shot off before exploding, Muta/corruptor which can't get a shot off before exploding, or queens which explode heal explode heal but still can't get a shot off At least the hydralisk could do some micro of moving forward, shooting and running away before the seeker goes off or you can micro the targeted hydralisk away (Unlikely xD So hard to grab them if more than 1 or 2 are targeted). But i still feel that even with this change people would still do infestors and spores vs viking/raven
Your main problem with fighting the Viking/Raven from the ground is always tanks. Which you will not really find a way to beat with hydralisk.
If they want to avoid those kind of stuff, they need to give zerg units that are more efficient for 1-2supply. 2supply hydras against 2supply ravens are a joke. Even 2supply mutas (which are pretty good) and 2supply corruptors are pretty shitty comnpared to some of those T/P units (mostly Tempest and Raven though). You will always end up maxing with too few units with the current supplycosts. Infestors are pretty supplyefficient too though. That's the crux with most of zerg lategame. You always end up building the "right" units (like roaches against stalkers) and then you are suddenly maxed and your opponent turtles another 5mins building all the units that you counter cost for cost - but it doesn't matter at all for as long has he brings double the cost.
On March 14 2014 17:08 UltiBahamut wrote: i'm a little sad they didn't reach my question in the ama about giving hydra an instant/non projectile attack as a way of helping vs the mass raven late game as PDD wouldn't block them then. xD But oh well.
Overall i'm pretty happy about their responses tbh. I just wish they would be more liberal with testing stuff at least on test maps more than simply saying we don't like to test anything unless it is 'AMAZING!!' Would be a lot better than simply saying this. They are going to get flak either way but they might as well try to show some ideas that people are having lol.
Then you realize that ravens can spawn free units that just kill them.
Exactly. Instead of throwing more free units to deal with the free units i personally feel as though giving hydras a use would be interesting to watch and maybe play as hydralisks are definitely better than infested terrans. As infested terrans are the only AA unit zerg has atm that doesn't get blocked by a PDD. I doubt it would be a hard counter, but it would come down to micro i hope.
EDIT: Essentially saying that i think hydras as a response to the mass viking/raven would be more interesting than the current mass spore crawlers and infestors as the only thing that kind of is able to fight the ravens as hydra's currently can't get a shot off before exploding, Muta/corruptor which can't get a shot off before exploding, or queens which explode heal explode heal but still can't get a shot off At least the hydralisk could do some micro of moving forward, shooting and running away before the seeker goes off or you can micro the targeted hydralisk away (Unlikely xD So hard to grab them if more than 1 or 2 are targeted). But i still feel that even with this change people would still do infestors and spores vs viking/raven
Your main problem with fighting the Viking/Raven from the ground is always tanks. Which you will not really find a way to beat with hydralisk.
If they want to avoid those kind of stuff, they need to give zerg units that are more efficient for 1-2supply. 2supply hydras against 2supply ravens are a joke. Even 2supply mutas (which are pretty good) and 2supply corruptors are pretty shitty comnpared to some of those T/P units (mostly Tempest and Raven though). You will always end up maxing with too few units with the current supplycosts. Infestors are pretty supplyefficient too though. That's the crux with most of zerg lategame. You always end up building the "right" units (like roaches against stalkers) and then you are suddenly maxed and your opponent turtles another 5mins building all the units that you counter cost for cost - but it doesn't matter at all for as long has he brings double the cost.
Agreed. The problem is with the way zerg production works, if their core units are too supply efficient, they just overrun everything with their first max. Imagine someone like HyuN with more supply efficient units.
Warp in is very cool coming from the WP IMO, but only then. Otherwise, it has all the disadvantages pointed out in numerous threads. It should have been a WP ability, not the basic unit production mechanism.
FF is just bad, along with FG, because they are potentially game ending and micro denying, without a sensible skill ceiling (pro level). As a spectator, i never ever think "wow! how great is that P/Z player for having used FF/FG in that way!" In 2010 it was impressive yes, now you just embarrass yourself if you don't have superb FF placement. Storm and EMP can be cool in lategame because of the HT and Ghost positioning game: Having multiple HTs coming from different angles, setting traps, etc is what makes this fun. None of this is present for the Sentry and Infestor, so they are ranging from boring to infuriating for both spectators and players.
Units clumping naturally - This really rewards split micro which is one of the coolest micro moments SC2 provides. If units auto spread, marine splitting vs. Banelings won't be as cool to watch.
Deathballs are what killed the game for me. Aesthetically is very very bad. + Show Spoiler +
I've been following SC2 since beta and it's difficult for me to tell what the fuck is happening in those 4 sec fights with 130 units packed in a tiny space, often times one on top of another. For battles to be fun, i have to be able to answer some simple questions, like:
How many (roughly) units are there? How are they dying and what is killing them? What and how are the players controlling (microing) the units (displaying skill)?
And of course, i have to have time to enjoy the battle. In the mess of colors that is a late game battle in SC2, it's nigh impossible to tell any of that. For a new comer, it just looks like a mess, like a 4 second explosion, not a battle. Player skill is impossible to tell by anyone save a very, very small audience that plays the game at a relatively high level. It's a mess of colors that makes me dread watching games go to late game. If it's hard for me to watch that, what about a new comer? Is that going to leave him in awe of the "fantastic" climax of this game or leave him confused and with a headache?
So yeah, deathballs or "natural unit clumping" is very hard on the eyes, greatly limits player skill display, makes fights last only a few seconds, makes players afraid to engage and so it leads to that blob A and blob B "dancing" around each other for minutes.
Thank you for doing an AMA David. Just to balance out the negativity I want to say I look forward to the LotV expansion and I think you're doing a good job.
On March 14 2014 19:14 Sapphire.lux wrote: Warp in is very cool coming from the WP IMO, but only then. Otherwise, it has all the disadvantages pointed out in numerous threads. It should have been a WP ability, not the basic unit production mechanism.
FF is just bad, along with FG, because they are potentially game ending and micro denying, without a sensible skill ceiling (pro level). As a spectator, i never ever think "wow! how great is that P/Z player for having used FF/FG in that way!" In 2010 it was impressive yes, now you just embarrass yourself if you don't have superb FF placement. Storm and EMP can be cool in lategame because of the HT and Ghost positioning game: Having multiple HTs coming from different angles, setting traps, etc is what makes this fun. None of this is present for the Sentry and Infestor, so they are ranging from boring to infuriating for both spectators and players.
I saw this analogy yesterday, I thought it was quite apt:
Starcraft 2 is like a game that revolves around mastering three-ball juggling. It looks impressive for beginners, but is completely trivial for adapts and leaves them struggling to show something creative that is unlike anything else. There are still options to showcase skill, cool tricks that you can do, and it's quite easy to tell a beginner from an expert, but there is probably a limit to what you can set yourself apart with.
Brood War on the other hand is like five-ball juggling. It's almost the same game, but the difficulty is increased so much that even the best players can't execute everything. They will lose rhythm, occasionally mismanage their props and no two players can demonstrate exactly the same tricks.
And Dune II is like nine-ball juggling. It's so mechanically taxing that creativity, improvisation and imagination all fall on the wayside, leaving only pure technique because even the best players can't do anything with nine balls outside of barely succeeding at keeping the right pace. Another example would be turning basketball into a game of purely penalty shots, which would still reward skilled players, but would also reduce the game to one monotonous activity.
(I'm not a juggling expert, so take the numbers with a grain of salt)
And of course people will disagree on whether Brood War was simply too mechanically taxing, so much so that it became oppressive, or whether Starcraft II is not taxing enough.
Units clumping naturally - This really rewards split micro which is one of the coolest micro moments SC2 provides. If units auto spread, marine splitting vs. Banelings won't be as cool to watch.
Deathballs are what killed the game for me. Aesthetically is very very bad. + Show Spoiler +
I've been following SC2 since beta and it's difficult for me to tell what the fuck is happening in those 4 sec fights with 130 units packed in a tiny space, often times one on top of another. For battles to be fun, i have to be able to answer some simple questions, like:
How many (roughly) units are there? How are they dying and what is killing them? What and how are the players controlling (microing) the units (displaying skill)?
And of course, i have to have time to enjoy the battle. In the mess of colors that is a late game battle in SC2, it's nigh impossible to tell any of that. For a new comer, it just looks like a mess, like a 4 second explosion, not a battle. Player skill is impossible to tell by anyone save a very, very small audience that plays the game at a relatively high level. It's a mess of colors that makes me dread watching games go to late game. If it's hard for me to watch that, what about a new comer? Is that going to leave him in awe of the "fantastic" climax of this game or leave him confused and with a headache?
So yeah, deathballs or "natural unit clumping" is very hard on the eyes, greatly limits player skill display, makes fights last only a few seconds, makes players afraid to engage and so it leads to that blob A and blob B "dancing" around each other for minutes.
The first link doesn't work for me. I'll say that I also can't watch LoL because it looks a colorful mess to me, as if someone was overeager with water colors, and I felt this way about Starcraft II in the past but nowadays I have no real issues parsing the fights. I think, ideally, it still needs to be improved because the game should be accessible on first impression, but it does become somewhat acceptable once you're used to it.
My main issue is that units moving in lockstep look ridiculous to me and break immersion. I think the Brood War pathing feels a lot more natural, so I can't help but roll my eyes whenever Blizzard dwells on Starcraft 2's "superior pathfinding". How it feels in the game should be the most important of your criteria, not how it performs technically.
On March 14 2014 17:08 UltiBahamut wrote: i'm a little sad they didn't reach my question in the ama about giving hydra an instant/non projectile attack as a way of helping vs the mass raven late game as PDD wouldn't block them then. xD But oh well.
Overall i'm pretty happy about their responses tbh. I just wish they would be more liberal with testing stuff at least on test maps more than simply saying we don't like to test anything unless it is 'AMAZING!!' Would be a lot better than simply saying this. They are going to get flak either way but they might as well try to show some ideas that people are having lol.
Then you realize that ravens can spawn free units that just kill them.
Exactly. Instead of throwing more free units to deal with the free units i personally feel as though giving hydras a use would be interesting to watch and maybe play as hydralisks are definitely better than infested terrans. As infested terrans are the only AA unit zerg has atm that doesn't get blocked by a PDD. I doubt it would be a hard counter, but it would come down to micro i hope.
EDIT: Essentially saying that i think hydras as a response to the mass viking/raven would be more interesting than the current mass spore crawlers and infestors as the only thing that kind of is able to fight the ravens as hydra's currently can't get a shot off before exploding, Muta/corruptor which can't get a shot off before exploding, or queens which explode heal explode heal but still can't get a shot off At least the hydralisk could do some micro of moving forward, shooting and running away before the seeker goes off or you can micro the targeted hydralisk away (Unlikely xD So hard to grab them if more than 1 or 2 are targeted). But i still feel that even with this change people would still do infestors and spores vs viking/raven
Your main problem with fighting the Viking/Raven from the ground is always tanks. Which you will not really find a way to beat with hydralisk.
If they want to avoid those kind of stuff, they need to give zerg units that are more efficient for 1-2supply. 2supply hydras against 2supply ravens are a joke. Even 2supply mutas (which are pretty good) and 2supply corruptors are pretty shitty comnpared to some of those T/P units (mostly Tempest and Raven though). You will always end up maxing with too few units with the current supplycosts. Infestors are pretty supplyefficient too though. That's the crux with most of zerg lategame. You always end up building the "right" units (like roaches against stalkers) and then you are suddenly maxed and your opponent turtles another 5mins building all the units that you counter cost for cost - but it doesn't matter at all for as long has he brings double the cost.
Agreed. The problem is with the way zerg production works, if their core units are too supply efficient, they just overrun everything with their first max. Imagine someone like HyuN with more supply efficient units.
yeah, that's a huge problem. Though I believe it is mostly a problem with roaches and hardly any other units. Maybe Corruptors too. Like, in ZvT you hardly have that problem with ling/bling/muta, because lings are strongly limited by larva, banelings and mutalisks by gas. It's usually only roachbased play that is the problem, because the costs are so perfect. With hydras it is already hard again to get all the gas for really strong timings, especially with the high gas investment costs.
On March 14 2014 19:14 Sapphire.lux wrote: Warp in is very cool coming from the WP IMO, but only then. Otherwise, it has all the disadvantages pointed out in numerous threads. It should have been a WP ability, not the basic unit production mechanism.
FF is just bad, along with FG, because they are potentially game ending and micro denying, without a sensible skill ceiling (pro level). As a spectator, i never ever think "wow! how great is that P/Z player for having used FF/FG in that way!" In 2010 it was impressive yes, now you just embarrass yourself if you don't have superb FF placement. Storm and EMP can be cool in lategame because of the HT and Ghost positioning game: Having multiple HTs coming from different angles, setting traps, etc is what makes this fun. None of this is present for the Sentry and Infestor, so they are ranging from boring to infuriating for both spectators and players.
I saw this analogy yesterday, I thought it was quite apt:
Starcraft 2 is like a game that revolves around mastering three-ball juggling. It looks impressive for beginners, but is completely trivial for adapts and leaves them struggling to show something creative that is unlike anything else. There are still options to showcase skill, cool tricks that you can do, and it's quite easy to tell a beginner from an expert, but there is probably a limit to what you can set yourself apart with.
Brood War on the other hand is like five-ball juggling. It's almost the same game, but the difficulty is increased so much that even the best players can't execute everything. They will lose rhythm, occasionally mismanage their props and no two players can demonstrate exactly the same tricks.
And Dune II is like nine-ball juggling. It's so mechanically taxing that creativity, improvisation and imagination all fall on the wayside, leaving only pure technique because even the best players can't do anything with nine balls outside of barely succeeding at keeping the right pace. Another example would be turning basketball into a game of purely penalty shots, which would still reward skilled players, but would also reduce the game to one monotonous activity.
(I'm not a juggling expert, so take the numbers with a grain of salt)
And of course people will disagree on whether Brood War was simply too mechanically taxing, so much so that it became oppressive, or whether Starcraft II is not taxing enough.
Units clumping naturally - This really rewards split micro which is one of the coolest micro moments SC2 provides. If units auto spread, marine splitting vs. Banelings won't be as cool to watch.
Deathballs are what killed the game for me. Aesthetically is very very bad. + Show Spoiler +
I've been following SC2 since beta and it's difficult for me to tell what the fuck is happening in those 4 sec fights with 130 units packed in a tiny space, often times one on top of another. For battles to be fun, i have to be able to answer some simple questions, like:
How many (roughly) units are there? How are they dying and what is killing them? What and how are the players controlling (microing) the units (displaying skill)?
And of course, i have to have time to enjoy the battle. In the mess of colors that is a late game battle in SC2, it's nigh impossible to tell any of that. For a new comer, it just looks like a mess, like a 4 second explosion, not a battle. Player skill is impossible to tell by anyone save a very, very small audience that plays the game at a relatively high level. It's a mess of colors that makes me dread watching games go to late game. If it's hard for me to watch that, what about a new comer? Is that going to leave him in awe of the "fantastic" climax of this game or leave him confused and with a headache?
So yeah, deathballs or "natural unit clumping" is very hard on the eyes, greatly limits player skill display, makes fights last only a few seconds, makes players afraid to engage and so it leads to that blob A and blob B "dancing" around each other for minutes.
The first link doesn't work for me. I'll say that I also can't watch LoL because it looks a colorful mess to me, as if someone was overeager with water colors, and I felt this way about Starcraft II in the past but nowadays I have no real issues parsing the fights. I think, ideally, it still needs to be improved because the game should be accessible on first impression, but it does become somewhat acceptable once you're used to it.
My main issue is that units moving in lockstep look ridiculous to me and break immersion. I think the Brood War pathing feels a lot more natural, so I can't help but roll my eyes whenever Blizzard dwells on Starcraft 2's "superior pathfinding". How it feels in the game should be the most important of your criteria, not how it performs technically.
I like your analogy.
I just hate the way Blizzards PR works sometimes (probably their mindset in general as well though). In a sea of drawbacks, they cherry pick the one single example where unit clumping brings something positive. Or when they gave us that 2 weeks?! stats to show us how wrong we are about TvP, or Browder openly taunting EVERYONE in the scene by making statements like "the Queen patch is the best change we ever did!" in a time where the scene was literally dying due to how bad the game actually turned after that one change, i could go on an on. It's like they are thinking first and foremost about defending themselfs and pushing back any sort of criticism, instead of working together with the community for the sake of the game. This is where most of the hate comes from IMO.
They like deathballs, they like FF, FG, Colossus, stupid vision high ground adv., etc, because they are their babies, not because they are good. Admitting that all these things and more are just crap would be a massive blow to their ego as game designers so we are left with denials, cumbersome workarounds and super slow response times for obvious problems.
I like warp in mechanics, I love how it makes warp prism so much more than just a transport unit. A player can choose to commit to warp in units or just drop units. It also encourages late game protoss to have a presence everywhere just by having pylons. Or PvP with warp prism zealot drop and warp in behind the colossus in a deathball battle.
Well warp prism is fine. The thing people complain about is warp in which completely neglects the defender's advantage thus making certain P allins very hard to stop.
I wish they would do a change like "from now on you can only warp in units around a fixed area around your nexuses". (range should be around the same as sensor's tower) with warp prism still working as it does.
On March 14 2014 19:14 Sapphire.lux wrote: Warp in is very cool coming from the WP IMO, but only then. Otherwise, it has all the disadvantages pointed out in numerous threads. It should have been a WP ability, not the basic unit production mechanism.
FF is just bad, along with FG, because they are potentially game ending and micro denying, without a sensible skill ceiling (pro level). As a spectator, i never ever think "wow! how great is that P/Z player for having used FF/FG in that way!" In 2010 it was impressive yes, now you just embarrass yourself if you don't have superb FF placement. Storm and EMP can be cool in lategame because of the HT and Ghost positioning game: Having multiple HTs coming from different angles, setting traps, etc is what makes this fun. None of this is present for the Sentry and Infestor, so they are ranging from boring to infuriating for both spectators and players.
I saw this analogy yesterday, I thought it was quite apt:
Starcraft 2 is like a game that revolves around mastering three-ball juggling. It looks impressive for beginners, but is completely trivial for adapts and leaves them struggling to show something creative that is unlike anything else. There are still options to showcase skill, cool tricks that you can do, and it's quite easy to tell a beginner from an expert, but there is probably a limit to what you can set yourself apart with.
Brood War on the other hand is like five-ball juggling. It's almost the same game, but the difficulty is increased so much that even the best players can't execute everything. They will lose rhythm, occasionally mismanage their props and no two players can demonstrate exactly the same tricks.
And Dune II is like nine-ball juggling. It's so mechanically taxing that creativity, improvisation and imagination all fall on the wayside, leaving only pure technique because even the best players can't do anything with nine balls outside of barely succeeding at keeping the right pace. Another example would be turning basketball into a game of purely penalty shots, which would still reward skilled players, but would also reduce the game to one monotonous activity.
(I'm not a juggling expert, so take the numbers with a grain of salt)
And of course people will disagree on whether Brood War was simply too mechanically taxing, so much so that it became oppressive, or whether Starcraft II is not taxing enough.
Units clumping naturally - This really rewards split micro which is one of the coolest micro moments SC2 provides. If units auto spread, marine splitting vs. Banelings won't be as cool to watch.
Deathballs are what killed the game for me. Aesthetically is very very bad. + Show Spoiler +
I've been following SC2 since beta and it's difficult for me to tell what the fuck is happening in those 4 sec fights with 130 units packed in a tiny space, often times one on top of another. For battles to be fun, i have to be able to answer some simple questions, like:
How many (roughly) units are there? How are they dying and what is killing them? What and how are the players controlling (microing) the units (displaying skill)?
And of course, i have to have time to enjoy the battle. In the mess of colors that is a late game battle in SC2, it's nigh impossible to tell any of that. For a new comer, it just looks like a mess, like a 4 second explosion, not a battle. Player skill is impossible to tell by anyone save a very, very small audience that plays the game at a relatively high level. It's a mess of colors that makes me dread watching games go to late game. If it's hard for me to watch that, what about a new comer? Is that going to leave him in awe of the "fantastic" climax of this game or leave him confused and with a headache?
So yeah, deathballs or "natural unit clumping" is very hard on the eyes, greatly limits player skill display, makes fights last only a few seconds, makes players afraid to engage and so it leads to that blob A and blob B "dancing" around each other for minutes.
The first link doesn't work for me. I'll say that I also can't watch LoL because it looks a colorful mess to me, as if someone was overeager with water colors, and I felt this way about Starcraft II in the past but nowadays I have no real issues parsing the fights. I think, ideally, it still needs to be improved because the game should be accessible on first impression, but it does become somewhat acceptable once you're used to it.
My main issue is that units moving in lockstep look ridiculous to me and break immersion. I think the Brood War pathing feels a lot more natural, so I can't help but roll my eyes whenever Blizzard dwells on Starcraft 2's "superior pathfinding". How it feels in the game should be the most important of your criteria, not how it performs technically.
I like your analogy.
I just hate the way Blizzards PR works sometimes (probably their mindset in general as well though). In a sea of drawbacks, they cherry pick the one single example where unit clumping brings something positive. Or when they gave us that 2 weeks?! stats to show us how wrong we are about TvP, or Browder openly taunting EVERYONE in the scene by making statements like "the Queen patch is the best change we ever did!" in a time where the scene was literally dying due to how bad the game actually turned after that one change, i could go on an on. It's like they are thinking first and foremost about defending themselfs and pushing back any sort of criticism, instead of working together with the community for the sake of the game. This is where most of the hate comes from IMO.
They like deathballs, they like FF, FG, Colossus, stupid vision high ground adv., etc, because they are their babies, not because they are good. Admitting that all these things and more are just crap would be a massive blow to their ego as game designers so we are left with denials, cumbersome workarounds and super slow response times for obvious problems.
I really don't get the people (like you) still stuck in this mindset.
Pro games have repeatedly proven that multi-pronged engagements, spread-out-units, multiple phases of aggression/defense are far more advantageous ways to play than deathball, clumped, single-engagement style.
And the Queen change, despite upsetting the balance of the game, allowed them to eventually make changes that brought the infestor back in line with where it should have been as a spellcaster. How frequently do people call for radical changes, balance be damned? Well, we already saw how that turns out-- with thunderous bitching.
On March 14 2014 19:14 Sapphire.lux wrote: Warp in is very cool coming from the WP IMO, but only then. Otherwise, it has all the disadvantages pointed out in numerous threads. It should have been a WP ability, not the basic unit production mechanism.
FF is just bad, along with FG, because they are potentially game ending and micro denying, without a sensible skill ceiling (pro level). As a spectator, i never ever think "wow! how great is that P/Z player for having used FF/FG in that way!" In 2010 it was impressive yes, now you just embarrass yourself if you don't have superb FF placement. Storm and EMP can be cool in lategame because of the HT and Ghost positioning game: Having multiple HTs coming from different angles, setting traps, etc is what makes this fun. None of this is present for the Sentry and Infestor, so they are ranging from boring to infuriating for both spectators and players.
I saw this analogy yesterday, I thought it was quite apt:
Starcraft 2 is like a game that revolves around mastering three-ball juggling. It looks impressive for beginners, but is completely trivial for adapts and leaves them struggling to show something creative that is unlike anything else. There are still options to showcase skill, cool tricks that you can do, and it's quite easy to tell a beginner from an expert, but there is probably a limit to what you can set yourself apart with.
Brood War on the other hand is like five-ball juggling. It's almost the same game, but the difficulty is increased so much that even the best players can't execute everything. They will lose rhythm, occasionally mismanage their props and no two players can demonstrate exactly the same tricks.
And Dune II is like nine-ball juggling. It's so mechanically taxing that creativity, improvisation and imagination all fall on the wayside, leaving only pure technique because even the best players can't do anything with nine balls outside of barely succeeding at keeping the right pace. Another example would be turning basketball into a game of purely penalty shots, which would still reward skilled players, but would also reduce the game to one monotonous activity.
(I'm not a juggling expert, so take the numbers with a grain of salt)
And of course people will disagree on whether Brood War was simply too mechanically taxing, so much so that it became oppressive, or whether Starcraft II is not taxing enough.
Units clumping naturally - This really rewards split micro which is one of the coolest micro moments SC2 provides. If units auto spread, marine splitting vs. Banelings won't be as cool to watch.
Deathballs are what killed the game for me. Aesthetically is very very bad. + Show Spoiler +
I've been following SC2 since beta and it's difficult for me to tell what the fuck is happening in those 4 sec fights with 130 units packed in a tiny space, often times one on top of another. For battles to be fun, i have to be able to answer some simple questions, like:
How many (roughly) units are there? How are they dying and what is killing them? What and how are the players controlling (microing) the units (displaying skill)?
And of course, i have to have time to enjoy the battle. In the mess of colors that is a late game battle in SC2, it's nigh impossible to tell any of that. For a new comer, it just looks like a mess, like a 4 second explosion, not a battle. Player skill is impossible to tell by anyone save a very, very small audience that plays the game at a relatively high level. It's a mess of colors that makes me dread watching games go to late game. If it's hard for me to watch that, what about a new comer? Is that going to leave him in awe of the "fantastic" climax of this game or leave him confused and with a headache?
So yeah, deathballs or "natural unit clumping" is very hard on the eyes, greatly limits player skill display, makes fights last only a few seconds, makes players afraid to engage and so it leads to that blob A and blob B "dancing" around each other for minutes.
The first link doesn't work for me. I'll say that I also can't watch LoL because it looks a colorful mess to me, as if someone was overeager with water colors, and I felt this way about Starcraft II in the past but nowadays I have no real issues parsing the fights. I think, ideally, it still needs to be improved because the game should be accessible on first impression, but it does become somewhat acceptable once you're used to it.
My main issue is that units moving in lockstep look ridiculous to me and break immersion. I think the Brood War pathing feels a lot more natural, so I can't help but roll my eyes whenever Blizzard dwells on Starcraft 2's "superior pathfinding". How it feels in the game should be the most important of your criteria, not how it performs technically.
I like your analogy.
I just hate the way Blizzards PR works sometimes (probably their mindset in general as well though). In a sea of drawbacks, they cherry pick the one single example where unit clumping brings something positive. Or when they gave us that 2 weeks?! stats to show us how wrong we are about TvP, or Browder openly taunting EVERYONE in the scene by making statements like "the Queen patch is the best change we ever did!" in a time where the scene was literally dying due to how bad the game actually turned after that one change, i could go on an on. It's like they are thinking first and foremost about defending themselfs and pushing back any sort of criticism, instead of working together with the community for the sake of the game. This is where most of the hate comes from IMO.
They like deathballs, they like FF, FG, Colossus, stupid vision high ground adv., etc, because they are their babies, not because they are good. Admitting that all these things and more are just crap would be a massive blow to their ego as game designers so we are left with denials, cumbersome workarounds and super slow response times for obvious problems.
And the Queen change, despite upsetting the balance of the game, allowed them to eventually make changes that brought the infestor back in line with where it should have been as a spellcaster.
I don't think i understand what you mean. The game went tits up, both balance and fun factor, for almost one year and only the expansion saved it. Are you saying that was necessary in order to balance the Infestor? Like, why not nerf the unit in the many, many moths it was clear it was broken? Or why not revert the Queen change and then reintroduce it in the expansion along with an Infestor nerf? Besides, my post was in regard to Dustins comment of "the Queen change was the best bla bla" when it clearly was the worst ever for WOL. Unless you think they treated the last year of WOL as a testing ground for HOTS, in witch case the uglier and more unbalanced WOL looked, the more likely people would be to buy HOTS, but that's just ridiculous thinking of course.
He is saying that the small change of the queen range caused the a huge problem at the end of WOL, so demanding larger changes has a greater risk of ruining the game and making it worse.
That is the part that people who are demanding "big changes" forget. Those changes are just as likely to make the game worse.
On March 14 2014 22:18 Plansix wrote: He is saying that the small change of the queen range caused the a huge problem at the end of WOL, so demanding larger changes has a greater risk of ruining the game and making it worse.
That is the part that people who are demanding "big changes" forget. Those changes are just as likely to make the game worse.
That is why they should be implemented and tested in LotV beta
On March 14 2014 22:18 Plansix wrote: He is saying that the small change of the queen range caused the a huge problem at the end of WOL, so demanding larger changes has a greater risk of ruining the game and making it worse.
That is the part that people who are demanding "big changes" forget. Those changes are just as likely to make the game worse.
That is why they should be implemented and tested in LotV beta
Would have to be an insanely long beta to properly test the impacts of said changes.
On March 14 2014 22:18 Plansix wrote: He is saying that the small change of the queen range caused the a huge problem at the end of WOL, so demanding larger changes has a greater risk of ruining the game and making it worse.
That is the part that people who are demanding "big changes" forget. Those changes are just as likely to make the game worse.
That is why they should be implemented and tested in LotV beta
Would have to be an insanely long beta to properly test the impacts of said changes.
Yeah, the queen change was a very slow roll to the BLWinfestor era.
On March 14 2014 22:18 Plansix wrote: He is saying that the small change of the queen range caused the a huge problem at the end of WOL, so demanding larger changes has a greater risk of ruining the game and making it worse.
That is the part that people who are demanding "big changes" forget. Those changes are just as likely to make the game worse.
That is why they should be implemented and tested in LotV beta
Would have to be an insanely long beta to properly test the impacts of said changes.
Since it is a last Expansion and there will be no more chances to fix anything important, it should be. If it takes 1 year, let it take one year. Or the game is going to die much faster than BW did.
On March 14 2014 22:18 Plansix wrote: He is saying that the small change of the queen range caused the a huge problem at the end of WOL, so demanding larger changes has a greater risk of ruining the game and making it worse.
That is the part that people who are demanding "big changes" forget. Those changes are just as likely to make the game worse.
Ah ok, but the really big changes that some want are about the expansion, not a patch. In the years it takes them to develop this expansions and at the price they are released at, it should be enough to make changes and test the shit out of them. Like, you know, how they did in every expansion of every game, except for SC2.
Anyway, it's a useless point, because the alternative would be to never make any changes at all. There is always a risk that things might get worse, but then that is why they are game designers, to find and make changes for the better, not cower that they might get it wrong.
On March 14 2014 22:18 Plansix wrote: He is saying that the small change of the queen range caused the a huge problem at the end of WOL, so demanding larger changes has a greater risk of ruining the game and making it worse.
That is the part that people who are demanding "big changes" forget. Those changes are just as likely to make the game worse.
No, we have seen many of those changes already done with a modding tool in a custom map called Starbow. It didn't make the game worse, just different. Different in a way many people appreciate.
The change on the queen range in WoL is just a testament to that David Kim and the others doesn't know what they're doing.
On March 14 2014 22:18 Plansix wrote: He is saying that the small change of the queen range caused the a huge problem at the end of WOL, so demanding larger changes has a greater risk of ruining the game and making it worse.
That is the part that people who are demanding "big changes" forget. Those changes are just as likely to make the game worse.
That is why they should be implemented and tested in LotV beta
Would have to be an insanely long beta to properly test the impacts of said changes.
Since it is a last Expansion and there will be no more chances to fix anything important, it should be. If it takes 1 year, let it take one year. Or the game is going to die much faster than BW did.
People keep saying that and it keeps not happening. I think it will be fine if they just keep doing they they are going and building on what they have. Some changes and new units will spice things up. I would like some new structures too. But they don't need to redesign the game from the ground up.
David Kim is respecting the work of a full sized team of Blizzard guys who were hyper-focused on all aspects of balance and fun-game-play in the making of HOTS in 2012 and 2013.
That team is now disbanded and working on other projects.
DK is not going to spit in the face of all their work. DK has at his disposal a maintenance crew that is a fraction of the talent-base of the team that did all the heavy lifting to make HotS possible.
the maintenance team is never as big or as focused as the design and development team. its how all software is built and maintained, not just video game software. and it ain't changing any time soon.
therefore, DK's position about big changes is 100% reasonable.
now that every one knows DK's position on big changes they now know big changes will not occur. therefore, the next rational move is to evaluate SC2:HotS against the other RTS games available. Then, choose the best option and play that.
i've made my choice and i'm happy with it. lots of good RTS games to choose from.
On March 14 2014 23:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote: David Kim is respecting the work of a full sized team of Blizzard guys who were hyper-focused on all aspects of balance and fun-game-play in the making of HOTS in 2012 and 2013.
That team is now disbanded and working on other projects.
DK is not going to spit in the face of all their work. DK has at his disposal a maintenance crew that is a fraction of the talent-base of the team that did all the heavy lifting to make HotS possible.
the maintenance team is never as big or as focused as the design and development team. its how all software is built and maintained, not just video game software. and it ain't changing any time soon.
therefore, DK's position about big changes is 100% reasonable.
now that every one knows DK's position on big changes they now know big changes will not occur. therefore, the next rational move is to evaluate SC2:HotS against the other RTS games available. Then, choose the best option and play that.
i've made my choice and i'm happy with it. lots of good RTS games to choose from.
Sounds reasonable. Even sounds like a reasonable list. RA3 would be so much fun if the controls weren't so clunky. Still need to try CoH. Should be a pretty amazing game from what I have heard.
On March 14 2014 23:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote: David Kim is respecting the work of a full sized team of Blizzard guys who were hyper-focused on all aspects of balance and fun-game-play in the making of HOTS in 2012 and 2013.
That team is now disbanded and working on other projects.
DK is not going to spit in the face of all their work. DK has at his disposal a maintenance crew that is a fraction of the talent-base of the team that did all the heavy lifting to make HotS possible.
the maintenance team is never as big or as focused as the design and development team. its how all software is built and maintained, not just video game software. and it ain't changing any time soon.
therefore, DK's position about big changes is 100% reasonable.
now that every one knows DK's position on big changes they now know big changes will not occur. therefore, the next rational move is to evaluate SC2:HotS against the other RTS games available. Then, choose the best option and play that.
i've made my choice and i'm happy with it. lots of good RTS games to choose from.
Sounds reasonable. Even sounds like a reasonable list. RA3 would be so much fun if the controls weren't so clunky. Still need to try CoH. Should be a pretty amazing game from what I have heard.
i originally bought RA3 because of Gina Carano. she came to the ring with a huge RA3 logo on her chest
I don't understand why they are so afraid to make changes to the game? If they just let it SH turtle 1hour+ games get standard the game is going to die out sooner than later. They are basically trying to preserve what little they have left while the game dies instead of trying to actually make a better game this is so frustrating.
On March 14 2014 23:37 JimmyJRaynor wrote: David Kim is respecting the work of a full sized team of Blizzard guys who were hyper-focused on all aspects of balance and fun-game-play in the making of HOTS in 2012 and 2013.
That team is now disbanded and working on other projects.
DK is not going to spit in the face of all their work. DK has at his disposal a maintenance crew that is a fraction of the talent-base of the team that did all the heavy lifting to make HotS possible.
Yeah, DK does not want to upset the delicate filings of a game designer that has already moved on to other projects. Got to keep the original vision or else poor DB will feel insecure and disrespected. Sounds reasonable and in line with how a multi billion dollar company would work.
EDIT: they probably learned this after seing all the trauma the reset of the original Starcraft engine caused to the deves., or the years of therapy Jay Wilson needed to get back on his feet after having the game taken away from him and overhauled...Never will they spit in anyone's face again!
ultimately, Blizzard thinks Jay Wilson did a bad job and he was moved off of the D3 team. The game was completely overhauled.
Dustin Browder on the other hand was promoted to VP.
So now we know what Mike Morhaime thinks. He is happy with DB and unhappy with JW. And so, Blizzard won't drastically overhaul SC2:HotS. Now that you know this pick: ur favourite RTS game and start playing because complaining won't change anything.
or you could make ur own MOD. or if u think Blizzard arcade framework sucks and the MOD Kit for SC2 sucks you can crack open your copy of Visual C++ and Visual Studio and make ur own game.
There are 2 possible reasons for why an overhaul in LOTV is not on the books. 1)no funds 2)they like how the game works now, so there is no reason to
The second one is more likely, and what your passive aggressive post implies, but that has nothing to do with "respecting the work" or "not wanting to spit" in what face. You are either a drama queen or naive, that's why i responded with sarcasm.
On March 15 2014 00:53 Sapphire.lux wrote: There are 2 possible reasons for why an overhaul in LOTV is not on the books. 1)no funds 2)they like how the game works now, so there is no reason to
The second one is more likely, and what your passive aggressive post implies, but that has nothing to do with "respecting the work" or "not wanting to spit" in what face. You are either a drama queen or naive, that's why i responded with sarcasm.
no, i stated the facts.
ok, you're DK, a project manager working on a piece of software in mainteance mode: HotS.. .u walk into your boss's office and propose to overhaul a piece of software with a team 1/10 as big as the team who made it. this doesn't just apply to SC2:HotS, but to any piece of software that is in maintenance mode.
DK's boss will stare him down and say.. .
"we had a team 10 times this size put 10 times as much total thought and work into it and now you're going to make a drastic change?"
this happens to every project manager working on any software project.
changes are possible, but the project manager's job is on the line if he fubars something that was working.
this is why DK has the stance he does about big changes to SC2:HotS.
and if you think Blizz is going to go on a hiring spree or pull people off of other projects to overhaul its #3 revenue generator you are dreaming in technicolour.
On March 15 2014 00:53 Sapphire.lux wrote: There are 2 possible reasons for why an overhaul in LOTV is not on the books. 1)no funds 2)they like how the game works now, so there is no reason to
The second one is more likely, and what your passive aggressive post implies, but that has nothing to do with "respecting the work" or "not wanting to spit" in what face. You are either a drama queen or naive, that's why i responded with sarcasm.
no, i stated the facts.
ok, you're DK, a project manager working on a piece of software in mainteance mode: HotS.. .u walk into your boss's office and propose to overhaul a piece of software with a team 1/10 as big as the team who made it. this doesn't just apply to SC2:HotS, but to any piece of software that is in maintenance mode.
DK's boss will stare him down and say.. .
"we had a team 10 times this size put 10 times as much total thought and work into it and now you're going to make a drastic change?"
this happens to every project manager working on any software project.
changes are possible, but the project manager's job is on the line if he fubars something that was working.
this is why DK has the stance he does about big changes to SC2:HotS.
and if you think Blizz is going to go on a hiring spree or pull people off of other projects to overhaul its #3 revenue generator you are dreaming in technicolour.
You missed the "LOTV" part in my post. It's right where it says LOTV. That is not HOTS, it is LOTV.
I don't understand the point these few DK fanboys are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me?
The only thing I understood is they are claiming HotS is OK while it is losing viewers and players all the time (which started back in WoL and only stopped at beginning of HotS)... is that it?
On March 15 2014 01:30 -Archangel- wrote: I don't understand the point these few DK fanboys are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me?
The only thing I understood is they are claiming HotS is OK while it is losing viewers and players all the time (which started back in WoL and only stopped at beginning of HotS)... is that it?
Viewers have been consistent for the last 8 month and the players that are retiring are young guys moving on to differ parts of their lives. It's a crowded field for SC2 players. Proleague is going strong and gaining viewers.
So, not dead game. Plenty of people like what they are seeing and playing.
On March 15 2014 01:30 -Archangel- wrote: I don't understand the point these few DK fanboys are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me?
The only thing I understood is they are claiming HotS is OK while it is losing viewers and players all the time (which started back in WoL and only stopped at beginning of HotS)... is that it?
I don't understand the point these few haters are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me? WCS, IEM, Proleague all feature great games all the time. SC2 is the best it has ever been. The Starter Edition has brought some more players into the game. SC2 is by far the biggest RTS game out there. Blame a lack of competition on it, but in a free market we explain a lack of competition usually with one of those two theories: the top dog is too dominant for competitors to come up - so SC2 is great. Or the demand for the product is simply low - so it is not SC2's fault that it cannot compete with products of other genres.
Also I cannot follow your point about players/viewers leaving. The numbers seem to be fairly stable for the last years. Which is a pretty good achievement for a buy-to-play-PC-game. Usually those games hang in much shorter than 4years.
stronger team colors would just make it so I dont get bored of the red and blue scheme that we have all played 10,000 times.....Allow this or color choice would be nice of blizzard to do
"Are you going to change everything in this game" "We have spent a considerable time analyzing how each mechanic effects the game" *2 hours later on TL* "Wow, he just dodges every question".
I completely disagree with his reasoning behind why completely new mechanics should be entered into the game. I came into wings of liberty when the game was already figured out. Players had their set strategies and counters and the games were decided by deceiving your opponent and execution, nothing really new. But when heart of the swarm came out and the new units were put in, i felt like i was playing a completely different game. The strategies were new, the counters were new and in some cases unheard of in the past. Everyone was experimenting and their was a sense of mystery in each game, what could work, what can't work, every game was different and most importantly EXCITING. If you guys could find a way to bring that feeling back into sc2 that would be incredible. The communities hunger for results and change will finally be filled, the game will be new and fun to play, and attention would start coming back to sc2. Everyone wins!
On March 15 2014 01:30 -Archangel- wrote: I don't understand the point these few DK fanboys are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me?
The only thing I understood is they are claiming HotS is OK while it is losing viewers and players all the time (which started back in WoL and only stopped at beginning of HotS)... is that it?
I don't understand the point these few haters are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me? WCS, IEM, Proleague all feature great games all the time. SC2 is the best it has ever been. The Starter Edition has brought some more players into the game. SC2 is by far the biggest RTS game out there. Blame a lack of competition on it, but in a free market we explain a lack of competition usually with one of those two theories: the top dog is too dominant for competitors to come up - so SC2 is great. Or the demand for the product is simply low - so it is not SC2's fault that it cannot compete with products of other genres.
Also I cannot follow your point about players/viewers leaving. The numbers seem to be fairly stable for the last years. Which is a pretty good achievement for a buy-to-play-PC-game. Usually those games hang in much shorter than 4years.
Lol yeah 18 pages of fact based complaints equal a "few" haters..get real dude, you're in the minority
On March 15 2014 01:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote: my post was relative to HotS.
I know. It sucks to be all smug and passive aggressive only to realize you misread the quoted post
but, it also applies to an expansion relative to the main game as well. the main game has 10 times as much resources dedicated to it as any expansion.
the same discussion will happen in the management offices about resources and big changes regarding how to approach LotV. Browder got a promotion so Blizzard is happy with his work on SC2, they are not going to overhaul the game on an expansion.
i'm happy with the game, watching IEM... things look good to me. playing the game, its still fun for me so i hope Blizzard just follows the guidelines David Kim outlines in the Reddit AMA.
i believe in David Kim more than even Harvey Dent.
i predict LotV will give us changes of the same magnitude or smaller than HotS.
Therefore, if someone is dissatisfied with SC2, i'd recommend they play a different RTS. Hoping and wishing for Blizz to make wholesale changes is absurb because it's not going to happen.
your error does show how exciting today's PvP mirror match at IEM is though. nice job by David Kim in improving P v P over the years.
"this is now supposed to work" , ToD but it did work
i believe in David Kim.
PvP is getting so awesome, I was gonna skip Code S group C but hell, that was even more fun to watch than group B :D and now the PvP in IEM is getting that level of excitment too!
What is SC2's high ground mechanic? There is literally none, there is no difference whether you are shooting up or down. Also he obviously doesn't understand what less clumping is supposed to change. And the fact that they still don't realize that free units are just bad design is also kinda sad.
I really really hope that "comeback" works in LOTV very differently than now and in WoL, an example in football: A vs B 1:2 (1:0) C vs D 1:2 (1:0)
A had a lead by 1:0 and lost with own goal its game. C had a lead by 1:0, then D does a "catch up" with 2 goals.
In sc2 such "comeback" works to ~80% like A vs B. This is why watching sc2 s mostly frustating and sad, own goal and another own goal... I have watched wc3, bw, aoe, c&c, there were not many "own goal", much lesser than 20%.
On March 15 2014 01:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote: my post was relative to HotS.
I know. It sucks to be all smug and passive aggressive only to realize you misread the quoted post
but, it also applies to an expansion relative to the main game as well. the main game has 10 times as much resources dedicated to it as any expansion.
the same discussion will happen in the management offices about resources and big changes regarding how to approach LotV. Browder got a promotion so Blizzard is happy with his work on SC2, they are not going to overhaul the game on an expansion.
i'm happy with the game, watching IEM... things look good to me. playing the game, its still fun for me so i hope Blizzard just follows the guidelines David Kim outlines in the Reddit AMA.
i believe in David Kim more than even Harvey Dent.
i predict LotV will give us changes of the same magnitude or smaller than HotS.
Therefore, if someone is dissatisfied with SC2, i'd recommend they play a different RTS. Hoping and wishing for Blizz to make wholesale changes is absurb because it's not going to happen.
Well, Blizzard being happy with the game is a better argument then "they don't want to spit in dustins face". Glad you came around
On March 15 2014 01:30 -Archangel- wrote: I don't understand the point these few DK fanboys are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me?
The only thing I understood is they are claiming HotS is OK while it is losing viewers and players all the time (which started back in WoL and only stopped at beginning of HotS)... is that it?
I don't understand the point these few haters are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me? WCS, IEM, Proleague all feature great games all the time. SC2 is the best it has ever been. The Starter Edition has brought some more players into the game. SC2 is by far the biggest RTS game out there. Blame a lack of competition on it, but in a free market we explain a lack of competition usually with one of those two theories: the top dog is too dominant for competitors to come up - so SC2 is great. Or the demand for the product is simply low - so it is not SC2's fault that it cannot compete with products of other genres.
Also I cannot follow your point about players/viewers leaving. The numbers seem to be fairly stable for the last years. Which is a pretty good achievement for a buy-to-play-PC-game. Usually those games hang in much shorter than 4years.
Lol yeah 18 pages of fact based complaints equal a "few" haters..get real dude, you're in the minority
Pro tip for life, number of pages in a thread is not reflective of reality as a whole. Sometimes it is the inverse.
On March 15 2014 01:30 -Archangel- wrote: I don't understand the point these few DK fanboys are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me?
The only thing I understood is they are claiming HotS is OK while it is losing viewers and players all the time (which started back in WoL and only stopped at beginning of HotS)... is that it?
I don't understand the point these few haters are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me? WCS, IEM, Proleague all feature great games all the time. SC2 is the best it has ever been. The Starter Edition has brought some more players into the game. SC2 is by far the biggest RTS game out there. Blame a lack of competition on it, but in a free market we explain a lack of competition usually with one of those two theories: the top dog is too dominant for competitors to come up - so SC2 is great. Or the demand for the product is simply low - so it is not SC2's fault that it cannot compete with products of other genres.
Also I cannot follow your point about players/viewers leaving. The numbers seem to be fairly stable for the last years. Which is a pretty good achievement for a buy-to-play-PC-game. Usually those games hang in much shorter than 4years.
Lol yeah 18 pages of fact based complaints equal a "few" haters..get real dude, you're in the minority
Pro tip for life, number of pages in a thread is not reflective of reality as a whole. Sometimes it is the inverse.
On March 15 2014 01:30 -Archangel- wrote: I don't understand the point these few DK fanboys are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me?
The only thing I understood is they are claiming HotS is OK while it is losing viewers and players all the time (which started back in WoL and only stopped at beginning of HotS)... is that it?
I don't understand the point these few haters are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me? WCS, IEM, Proleague all feature great games all the time. SC2 is the best it has ever been. The Starter Edition has brought some more players into the game. SC2 is by far the biggest RTS game out there. Blame a lack of competition on it, but in a free market we explain a lack of competition usually with one of those two theories: the top dog is too dominant for competitors to come up - so SC2 is great. Or the demand for the product is simply low - so it is not SC2's fault that it cannot compete with products of other genres.
Also I cannot follow your point about players/viewers leaving. The numbers seem to be fairly stable for the last years. Which is a pretty good achievement for a buy-to-play-PC-game. Usually those games hang in much shorter than 4years.
Lol yeah 18 pages of fact based complaints equal a "few" haters..get real dude, you're in the minority
Pro tip for life, number of pages in a thread is not reflective of reality as a whole. Sometimes it is the inverse.
But that doesn't mean there are 'few' haters.
Compared to the 40K people watching and enjoying ESL right now. Its a few. The minority even.
On March 15 2014 01:30 -Archangel- wrote: I don't understand the point these few DK fanboys are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me?
The only thing I understood is they are claiming HotS is OK while it is losing viewers and players all the time (which started back in WoL and only stopped at beginning of HotS)... is that it?
I don't understand the point these few haters are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me? WCS, IEM, Proleague all feature great games all the time. SC2 is the best it has ever been. The Starter Edition has brought some more players into the game. SC2 is by far the biggest RTS game out there. Blame a lack of competition on it, but in a free market we explain a lack of competition usually with one of those two theories: the top dog is too dominant for competitors to come up - so SC2 is great. Or the demand for the product is simply low - so it is not SC2's fault that it cannot compete with products of other genres.
Also I cannot follow your point about players/viewers leaving. The numbers seem to be fairly stable for the last years. Which is a pretty good achievement for a buy-to-play-PC-game. Usually those games hang in much shorter than 4years.
Lol yeah 18 pages of fact based complaints equal a "few" haters..get real dude, you're in the minority
Pro tip for life, number of pages in a thread is not reflective of reality as a whole. Sometimes it is the inverse.
But that doesn't mean there are 'few' haters.
Compared to the 40K people watching and enjoying ESL right now. Its a few. The minority even.
Thats not an indication. A better way to find out is to check what people say in battle.net, chats, tl and reddit.usually 1 out of 5 posts is positive whereas other posts are negative.Therefore I believe haters are actually the majority.
On March 15 2014 01:30 -Archangel- wrote: I don't understand the point these few DK fanboys are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me?
The only thing I understood is they are claiming HotS is OK while it is losing viewers and players all the time (which started back in WoL and only stopped at beginning of HotS)... is that it?
I don't understand the point these few haters are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me? WCS, IEM, Proleague all feature great games all the time. SC2 is the best it has ever been. The Starter Edition has brought some more players into the game. SC2 is by far the biggest RTS game out there. Blame a lack of competition on it, but in a free market we explain a lack of competition usually with one of those two theories: the top dog is too dominant for competitors to come up - so SC2 is great. Or the demand for the product is simply low - so it is not SC2's fault that it cannot compete with products of other genres.
Also I cannot follow your point about players/viewers leaving. The numbers seem to be fairly stable for the last years. Which is a pretty good achievement for a buy-to-play-PC-game. Usually those games hang in much shorter than 4years.
Lol yeah 18 pages of fact based complaints equal a "few" haters..get real dude, you're in the minority
Pro tip for life, number of pages in a thread is not reflective of reality as a whole. Sometimes it is the inverse.
But that doesn't mean there are 'few' haters.
Compared to the 40K people watching and enjoying ESL right now. Its a few. The minority even.
Thats not an indication. A better way to find out is to check what people say in battle.net, chats, tl and reddit.usually 1 out of 5 posts is positive whereas other posts are negative.Therefore I believe haters are actually the majority.
No that's a terrible way, but I can see why you would want to lean that sort of chat to prove your point. People don't actively watch things they dislike.
On March 15 2014 01:30 -Archangel- wrote: I don't understand the point these few DK fanboys are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me?
The only thing I understood is they are claiming HotS is OK while it is losing viewers and players all the time (which started back in WoL and only stopped at beginning of HotS)... is that it?
I don't understand the point these few haters are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me? WCS, IEM, Proleague all feature great games all the time. SC2 is the best it has ever been. The Starter Edition has brought some more players into the game. SC2 is by far the biggest RTS game out there. Blame a lack of competition on it, but in a free market we explain a lack of competition usually with one of those two theories: the top dog is too dominant for competitors to come up - so SC2 is great. Or the demand for the product is simply low - so it is not SC2's fault that it cannot compete with products of other genres.
Also I cannot follow your point about players/viewers leaving. The numbers seem to be fairly stable for the last years. Which is a pretty good achievement for a buy-to-play-PC-game. Usually those games hang in much shorter than 4years.
Lol yeah 18 pages of fact based complaints equal a "few" haters..get real dude, you're in the minority
Pro tip for life, number of pages in a thread is not reflective of reality as a whole. Sometimes it is the inverse.
But that doesn't mean there are 'few' haters.
Compared to the 40K people watching and enjoying ESL right now. Its a few. The minority even.
Thats not an indication. A better way to find out is to check what people say in battle.net, chats, tl and reddit.usually 1 out of 5 posts is positive whereas other posts are negative.Therefore I believe haters are actually the majority.
Selection bias, look it up.
People don't generally post in forums about a subject unless they have something to complain about. Most people don't actively participate at all, and those that do are usually only doing so to find a forum for a complaint. The amount of people who post for positive reasons is small, not because there aren't positive people, but because they have no reason to post.
On March 15 2014 01:30 -Archangel- wrote: I don't understand the point these few DK fanboys are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me?
The only thing I understood is they are claiming HotS is OK while it is losing viewers and players all the time (which started back in WoL and only stopped at beginning of HotS)... is that it?
I don't understand the point these few haters are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me? WCS, IEM, Proleague all feature great games all the time. SC2 is the best it has ever been. The Starter Edition has brought some more players into the game. SC2 is by far the biggest RTS game out there. Blame a lack of competition on it, but in a free market we explain a lack of competition usually with one of those two theories: the top dog is too dominant for competitors to come up - so SC2 is great. Or the demand for the product is simply low - so it is not SC2's fault that it cannot compete with products of other genres.
Also I cannot follow your point about players/viewers leaving. The numbers seem to be fairly stable for the last years. Which is a pretty good achievement for a buy-to-play-PC-game. Usually those games hang in much shorter than 4years.
Lol yeah 18 pages of fact based complaints equal a "few" haters..get real dude, you're in the minority
Pro tip for life, number of pages in a thread is not reflective of reality as a whole. Sometimes it is the inverse.
But that doesn't mean there are 'few' haters.
Compared to the 40K people watching and enjoying ESL right now. Its a few. The minority even.
Thats not an indication. A better way to find out is to check what people say in battle.net, chats, tl and reddit.usually 1 out of 5 posts is positive whereas other posts are negative.Therefore I believe haters are actually the majority.
coming from hong kong where protest is more or less turning into a cultural thing, I can tell you that people complain more than they would to praise. suddenly remember the days where i studied about this for my marketing 101 unit :D
Ok guys I will make a better analogy. LoL also has a lot of haters. You see a lot threads in their forums complaining this and that. However the majority of their forums is filled with active discussion of game, its state, champion builds. And the hot topics are usually like that. Whereas sc2 hot topics are always about smth bad, drama, imba or how the game is bad. Somehow even if lol community is considered the most toxic its forums are better than sc2. Another good example is hearthstone. Check liquidhearth. Therefore I believe sc2 has more haters, and its direct result of how bafly the game was designed.
On March 15 2014 01:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote: my post was relative to HotS.
I know. It sucks to be all smug and passive aggressive only to realize you misread the quoted post
but, it also applies to an expansion relative to the main game as well. the main game has 10 times as much resources dedicated to it as any expansion.
the same discussion will happen in the management offices about resources and big changes regarding how to approach LotV. Browder got a promotion so Blizzard is happy with his work on SC2, they are not going to overhaul the game on an expansion.
i'm happy with the game, watching IEM... things look good to me. playing the game, its still fun for me so i hope Blizzard just follows the guidelines David Kim outlines in the Reddit AMA.
i believe in David Kim more than even Harvey Dent.
i predict LotV will give us changes of the same magnitude or smaller than HotS.
Therefore, if someone is dissatisfied with SC2, i'd recommend they play a different RTS. Hoping and wishing for Blizz to make wholesale changes is absurb because it's not going to happen.
Well, Blizzard being happy with the game is a better argument then "they don't want to spit in dustins face". Glad you came around
actually, its more about spitting in the face of the amount of resources allocated. really your spitting in the face of the resource allocators like Morhaime and Pearce. not really just Browder, but the entire team.
don't know how the comment got twisted into a "person spitting in browder's face".
On March 15 2014 01:30 -Archangel- wrote: I don't understand the point these few DK fanboys are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me?
The only thing I understood is they are claiming HotS is OK while it is losing viewers and players all the time (which started back in WoL and only stopped at beginning of HotS)... is that it?
I don't understand the point these few haters are trying to make. Can anyone explain it to me? WCS, IEM, Proleague all feature great games all the time. SC2 is the best it has ever been. The Starter Edition has brought some more players into the game. SC2 is by far the biggest RTS game out there. Blame a lack of competition on it, but in a free market we explain a lack of competition usually with one of those two theories: the top dog is too dominant for competitors to come up - so SC2 is great. Or the demand for the product is simply low - so it is not SC2's fault that it cannot compete with products of other genres.
Also I cannot follow your point about players/viewers leaving. The numbers seem to be fairly stable for the last years. Which is a pretty good achievement for a buy-to-play-PC-game. Usually those games hang in much shorter than 4years.
Lol yeah 18 pages of fact based complaints equal a "few" haters..get real dude, you're in the minority
Pro tip for life, number of pages in a thread is not reflective of reality as a whole. Sometimes it is the inverse.
But that doesn't mean there are 'few' haters.
Compared to the 40K people watching and enjoying ESL right now. Its a few. The minority even.
Thats not an indication. A better way to find out is to check what people say in battle.net, chats, tl and reddit.usually 1 out of 5 posts is positive whereas other posts are negative.Therefore I believe haters are actually the majority.
Selection bias, look it up.
People don't generally post in forums about a subject unless they have something to complain about. Most people don't actively participate at all, and those that do are usually only doing so to find a forum for a complaint. The amount of people who post for positive reasons is small, not because there aren't positive people, but because they have no reason to post.
Positive opinions.
People that don't post are also the more "casual" ones, and they tend not to care to much how the high ground avd. works or if the Colossus and FF are redesigned.
On March 15 2014 01:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote: my post was relative to HotS.
I know. It sucks to be all smug and passive aggressive only to realize you misread the quoted post
but, it also applies to an expansion relative to the main game as well. the main game has 10 times as much resources dedicated to it as any expansion.
the same discussion will happen in the management offices about resources and big changes regarding how to approach LotV. Browder got a promotion so Blizzard is happy with his work on SC2, they are not going to overhaul the game on an expansion.
i'm happy with the game, watching IEM... things look good to me. playing the game, its still fun for me so i hope Blizzard just follows the guidelines David Kim outlines in the Reddit AMA.
i believe in David Kim more than even Harvey Dent.
i predict LotV will give us changes of the same magnitude or smaller than HotS.
Therefore, if someone is dissatisfied with SC2, i'd recommend they play a different RTS. Hoping and wishing for Blizz to make wholesale changes is absurb because it's not going to happen.
Well, Blizzard being happy with the game is a better argument then "they don't want to spit in dustins face". Glad you came around
actually, its more about spitting in the face of the amount of resources allocated. really your spitting in the face of the resource allocators like Morhaime and Pearce. not really just Browder, but the entire team.
don't know how the comment got twisted into a "person spitting in browder's face".
What about the resources invested in D3? Or the original WC3? Seriously, this argument is so silly. If they will not make major changes is because they feel they are not needed, it's that simple.
no, the more resources devoted to the original product the more that is needed to force a change because inertia is the most powerful force in the universe.
also, the future potential income from the changes is measured as well. RTS games don't make much cash relative to all the other things Blizzard is doing these days. They've got bigger fish to fry.
are the D3 console games getting patch 2.0.1?
combine this with Browder getting promoted to VP , clearly Blizzard is happy with his work. so i don't think we'll see an overhaul to SC2.
On March 16 2014 01:38 lamprey1 wrote: no, the more resources devoted to the original product the more that is needed to force a change because inertia is the most powerful force in the universe.
also, the future potential income from the changes is measured as well. RTS games don't make much cash relative to all the other things Blizzard is doing these days. They've got bigger fish to fry.
are the D3 console games getting patch 2.0.1?
combine this with Browder getting promoted to VP , clearly Blizzard is happy with his work. so i don't think we'll see an overhaul to SC2.
You start by saying "no", and you end by agreeing with me.
I agree with the relative income vs relative expenses in a case of major changes playing a big role to.
The original argument is still bonkers though, don't know why you insist.
my position is that a combination of factors will go into Blizzard's decision to not overhaul the game. and that the more time and resources allocated to the original game the higher the amount of difference is required motivate an overhaul.
an extreme example to illustrate my point: 200 people work 5 years on a software product released in say 2007.. and now 5 people are working on it in maintenance mode, they'll need 100% proof that they can vastly improve the currently working product to get upper management to sign off on letting 5 guys fuck around with a product that has 1000 man years of effort devoted to it.
get it now?
my position has remained the same throughout my posts. Blizzard is not going ot overhaul SC2 due ot a myriad of factors including inertia.
On March 16 2014 03:11 lamprey1 wrote: my position is that a combination of factors will go into Blizzard's decision to not overhaul the game. and that the more time and resources allocated to the original game the higher the amount of difference is required motivate an overhaul.
an extreme example to illustrate my point: 200 people work 5 years on a software product released in say 2007.. and now 5 people are working on it in maintenance mode, they'll need 100% proof that they can vastly improve the currently working product to get upper management to sign off on letting 5 guys fuck around with a product that has 1000 man years of effort devoted to it.
get it now?
my position has remained the same throughout my posts. Blizzard is not going ot overhaul SC2 due ot a myriad of factors including inertia.
I agree mostly. They don't feel like an overhaul is needed or at least not worth it, and so there will be none.
The original point is still wrong though LOL. I spit in it's face actually!
On March 16 2014 01:11 saddaromma wrote: Ok guys I will make a better analogy. LoL also has a lot of haters. You see a lot threads in their forums complaining this and that. However the majority of their forums is filled with active discussion of game, its state, champion builds. And the hot topics are usually like that. Whereas sc2 hot topics are always about smth bad, drama, imba or how the game is bad. Somehow even if lol community is considered the most toxic its forums are better than sc2. Another good example is hearthstone. Check liquidhearth. Therefore I believe sc2 has more haters, and its direct result of how bafly the game was designed.
But, that good stuff happens in SC2 too. There is also plenty of discussion and appreciation of strategy in LR threads and Strategy and even in General. Unfortunately, it tends to be forgotten in the storm of complaining. There are quite a few reasons for this, some of which are related to the expectations around the game, the marketing as an E-Sport, and more (IMO) the demanding and self-critical nature of the game, as well as the constant realization that the game has rules. It is that, I think, that leads to so much hate - not how badly the game is designed (assuming that the game is badly designed in the first place).
Personally, I don't give much of a shit for the haters or how much they are in number. It's their assumption that "the community" is just them or that complaining loudly has greater weight than those quietly playing the game that I (sometimes) find irritating. Also, I think many of the arguments used for SC2 is badly designed and that it needs a fundamental overhaul etc are wrong.
Unfortunately, after almost 4 years, this is well-trodden ground. It's unlikely to go away.
i think Blizzard's request for constant fan feedback is inherent in the "Blizzard design philosophy".
The details around the game design, mechanics and rules are in constant state of flux because they are willing to change things. Think about what its like to drive in the middle of a Blizzard. That resembles Morhaime's development philosophy. That's why the name was selected for the company after they couldn't use "Chaos Studios".
so we get comments that run the entire gamut from "this is the greatest game ever made" to "the game sucks and without all the hype and marketing no one would ever play".
if all we gave them was the TL.Net forums to read any one without intimate familiarity with SC2 would have a hard time figuring out if the game is well liked or not
Morhaime and senior management are right in their element dealing with all the "white noise" on these forums.
On March 16 2014 04:39 B-rye88 wrote: Fairly certain that people at a massive public company know the definition of a 'sunk cost'.
and a software company is also familiar with how well a 5 guys working part time can deal with 348573987 million lines of code made by 200 other guys who have spent their careers working in specialties they have only brief exposure to.
I am not convinced by these supposed metrics of success of Starcraft II. I think we're allowing game design to be rather too easy if we're satisfied with: asymmetrically balanced real-time strategy games with a competitive scene with many viable strategies and games with action all over the map. It sounds pretty impressive, but I think it's the bare minimum we should expect, and even then Starcraft II often fails to live up to it.
(i.e. we have to live by the standards that BW set)
I will never bought a Blizzard game again. They have no respect for the players and fans.
It is truly sad see the game losing proplayers and fans because the game is fucking boring and blizzard changing number when the true problem is the core of some units.
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.
On March 16 2014 01:11 saddaromma wrote: Ok guys I will make a better analogy. LoL also has a lot of haters. You see a lot threads in their forums complaining this and that. However the majority of their forums is filled with active discussion of game, its state, champion builds. And the hot topics are usually like that. Whereas sc2 hot topics are always about smth bad, drama, imba or how the game is bad. Somehow even if lol community is considered the most toxic its forums are better than sc2. Another good example is hearthstone. Check liquidhearth. Therefore I believe sc2 has more haters, and its direct result of how bafly the game was designed.
Because most community suggestions get shot down in the SC2 scene. I can't think of any instances that come to mind without extreme reluctance or after a very long passage of time. You remember when the community cried out for tournament maps on ladder? That didn't really happen until 2 years into the game, far too long to be meaningful.
Then you have the myriad of other balance issues that the community deems important (SH and FF viability) and is always shot down by Blizzard because they see nothing wrong.
It's hard to consistently engaged in the design of the game when the community appears to have such little influence in it. Even pro-players input (which Blizzard says they listen to) don't appear to be considered in any meaningful degree, unless you count players abusing certain units (Thors w/ Thorzaine, Firebats w/ Innovation, or Storms w/ San).
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.
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.
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.
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
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 05:25 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 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 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 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.
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?
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
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?
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
In your URL taht you posted, the article right below that one, besides having "For Struggling PC Market, It's PC Gamers To The Rescue" as a title, straight up finished with
As always, a friendly reminder that PC gaming isn’t dead, and is nowhere near dying.
It does talk about high-end parts and how people are buying them beyond expectation and contrary to the declining PC sales. As much as we (PC gamers) think that a PC is meant for gaming, most PCs sold aren't for gaming.
This isn't the first time Blizzard has looked or even actively developed for consoles. Starcraft: Ghost came before D3, heck one of Blizzards first games developed was for the SNES. So it isn't out of the ordinary for them to have console games.
And I can't be the only one that thinks that Hearthstone would be 100% better on a tablet (mostly the reason why I don't play it now).
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.
Not touching units is how Brood War was balanced, and people screamed at them to not do the knee-jerk balancing that they did in WoL. All he is saying is that there is no need for unnecessary change for the sake if it.
I like the idea that players should be creative in their play instead of relying on the developer, which is sorely lacking right now.
Just logged in for the first time in 8 months and wow, absolutely nothing has changed. How hard is it to implement basic battlenet features. We've been getting the same answers about game design now for 4 years, let's face it, nothing is going to change, blizzard, for whatever reason is not interested in saving this series. All power to the mods I guess.
On March 22 2014 11:28 MateShade wrote: Just logged in for the first time in 8 months and wow, absolutely nothing has changed. How hard is it to implement basic battlenet features. We've been getting the same answers about game design now for 4 years, let's face it, nothing is going to change, blizzard, for whatever reason is not interested in saving this series. All power to the mods I guess.
Well. They are a publicly traded company now. Any decisions they make on resources and product development are heavily influenced by shareholders. Whatever has the potential to drive the most revenue will probably be receiving the most attention. An RTS with no subscription fee, declining player base, and no micro-transactions isn't exactly an appealing project to poor additional resources into. It's very likely that the SC2 team has shrunk considerably in the last few years.
I personally think they have already listened and add a lot of features but it seems just not well implemented or people aren't interested enough to use it
I haven't played SC2 in over a year now I think and haven't payed attention to the pro scene for even longer. I rarely log in on TL.net anymore but this thread title interested me. The entire AMA is frustrating but this quote for some reason just made me sadder than anything else
Q: Has the recent popularity of Starbow and its Brood-War-like gameplay influenced your approach to LotV in any way? Most people agree that large-scale fights that end in a matter of seconds aren't fun, or good for the competitive scene (not for the progamers, and certainly not for the audience). They don't reward skill, since there's usually not enough time to execute any micro maneuvers beyond the most basic splits and casting a few aoe spells. - Hide Spoiler - A: We definitely look at popular mods for ideas for SC2. Not only mods, but it's just very common for our designers to just explore games they are playing currently. One interesting story I'd like to share is back when the last Hearthstone alpha started internally, so many of us were playing the game so much that our multiplayer meetings were full of TCG-like ability ideas which took us to interesting areas creatively. Of course we can't do things like "when this unit enters play, something disruptive happens to the enemy," but often times crazy ideas lead to reasonable ideas that can actually work in a completely different type of game.
Completely side-stepped just about everything the question was asking. The question was about BW influence and how bad it is in SC2 to have big fights ending so quickly. And then DK talks about card games and "crazy ideas"? ......Wtf? It's clear he doesn't care about balance or creating a game that can showcase high levels of skill. It seems like they only care about coming up with flashy new ideas that can be put into a headline or a trailer video before the next expansion release.
Sigh...I guess its time to hibernate again. Back to Dota 2....
On March 17 2014 11:07 Dradugun wrote: In your URL taht you posted, the article right below that one, besides having "For Struggling PC Market, It's PC Gamers To The Rescue" as a title, straight up finished with
As always, a friendly reminder that PC gaming isn’t dead, and is nowhere near dying.
It does talk about high-end parts and how people are buying them beyond expectation and contrary to the declining PC sales. As much as we (PC gamers) think that a PC is meant for gaming, most PCs sold aren't for gaming.
This isn't the first time Blizzard has looked or even actively developed for consoles. Starcraft: Ghost came before D3, heck one of Blizzards first games developed was for the SNES. So it isn't out of the ordinary for them to have console games.
And I can't be the only one that thinks that Hearthstone would be 100% better on a tablet (mostly the reason why I don't play it now).
EDIT to keep it in a single post:
Blizzard started by porting existing games onto a different platform. anything to pay the bills and keep the lights on.
For a long while Blizzard was PC only. Wisely, they are moving away from that strategy.
the GPU creates a barrier to entry that did not exist in 1999. that's the problem.
the RTS genre will still be around, the same way people still play and enjoy the strategy involved in a good dot-eating maze game.
its just that no more big budget RTS games will be made because so much more profit can be made elsewhere. RTS games will come from indy studios on shoestring budgets...
the big hitters have left because the profit is not there.
On March 17 2014 11:07 Dradugun wrote: In your URL taht you posted, the article right below that one, besides having "For Struggling PC Market, It's PC Gamers To The Rescue" as a title, straight up finished with
As always, a friendly reminder that PC gaming isn’t dead, and is nowhere near dying.
It does talk about high-end parts and how people are buying them beyond expectation and contrary to the declining PC sales. As much as we (PC gamers) think that a PC is meant for gaming, most PCs sold aren't for gaming.
This isn't the first time Blizzard has looked or even actively developed for consoles. Starcraft: Ghost came before D3, heck one of Blizzards first games developed was for the SNES. So it isn't out of the ordinary for them to have console games.
And I can't be the only one that thinks that Hearthstone would be 100% better on a tablet (mostly the reason why I don't play it now).
EDIT to keep it in a single post:
the big hitters have left because the profit is not there.
On March 17 2014 11:07 Dradugun wrote: In your URL taht you posted, the article right below that one, besides having "For Struggling PC Market, It's PC Gamers To The Rescue" as a title, straight up finished with
As always, a friendly reminder that PC gaming isn’t dead, and is nowhere near dying.
It does talk about high-end parts and how people are buying them beyond expectation and contrary to the declining PC sales. As much as we (PC gamers) think that a PC is meant for gaming, most PCs sold aren't for gaming.
This isn't the first time Blizzard has looked or even actively developed for consoles. Starcraft: Ghost came before D3, heck one of Blizzards first games developed was for the SNES. So it isn't out of the ordinary for them to have console games.
And I can't be the only one that thinks that Hearthstone would be 100% better on a tablet (mostly the reason why I don't play it now).
EDIT to keep it in a single post:
the big hitters have left because the profit is not there.
Who are the big hitters?
EA - CnC
Microsoft - Age of Series
Blizzard - Prob not investing much into the scene as before.
Blizzard is doing fine with supporting fans that follow their games, from hearthstone to SC2. They have never been a single game studio and they are always goin to have a wide focus.
On March 17 2014 11:07 Dradugun wrote: In your URL taht you posted, the article right below that one, besides having "For Struggling PC Market, It's PC Gamers To The Rescue" as a title, straight up finished with
As always, a friendly reminder that PC gaming isn’t dead, and is nowhere near dying.
It does talk about high-end parts and how people are buying them beyond expectation and contrary to the declining PC sales. As much as we (PC gamers) think that a PC is meant for gaming, most PCs sold aren't for gaming.
This isn't the first time Blizzard has looked or even actively developed for consoles. Starcraft: Ghost came before D3, heck one of Blizzards first games developed was for the SNES. So it isn't out of the ordinary for them to have console games.
And I can't be the only one that thinks that Hearthstone would be 100% better on a tablet (mostly the reason why I don't play it now).
EDIT to keep it in a single post:
the big hitters have left because the profit is not there.
Who are the big hitters?
EA - CnC
Microsoft - Age of Series
Blizzard - Prob not investing much into the scene as before.
IMO both the CnC and the AOE series have gone to shit with their latest iterations.
-Blizz is supporting its RTS more then ever, there's no question about that. -The Total War is in full swing with many games over the last few years. -The Homeworld series is getting a new entry,Shipbreakers, as well as remastering of the originals. I've no doubt we will see more Homeworld in the future -Sins of a solar empire was game of the year not to long ago and had a new expansion just a couple of years ago. -Relic is consistantly puting out RTS games
There aren't as many RTS games as FPSs of course, but there are plenty.
Also, as far as i know, CnC was canceled because it got very bad feedback from fans. EA doesn't have a new cnc not because "it can't make profit" but because the game was shit so they cut their loses. They'll be back for sure.
On March 17 2014 11:07 Dradugun wrote: In your URL taht you posted, the article right below that one, besides having "For Struggling PC Market, It's PC Gamers To The Rescue" as a title, straight up finished with
As always, a friendly reminder that PC gaming isn’t dead, and is nowhere near dying.
It does talk about high-end parts and how people are buying them beyond expectation and contrary to the declining PC sales. As much as we (PC gamers) think that a PC is meant for gaming, most PCs sold aren't for gaming.
This isn't the first time Blizzard has looked or even actively developed for consoles. Starcraft: Ghost came before D3, heck one of Blizzards first games developed was for the SNES. So it isn't out of the ordinary for them to have console games.
And I can't be the only one that thinks that Hearthstone would be 100% better on a tablet (mostly the reason why I don't play it now).
EDIT to keep it in a single post:
the big hitters have left because the profit is not there.
Who are the big hitters?
EA - CnC
Microsoft - Age of Series
Blizzard - Prob not investing much into the scene as before.
IMO both the CnC and the AOE series have gone to shit with their latest iterations.
-Blizz is supporting its RTS more then ever, there's no question about that. -The Total War is in full swing with many games over the last few years. -The Homeworld series is getting a new entry,Shipbreakers, as well as remastering of the originals. I've no doubt we will see more Homeworld in the future -Sins of a solar empire was game of the year not to long ago and had a new expansion just a couple of years ago. -Relic is consistantly puting out RTS games
There aren't as many RTS games as FPSs of course, but there are plenty.
Also, as far as i know, CnC was canceled because it got very bad feedback from fans. EA doesn't have a new cnc not because "it can't make profit" but because the game was shit so they cut their loses. They'll be back for sure.
truth be told all rts games are bad except broodwar
On March 17 2014 11:07 Dradugun wrote: In your URL taht you posted, the article right below that one, besides having "For Struggling PC Market, It's PC Gamers To The Rescue" as a title, straight up finished with
As always, a friendly reminder that PC gaming isn’t dead, and is nowhere near dying.
It does talk about high-end parts and how people are buying them beyond expectation and contrary to the declining PC sales. As much as we (PC gamers) think that a PC is meant for gaming, most PCs sold aren't for gaming.
This isn't the first time Blizzard has looked or even actively developed for consoles. Starcraft: Ghost came before D3, heck one of Blizzards first games developed was for the SNES. So it isn't out of the ordinary for them to have console games.
And I can't be the only one that thinks that Hearthstone would be 100% better on a tablet (mostly the reason why I don't play it now).
EDIT to keep it in a single post:
the big hitters have left because the profit is not there.
Who are the big hitters?
EA - CnC
Microsoft - Age of Series
Blizzard - Prob not investing much into the scene as before.
IMO both the CnC and the AOE series have gone to shit with their latest iterations.
-Blizz is supporting its RTS more then ever, there's no question about that. -The Total War is in full swing with many games over the last few years. -The Homeworld series is getting a new entry,Shipbreakers, as well as remastering of the originals. I've no doubt we will see more Homeworld in the future -Sins of a solar empire was game of the year not to long ago and had a new expansion just a couple of years ago. -Relic is consistantly puting out RTS games
There aren't as many RTS games as FPSs of course, but there are plenty.
Also, as far as i know, CnC was canceled because it got very bad feedback from fans. EA doesn't have a new cnc not because "it can't make profit" but because the game was shit so they cut their loses. They'll be back for sure.
truth be told all rts games are bad except broodwar
On March 17 2014 11:07 Dradugun wrote: In your URL taht you posted, the article right below that one, besides having "For Struggling PC Market, It's PC Gamers To The Rescue" as a title, straight up finished with
As always, a friendly reminder that PC gaming isn’t dead, and is nowhere near dying.
It does talk about high-end parts and how people are buying them beyond expectation and contrary to the declining PC sales. As much as we (PC gamers) think that a PC is meant for gaming, most PCs sold aren't for gaming.
This isn't the first time Blizzard has looked or even actively developed for consoles. Starcraft: Ghost came before D3, heck one of Blizzards first games developed was for the SNES. So it isn't out of the ordinary for them to have console games.
And I can't be the only one that thinks that Hearthstone would be 100% better on a tablet (mostly the reason why I don't play it now).
EDIT to keep it in a single post:
the big hitters have left because the profit is not there.
Who are the big hitters?
EA - CnC
Microsoft - Age of Series
Blizzard - Prob not investing much into the scene as before.
IMO both the CnC and the AOE series have gone to shit with their latest iterations.
-Blizz is supporting its RTS more then ever, there's no question about that. -The Total War is in full swing with many games over the last few years. -The Homeworld series is getting a new entry,Shipbreakers, as well as remastering of the originals. I've no doubt we will see more Homeworld in the future -Sins of a solar empire was game of the year not to long ago and had a new expansion just a couple of years ago. -Relic is consistantly puting out RTS games
There aren't as many RTS games as FPSs of course, but there are plenty.
Also, as far as i know, CnC was canceled because it got very bad feedback from fans. EA doesn't have a new cnc not because "it can't make profit" but because the game was shit so they cut their loses. They'll be back for sure.
Blizzard is the only studio making "AAA" level RTS games. and they have produced exactly 1 game and 1 expansion in the past 11 years. There excuse always is that they have the team doing other stuff.. before it was WoW and now, Team1 is working on a moba.
Total War is in rough shape...it had an initial high sales total due to outright lying during the promotion of Rome2. Which led to a major backlash. "Angry Joe" has a pretty good view of Rome2 on youtube. Its not a "AAA" game.
Homeworld:Shipbreakers has zero promotional budget indicating its not a "AAA" game. Gearbox has a very sketchy reputation when they farm out development.
a few months after CoH2 comes out it goes on sale for $20? Relic introduces DLC and the Steam #s remain flat.
On March 17 2014 11:07 Dradugun wrote: In your URL taht you posted, the article right below that one, besides having "For Struggling PC Market, It's PC Gamers To The Rescue" as a title, straight up finished with
As always, a friendly reminder that PC gaming isn’t dead, and is nowhere near dying.
It does talk about high-end parts and how people are buying them beyond expectation and contrary to the declining PC sales. As much as we (PC gamers) think that a PC is meant for gaming, most PCs sold aren't for gaming.
This isn't the first time Blizzard has looked or even actively developed for consoles. Starcraft: Ghost came before D3, heck one of Blizzards first games developed was for the SNES. So it isn't out of the ordinary for them to have console games.
And I can't be the only one that thinks that Hearthstone would be 100% better on a tablet (mostly the reason why I don't play it now).
EDIT to keep it in a single post:
the big hitters have left because the profit is not there.
Who are the big hitters?
EA - CnC
Microsoft - Age of Series
Blizzard - Prob not investing much into the scene as before.
IMO both the CnC and the AOE series have gone to shit with their latest iterations.
-Blizz is supporting its RTS more then ever, there's no question about that. -The Total War is in full swing with many games over the last few years. -The Homeworld series is getting a new entry,Shipbreakers, as well as remastering of the originals. I've no doubt we will see more Homeworld in the future -Sins of a solar empire was game of the year not to long ago and had a new expansion just a couple of years ago. -Relic is consistantly puting out RTS games
There aren't as many RTS games as FPSs of course, but there are plenty.
Also, as far as i know, CnC was canceled because it got very bad feedback from fans. EA doesn't have a new cnc not because "it can't make profit" but because the game was shit so they cut their loses. They'll be back for sure.
truth be told all rts games are bad except broodwar
hehe can't argue with that
I don't know if many of the older RTS games hold up. I had a chat with my brother the other day and he felt that even when he returned to Warcraft 3, a game he has played a lot over the years, it was borderline unplayable at first and required severe adjustment to earlier standards. And games like the Earth 21xx series are simply not enjoyable anymore unless you approach them from a specific mindset.
I don't completely agree, but I will say that the outdated interface and awful pathing of at least some of the first Earth 21xx games (the ones I played) made it impossible for me to enjoy them when I tried replaying them the other day, although they were some of my favorite games from my childhood. On the other hand, I can still freely enjoy Brood War, and Age of Empires II was mostly fine as well, Settlers II also.
It reminds me a bit of older FPS games. You wouldn't just play the first Wolfenstein or Doom games for enjoyment, because they are superseded by their sequels. (Although I did replay Doom last year and enjoyed it) However, an earlier game by id software, Commander Keen, is still played in speed runs and is freely enjoyable and very accessible. So time has been kinder to it. I think there are some genres where the first tries might be revolutionary and very formative, but it takes a while to hit on the right interface and such.
On March 17 2014 11:07 Dradugun wrote: In your URL taht you posted, the article right below that one, besides having "For Struggling PC Market, It's PC Gamers To The Rescue" as a title, straight up finished with
As always, a friendly reminder that PC gaming isn’t dead, and is nowhere near dying.
It does talk about high-end parts and how people are buying them beyond expectation and contrary to the declining PC sales. As much as we (PC gamers) think that a PC is meant for gaming, most PCs sold aren't for gaming.
This isn't the first time Blizzard has looked or even actively developed for consoles. Starcraft: Ghost came before D3, heck one of Blizzards first games developed was for the SNES. So it isn't out of the ordinary for them to have console games.
And I can't be the only one that thinks that Hearthstone would be 100% better on a tablet (mostly the reason why I don't play it now).
EDIT to keep it in a single post:
the big hitters have left because the profit is not there.
Who are the big hitters?
EA - CnC
Microsoft - Age of Series
Blizzard - Prob not investing much into the scene as before.
IMO both the CnC and the AOE series have gone to shit with their latest iterations.
-Blizz is supporting its RTS more then ever, there's no question about that. -The Total War is in full swing with many games over the last few years. -The Homeworld series is getting a new entry,Shipbreakers, as well as remastering of the originals. I've no doubt we will see more Homeworld in the future -Sins of a solar empire was game of the year not to long ago and had a new expansion just a couple of years ago. -Relic is consistantly puting out RTS games
There aren't as many RTS games as FPSs of course, but there are plenty.
Also, as far as i know, CnC was canceled because it got very bad feedback from fans. EA doesn't have a new cnc not because "it can't make profit" but because the game was shit so they cut their loses. They'll be back for sure.
Blizzard is the only studio making "AAA" level RTS games. and they have produced exactly 1 game and 1 expansion in the past 11 years. There excuse always is that they have the team doing other stuff.. before it was WoW and now, Team1 is working on a moba.
Total War is in rough shape...it had an initial high sales total due to outright lying during the promotion of Rome2. Which led to a major backlash. "Angry Joe" has a pretty good view of Rome2 on youtube. Its not a "AAA" game.
Homeworld:Shipbreakers has zero promotional budget indicating its not a "AAA" game. Gearbox has a very sketchy reputation when they farm out development.
a few months after CoH2 comes out it goes on sale for $20? Relic introduces DLC and the Steam #s remain flat.
don't expect Warcraft4 or Starcraft3 any time soon. the C&C franchise is done.
The reason Blizz can release 2 RTS games (WoL and HotS) is because they have the money to devote the time to create such games. Like Valve has Steam, they can spend so much time on development (for better or for worse), because WoW is still a cash cow. A developer like Blizz doesn't have to release games every single year, because they are not at risk of going under if they are not constantly working on a new game for every year. There are other factors, but the safety of the money they bring in mitigates some of the risks they take.
Hearthstone, WoW, and Heroes of the Storm are looking to be able to fund Blizzard's other interests. Developers and publishers are looking to free-to-play games with micro transaction to supplement their other ventures. Blizzard can put out another large RTS, because they simply know how to navigate the market into buying it. Making a RTS is a risk, but it's one that Blizzard has set itself up to be able to handle. It also helps that their "risky" games WoL and HotS still sell very very well regardless of being a PC exclusive. Publishers and developers of the other large RTS' such CnC and AoE, have either changed the game too much, missed the target audience, had too high of projections, etc..
In the case of CoH2, it's not uncommon for PC games to go on sale a few months after. It had a strong showing selling pretty good number, but usually after the first month game sales drop off considerably. That's how the markets go for most games. A peak for the first month, a peak for the first reduction, and then finally another spike when there's a Steam sale and it's part of it.
On March 25 2014 06:20 superpanda27 wrote: In the case of CoH2, it's not uncommon for PC games to go on sale a few months after. It had a strong showing selling pretty good number, but usually after the first month game sales drop off considerably. That's how the markets go for most games. A peak for the first month, a peak for the first reduction, and then finally another spike when there's a Steam sale and it's part of it.
On March 25 2014 06:20 superpanda27 wrote: In the case of CoH2, it's not uncommon for PC games to go on sale a few months after. It had a strong showing selling pretty good number, but usually after the first month game sales drop off considerably.
unfortunately, the CoH2 sales total of 380,000 in 5 days does not withstand even superficial scrutiny. it was pulled off of some chart with no legend to interpret the units.
you say in ur comment it sells for the 1st month. well after the magical 5 days of 380,000 how many more sales do you think occurred?
if it were true then CoH2 would be somewhere in the same ball park as Rome2 in terms of users online during the initial release months. CoH2 #s in the first few months are 1/10 of Rome2's #s in its first few months.. making 380,000 in 5 days way off.
Rome2:Total War's sales #s are legit though. They pass the smell test with # of players online. The 800,000 in the first 28 days jives nicely with the # of users online and the amount of online activity.
we are about to find out shortly what Relic has planned for "the future of CoH"
If you read the comments about "why RTS games aren't on top" in forums/discussions that aren't about Starcraft you'll read a recurring theme: Too complex Catering too much to the hardcore fans Too much basebuilding
If you want those players back, you have to introduce mechanics that let them play how they want without learning "how to macro" first.
On March 25 2014 16:54 Big J wrote: If you read the comments about "why RTS games aren't on top" in forums/discussions that aren't about Starcraft you'll read a recurring theme: Too complex Catering too much to the hardcore fans Too much basebuilding
If you want those players back, you have to introduce mechanics that let them play how they want without learning "how to macro" first.
Were they ever "in" to begin with? I don't think so.
RTS will appeal to fewer people just like quality indi films will appeal to fewer people then Transformers do, NFS will sell better then a proper race sim and so on. There is nothing wrong with the genre and expecting it to have the same sales as CoD 27 is just silly.
On March 17 2014 11:07 Dradugun wrote: In your URL taht you posted, the article right below that one, besides having "For Struggling PC Market, It's PC Gamers To The Rescue" as a title, straight up finished with
As always, a friendly reminder that PC gaming isn’t dead, and is nowhere near dying.
It does talk about high-end parts and how people are buying them beyond expectation and contrary to the declining PC sales. As much as we (PC gamers) think that a PC is meant for gaming, most PCs sold aren't for gaming.
This isn't the first time Blizzard has looked or even actively developed for consoles. Starcraft: Ghost came before D3, heck one of Blizzards first games developed was for the SNES. So it isn't out of the ordinary for them to have console games.
And I can't be the only one that thinks that Hearthstone would be 100% better on a tablet (mostly the reason why I don't play it now).
EDIT to keep it in a single post:
the big hitters have left because the profit is not there.
Who are the big hitters?
EA - CnC
Microsoft - Age of Series
Blizzard - Prob not investing much into the scene as before.
IMO both the CnC and the AOE series have gone to shit with their latest iterations.
-Blizz is supporting its RTS more then ever, there's no question about that. -The Total War is in full swing with many games over the last few years. -The Homeworld series is getting a new entry,Shipbreakers, as well as remastering of the originals. I've no doubt we will see more Homeworld in the future -Sins of a solar empire was game of the year not to long ago and had a new expansion just a couple of years ago. -Relic is consistantly puting out RTS games
There aren't as many RTS games as FPSs of course, but there are plenty.
Also, as far as i know, CnC was canceled because it got very bad feedback from fans. EA doesn't have a new cnc not because "it can't make profit" but because the game was shit so they cut their loses. They'll be back for sure.
Blizzard is the only studio making "AAA" level RTS games. and they have produced exactly 1 game and 1 expansion in the past 11 years. There excuse always is that they have the team doing other stuff.. before it was WoW and now, Team1 is working on a moba.
It took them if i remember correctly about 7 years to develop WoL, engine and all. We are not talking about a reskin of a previous product like you see in the yearly iterations of games we are "blessed" with nowdays.
It's similar with Diablo, and their next MMO. How long have they been working on Titan for? And it's supposed to be still a loooog way away. This is just how Blizzard does things.
Total War is in rough shape...it had an initial high sales total due to outright lying during the promotion of Rome2. Which led to a major backlash. "Angry Joe" has a pretty good view of Rome2 on youtube. Its not a "AAA" game.
Total War is a series, not one game. It had 4 games over the last 4 years or so with expansions (to much if you ask me). I'll say they see some incentive to keep developing these games, don't you? What do you understand by AAA title?
As far as Rome 2 goes, it was released broken/ unfinished as many games do nowdays (Battlefield4, Batman Origins, etc) due to publisher greed. Has nothing to do with genre, obviously.
Homeworld:Shipbreakers has zero promotional budget indicating its not a "AAA" game. Gearbox has a very sketchy reputation when they farm out development.
But that surly means it doesn't NEED to hore itself on every street corner to get atention. If you like RTS, and there are many that do, you will know of this little title. We've seen "game of the year" titles in the last few years that were not you definition of "AAA". Journey, The Walking Dead and a few years back Sins of a solar empire.
a few months after CoH2 comes out it goes on sale for $20? Relic introduces DLC and the Steam #s remain flat.
Maybe you are not familiar with Steam, but that is how it works.
no one in management can convince the guys who pay the bills to spend "AAA" money with these kinds of numbers.
I've given you lots of titles that have come out in the last few years. If they are not "AAA" enough for you, then when were RTS games EVER "AAA"?
don't expect Warcraft4 or Starcraft3 any time soon. the C&C franchise is done.
PM me the Romanian lottery numbers for next week please.
RTS games, "hardcore" PC gaming in general TBF, are not like CoD or AC or any other franchise that brings a new product every 12-18 months. Never have been never will be, thank Beliar!
On March 25 2014 16:54 Big J wrote: If you read the comments about "why RTS games aren't on top" in forums/discussions that aren't about Starcraft you'll read a recurring theme: Too complex Catering too much to the hardcore fans Too much basebuilding
If you want those players back, you have to introduce mechanics that let them play how they want without learning "how to macro" first.
Developers did that: mobas and tactics games. Personally I don't see the point in the rts genre if it doesn't have basebuilding, clueless new players be damned.
On March 25 2014 16:54 Big J wrote: If you read the comments about "why RTS games aren't on top" in forums/discussions that aren't about Starcraft you'll read a recurring theme: Too complex Catering too much to the hardcore fans Too much basebuilding
If you want those players back, you have to introduce mechanics that let them play how they want without learning "how to macro" first.
Developers did that: mobas and tactics games. Personally I don't see the point in the rts genre if it doesn't have basebuilding, clueless new players be damned.
We can say that mobas are a subgenre though. SC2 is as hardcore base building as you can get and it's still very popular. There's room for both i think.
On March 25 2014 16:54 Big J wrote: If you read the comments about "why RTS games aren't on top" in forums/discussions that aren't about Starcraft you'll read a recurring theme: Too complex Catering too much to the hardcore fans Too much basebuilding
If you want those players back, you have to introduce mechanics that let them play how they want without learning "how to macro" first.
Developers did that: mobas and tactics games. Personally I don't see the point in the rts genre if it doesn't have basebuilding, clueless new players be damned.
We can say that mobas are a subgenre though. SC2 is as hardcore base building as you can get and it's still very popular. There's room for both i think.
Real time strategy games range from simulations to action games, but I honestly don't think that dungeon keeper and settlers have much in common with dota. I think they're too far apart to really consider them different subgenres of the same overall genre. And it's almost more like starcraft is a mix of mobas and sim games, which is ridiculous from a historical perspective, but is easily something you'd consider from a modern perspective.
It's odd that it stopped being popular, since rts games were some of the most successful titles 15 years ago. You'd think that people would want to play war simulations, where you control armies and manage resources and industry, but it's like the whole genre collapsed.
a few months after CoH2 comes out it goes on sale for $20? Relic introduces DLC and the Steam #s remain flat.
Maybe you are not familiar with Steam, but that is how it works.
let me make a contrast to be clear:
when Blizzard introduced their expansion to their RTS then activity around the game inceases due to excitement over the new features and units. Relic introduces new content for CoH2 and the player base continues to decline. Bad sign.
don't expect Warcraft4 or Starcraft3 any time soon. the C&C franchise is done.
PM me the Romanian lottery numbers for next week please.
RTS games, "hardcore" PC gaming in general TBF, are not like CoD or AC or any other franchise that brings a new product every 12-18 months. Never have been never will be, thank Beliar!
the last C&C RTS was RA3 and was released in October 2008. 6 years ago. it does not matter what EA says with promises, and so far they've promised nothing, nothing new is coming from them, not even a studio to make a game and the fan base is now ZERO this discussion point is now Reductio Ad Absurdem
Blizzard's own behaviour since 2004 tells you where the RTS genre is headed. They've got bigger fish to fry. WoW is clearly their #1 money maker. D3 is making way more cash than SC2. Blizzard has moved "Team 1" , a team that has been working on RTS games since 1995 onto a MOBA.
CoH2 is not a "AAA" game because of its online issues, try playing it.
Rome2 is a mess. they thoroughly fucked the fan-base.
I'm happy with Blizzard's support of the RTS genre. I do not blame them for moving resources away from the genre to areas that make way more cash in the MMO and MOBA genres.
But, the rts genre ain't any where near what it was during its heyday from 1996 to 2006.
On March 25 2014 22:05 lamprey1 wrote: let me make a contrast to be clear:
when Blizzard introduced their expansion to their RTS then activity around the game inceases due to excitement over the new features and units. Relic introduces new content for CoH2 and the player base continues to decline. Bad sign.
All games have lower "activity" after a while, expansion or not. Blizzard and SC2 as a competitive game are a special case.
the faster u discount ur game the harder it becomes to sell a full priced product. all Steam games decline in price at different speeds. some games have more staying power.
Most sales i think happen in the first month, so making discounts after that is very normal. Again, Blizzard is a special case, for better or worse, they keep the prices up for a long time.
CoH2's price fell faster than a Led Zeppelin.
Led Zeppelin has been active for a long time though. Zeppelins, air ships in general, have an undeserved bad reputation to. + Show Spoiler +
A healthy game? Dota 2 is a phenomenon, along with LOL. You can't compare a 60$ release with a free to play competitive game if you want to make a point. You want to make a point, right?
"the way steam works": the faster the game falls in price the harder it becomes to sell a sequel at full price.. everyone just waits for a steam sale.
You mean expansion? Otherwise sequels are always full price. EDIT: i misread i think. Most games rely on hype to sell, that's why marketing plays such a big role, why there are embargo on reviews, bonuses for preorders etc. If you want to be efficient about it, you will always wait a bit for a steam sale, but then the hype might be gone and your friends are playing without out lol
Point is, gamers are not rationale creatures. If you want your game to sell, you invest HUGELY in marketing and get sales in the first month or so. After that, it will always fall in price.
so you're predicting EA makes another RTS game ? what studio is making it? EALA and Victory Games are long gone. the last C&C RTS was RA3 and was released in October 2008. 6 years ago. it does not matter what EA says with promises, and so far they've promised nothing, nothing new is coming from them this discussion point is now Reductio Ad Absurdem.
We've already talked about this. CnC was canceled not to long ago because it was subpar. Clearly EA thought a RTS would be a good thing for them. I think they'l resurrect it yes. With what dev. i don't know.
Blizzard's own behaviour since 2004 tells you where the RTS genre is headed. They've got bigger fish to fry.
I think SC2 was in development in 2004, so what behavior are you talking about?
WoW is clearly their #1 money maker.
Nr. 1 in gaming you mean. All in all, i think it's the most profitable piece of entertainment ever. Is this a sign that RTS is doing bad?
D3 is making way more cash than SC2.
And it is like 3ed best selling PC title ever.
Blizzard has moved "Team 1" , a team that has been working on RTS games since 1995 onto a MOBA.
MOBA is an RTS derivative, so it's not like they are doing shooters now. Besides, LOTV is supposed to be under development so someone is working on it. I'm actually happy Team 1 and Dustin took a break from SC2
CoH2 is not a "AAA" game because of its online issues, try playing it.
What is a "AAA" title?
Rome2 is a mess. they thoroughly fucked the fan-base. + Show Spoiler +
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_QK-lcW8a8
We've also already talked about this. The game was broken on release. What does this have to do with anything? If anything, the outrage that Rome 2 produced is proof of there being lots of RTS fans that are pissed of when subpar and dumbed down products are released. Good sign IMO.
I'm happy with Blizzard's support of the RTS genre. I do not blame them for moving resources away from the genre to areas that make way more cash in the MMO and MOBA genres.
While SC2 is in development you say they are moving away?
This also ties in to your notion that PC gaming is dying. Blizz. is working on SC2, a MOBA, WoW, Heartstone and a new MMO. But it's their Diablo console port that is making you feel PC gaming is dying? Come on!
But, the rts genre ain't any where near what it was during its heyday from 1996 to 2006.
Ah, that might be something worth discussing. Not AS popular in the casual market, maaaybe. But dying? We have world wide esports around RTS and RTS inspired games FFS, something that was unheard of outside of Korea.
It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
You mean like CoH2, aoe3, ra3 and the scrapped c&c? Sc2 is the few that did the sequel right
On March 25 2014 16:54 Big J wrote: If you read the comments about "why RTS games aren't on top" in forums/discussions that aren't about Starcraft you'll read a recurring theme: Too complex Catering too much to the hardcore fans Too much basebuilding
If you want those players back, you have to introduce mechanics that let them play how they want without learning "how to macro" first.
Developers did that: mobas and tactics games. Personally I don't see the point in the rts genre if it doesn't have basebuilding, clueless new players be damned.
yeah, that's true. After a certain point it's not an RTS game anymore. Still, we hardly ask the question where to put the frontier. To give examples:
In CnC you (usually) have Energy-requirements which can be satisfied by extra power-plants. In Starcraft you have Supply-requirements that you have to satisfy by adding extra buildings/overlords.
In both of those games the optimized behaviour to those challenges is to just regularily add those buildings shortly before you hit the limit. In my eyes, it's a repetetive task that you have to learn, but that hardly offers "fun" to the gameplay. Disregarding those buildings other functions (like walling, pylon radius, overlord scouting) the supply component in Starcraft could be almost entirely replaced by just adding extra costs/supply to the units. Meanwhile, "adding probes and pylons" is the one big challenge you have to overcome as a new player, before you can actually start playing the game. I can see that someone that does not want to dedicate time to learning the game, or doesn't know yet whether he likes the game is easily repelled by this. And it's similar in case of "adding more structures when you get more income". Or "always being on top of queuing units on time - that is not too soon and not too late". To go back to the "where to put the frontier" discussion, I'd like to ask the question, are those "extra" limitations necessary. They feel a lot like an atmospheric idea of "let's simulate a real world war... so we need supplies and our buildings only work when they get run with power" included for people who play that game with a lot of imagination in the single player. But not like something that you want to put into a competitive PC game played in multiplayer battles.
Like, I think a lot of people that these days only play Desert Strike would be very willing to go through strategical and microbased challenges of the normal game. What they don't want to do is grind base/army-building mechanics for hours, because if they don't all the strategy and micro in the world will still not overcome those situations in which their opponent has 20extra units. And that's why DS is and has been the most popular map in the Arcade. That's why in BW most people were playing BGH instead of the normal game. The underlying "repetitive, boring tasks" of the normal game got diminished a lot there. You build a base, and then you send (and control) units. But you don't go through lengthy BOs and keep on sqeezing OLs in between. You just build 20 of them and then your job is done. And you build 10hatcheries at once and then your job is done.
Another factor is also early game aggression/cheese. Yes, for a viewer it is nice to have all the variety in the game. And watching SC2 develop from 2010's age of 4gates into what we have now was amazing. But it was equally repelling for players of that time to go on the ladder, and all they ever got to was "can I defend this early rush this time or not". To be accurate: There is nothing wrong with early aggression, there is rather a lot of things right with it and we want people to interact as soon as possible. But as a player - especially a new one - you don't want to get killed by it. You don't want to get canonrushed 3times, then go on a forum, look up a strategy guide that says "pull drones" which you then do and still lose to it. Because that's already 4invested games into "I started the game, then I died". Those people won't be playing this game anymore. So that's one thing I want to add to what I originally said: Imo, RTS games must learn (e.g from the successful example of towers preventing rushes in MOBAs or Desert Strike but maybe also by using other tools, like weakening the "defensive overreaction" principles - RTS would offer so many possibilities for that) to use built-in layers of early kill-protection. At best, that kill-protection gets weaker with increasing skill levels, so rushes become more potent at the higher levels. But it shouldn't be likely for a silver player to kill someone in silver with a roach rush.
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
Did I play BW multiplayer on any competitive level? No. Did I play it on ladder? No. Did it have a built in ladder with match making that I could play? Nope. Am I ever going to take the time tiger over it's amazing learning curve? Never.
The history of BW is nice to hear about, but the game means nothing to me beyond that. The BW hipsters who come out and tell me how much better their favorite game was only serve to make me ignore them. And the people who think that SC2 would have been more successful if it was more like BW, ie harder to play, are just crazy. It's like people who think if they just make an pretty version of Quake in 2014, it will become the new competitive FPS. Those people are nuts too.
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
Did I play BW multiplayer on any competitive level? No. Did I play it on ladder? No. Did it have a built in ladder with match making that I could play? Nope. Am I ever going to take the time tiger over it's amazing learning curve? Never.
The history of BW is nice to hear about, but the game means nothing to me beyond that. The BW hipsters who come out and tell me how much better their favorite game was only serve to make me ignore them. And the people who think that SC2 would have been more successful if it was more like BW, ie harder to play, are just crazy. It's like people who think if they just make an pretty version of Quake in 2014, it will become the new competitive FPS. Those people are nuts too.
Why? If you never gave BW the time and are not willing to do so ever, why not just accept that you don't know instead of calling them "hipsters" crazy? Keep in mind that that game survived with very little if any Blizzard support. Try SC2 WoL without 8327847 balance paches and expansions and i really think the game would have been dead a long time ago. Hell, a few months without Blizzard intervention and the game gets crazy stale due to how many limitations there are in strategy, map design, micro opportunities etc. EDIT: i never played ladder either, just with friends on LAN. Imagine if it had a built in ladder of the level SC2 does or half the support.
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
Did I play BW multiplayer on any competitive level? No. Did I play it on ladder? No. Did it have a built in ladder with match making that I could play? Nope. Am I ever going to take the time tiger over it's amazing learning curve? Never.
The history of BW is nice to hear about, but the game means nothing to me beyond that. The BW hipsters who come out and tell me how much better their favorite game was only serve to make me ignore them. And the people who think that SC2 would have been more successful if it was more like BW, ie harder to play, are just crazy. It's like people who think if they just make an pretty version of Quake in 2014, it will become the new competitive FPS. Those people are nuts too.
Why? If you never gave BW the time and are not willing to do so ever, why not just accept that you don't know instead of calling them "hipsters" crazy? Keep in mind that that game survived with very little if any Blizzard support. Try SC2 WoL without 8327847 balance paches and expansions and i really think the game would have been dead a long time ago. Hell, a few months without Blizzard intervention and the game gets crazy stale due to how many limitations there are in strategy, map design, micro opportunities etc.
How do I dismiss them as hipsters? The same way that is dismiss people who tell me that a album I like "isn't as good as their old stuff. They were way better before they sold out and lost their passion." You don't argue with that, you just tell them to go away. They don't want to have a debate, they just want to shit on your music and make themselves feel awesome about their "more refined" musical tastes.
People who come out of the wood work to tell out how the older thing they liked is "objectively" better than the new thing you like and just obnoxious. I don't care if it is music, film or video games, it all sucks. We can never compaire SC2 to its contemparies because some hipster will come running and say " you can't compare it to modern games, only the 15 year old orginional, which was perfect. You can't argue with perfection."
On March 25 2014 23:57 Sapphire.lux wrote: We've already talked about this. CnC was canceled not to long ago because it was subpar. Clearly EA thought a RTS would be a good thing for them. I think they'l resurrect it yes. With what dev. i don't know.
C&C was cancelled 5 months ago. twist that into "not too long ago" if you like.
EA has no track record of making a good RTS games. Gens2 was their best and that was right after they bought WW. there is no studio... every employee at Victory Games is gone. EALA is gone.
so you have a publisher with no track record publishing a multiplayer RTS leading a non-existent studio to make a sequel for a fan base that is about 1/1000 of its former self.
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
Did I play BW multiplayer on any competitive level? No. Did I play it on ladder? No. Did it have a built in ladder with match making that I could play? Nope. Am I ever going to take the time tiger over it's amazing learning curve? Never.
The history of BW is nice to hear about, but the game means nothing to me beyond that. The BW hipsters who come out and tell me how much better their favorite game was only serve to make me ignore them. And the people who think that SC2 would have been more successful if it was more like BW, ie harder to play, are just crazy. It's like people who think if they just make an pretty version of Quake in 2014, it will become the new competitive FPS. Those people are nuts too.
Why? If you never gave BW the time and are not willing to do so ever, why not just accept that you don't know instead of calling them "hipsters" crazy? Keep in mind that that game survived with very little if any Blizzard support. Try SC2 WoL without 8327847 balance paches and expansions and i really think the game would have been dead a long time ago. Hell, a few months without Blizzard intervention and the game gets crazy stale due to how many limitations there are in strategy, map design, micro opportunities etc.
How do I dismiss them as hipsters? The same way that is dismiss people who tell me that a album I like "isn't as good as their old stuff. They were way better before they sold out and lost their passion." You don't argue with that, you just tell them to go away. They don't want to have a debate, they just want to shit on your music and make themselves feel awesome about their "more refined" musical tastes.
People who come out of the wood work to tell out how the older thing they liked is "objectively" better than the new thing you like and just obnoxious. I don't care if it is music, film or video games, it all sucks. We can never compaire SC2 to its contemparies because some hipster will come running and say " you can't compare it to modern games, only the 15 year old orginional, which was perfect. You can't argue with perfection."
It reminds me of my days as a Genesis fan where I viewed the popularity of their sell-out phase in the 80's and 90's when helmed by Phil Collins as a cosmic injustice and I constantly tried to get people to listen to their 70's work. Now I know better: most people have bad taste and will never enjoy the music I like, so there's no point in trying to convert them.
And it will be the same with real time strategy: some people are too intimidated by the simple concept of needing more production as you acquire more resources, or by having to construct more supply depots if their army size increases. Or by having to select twelve units instead of an infinite number, for that matter. You don't try to tell them that design wise it's superior, you just leave them to enjoy their mobas and inferior sequels. Because the value of something depends only on if you like it yourself, not on overall popularity.
(sorry for the misanthropy, but the inability of most people to understand basic things makes me think there is no god)
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
Did I play BW multiplayer on any competitive level? No. Did I play it on ladder? No. Did it have a built in ladder with match making that I could play? Nope. Am I ever going to take the time tiger over it's amazing learning curve? Never.
The history of BW is nice to hear about, but the game means nothing to me beyond that. The BW hipsters who come out and tell me how much better their favorite game was only serve to make me ignore them. And the people who think that SC2 would have been more successful if it was more like BW, ie harder to play, are just crazy. It's like people who think if they just make an pretty version of Quake in 2014, it will become the new competitive FPS. Those people are nuts too.
Why? If you never gave BW the time and are not willing to do so ever, why not just accept that you don't know instead of calling them "hipsters" crazy? Keep in mind that that game survived with very little if any Blizzard support. Try SC2 WoL without 8327847 balance paches and expansions and i really think the game would have been dead a long time ago. Hell, a few months without Blizzard intervention and the game gets crazy stale due to how many limitations there are in strategy, map design, micro opportunities etc.
How do I dismiss them as hipsters? The same way that is dismiss people who tell me that a album I like "isn't as good as their old stuff. They were way better before they sold out and lost their passion." You don't argue with that, you just tell them to go away. They don't want to have a debate, they just want to shit on your music and make themselves feel awesome about their "more refined" musical tastes.
People who come out of the wood work to tell out how the older thing they liked is "objectively" better than the new thing you like and just obnoxious. I don't care if it is music, film or video games, it all sucks. We can never compaire SC2 to its contemparies because some hipster will come running and say " you can't compare it to modern games, only the 15 year old orginional, which was perfect. You can't argue with perfection."
Objectively speaking, it depends on whether or not SC2 have any "evolution" factors involved as BW.
In BW, everything was evolving organically w/ one strategy dominating and another one to conquer to current meta.
In that aspect, Blizzard royally messed up SC2's game flow by actively getting involved in solving problems for the players and thus renders pretty much all games futile and useless to play and watch as all balances are purely based upon Blizzard's decision making.
In terms of monetary support, it is known that Blizzard have sponsored the majority of SC2 tournaments. I believe that they helped SC2 to get off from their feet on GOM TV by giving sponsorship and direct support to GOM. Basing on such basis, the sequel's industry would most definitely be smaller than what it currently is because more money = more incentive to play better = higher quality of games = more viewership = more exposure = even more money. This is the "magical loop" of esport.
However since BW was constructed w/ grassroot support and organically and especially in an era where electronic sport was even less respected and rifed w/ skepticism. In an industrial perspective, BW's emergence into the scene is more superior than SC2's parental market penetration.
I must admit though that SC2's initial programmer have done an outstanding job in coding their editor system and 3D modeling and also improving unit's intelligence. Those parts were definitely superior to BW's. Then again a game that took less to develop and was build in a time of PC gaming inception.
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
Did I play BW multiplayer on any competitive level? No. Did I play it on ladder? No. Did it have a built in ladder with match making that I could play? Nope. Am I ever going to take the time tiger over it's amazing learning curve? Never.
The history of BW is nice to hear about, but the game means nothing to me beyond that. The BW hipsters who come out and tell me how much better their favorite game was only serve to make me ignore them. And the people who think that SC2 would have been more successful if it was more like BW, ie harder to play, are just crazy. It's like people who think if they just make an pretty version of Quake in 2014, it will become the new competitive FPS. Those people are nuts too.
Why? If you never gave BW the time and are not willing to do so ever, why not just accept that you don't know instead of calling them "hipsters" crazy? Keep in mind that that game survived with very little if any Blizzard support. Try SC2 WoL without 8327847 balance paches and expansions and i really think the game would have been dead a long time ago. Hell, a few months without Blizzard intervention and the game gets crazy stale due to how many limitations there are in strategy, map design, micro opportunities etc.
How do I dismiss them as hipsters? The same way that is dismiss people who tell me that a album I like "isn't as good as their old stuff. They were way better before they sold out and lost their passion." You don't argue with that, you just tell them to go away. They don't want to have a debate, they just want to shit on your music and make themselves feel awesome about their "more refined" musical tastes.
People who come out of the wood work to tell out how the older thing they liked is "objectively" better than the new thing you like and just obnoxious. I don't care if it is music, film or video games, it all sucks. We can never compaire SC2 to its contemparies because some hipster will come running and say " you can't compare it to modern games, only the 15 year old orginional, which was perfect. You can't argue with perfection."
It reminds me of my days as a Genesis fan where I viewed the popularity of their sell-out phase in the 80's and 90's when helmed by Phil Collins as a cosmic injustice and I constantly tried to get people to listen to their 70's work. Now I know better: most people have bad taste and will never enjoy the music I like, so there's no point in trying to convert them.
And it will be the same with real time strategy: some people are too intimidated by the simple concept of needing more production as you acquire more resources, or by having to construct more supply depots if their army size increases. Or by having to select twelve units instead of an infinite number, for that matter. You don't try to tell them that design wise it's superior, you just leave them to enjoy their mobas and inferior sequels. Because the value of something depends only on if you like it yourself, not on overall popularity.
(sorry for the misanthropy, but the inability of most people to understand basic things makes me think there is no god)
Yeah i agree with this. Games, music, film whatever, it's not about old vs new, it's about quality.
If you listen to Biber and can't wait for the next Transformers film to come out, then you have shit tastes, simple as that. There were shit films and music in the past to.
I've gone through different phases with my music tastes. From my youth and early teens with boybands, to my mid and late teens with rap and now in my 20s with rock, and by learning instruments i've started to understand and appreciate more and more classical music. There is a clear evolution there that took time but also an open mind. Its a similar case with films and even games.
On March 26 2014 02:33 Xiphos wrote:
I must admit though that SC2's initial programmer have done an outstanding job in coding their editor system and 3D modeling and also improving unit's intelligence. Those parts were definitely superior to BW's. Then again a game that took less to develop and was build in a time of PC gaming inception.
The programmers Blizzard has are second to none IMO. The engine is just alien good, unreal. The art guys are also very good IMO. If they did half as good with game design, D3 and SC2 would have been miles better.
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
Did I play BW multiplayer on any competitive level? No. Did I play it on ladder? No. Did it have a built in ladder with match making that I could play? Nope. Am I ever going to take the time tiger over it's amazing learning curve? Never.
The history of BW is nice to hear about, but the game means nothing to me beyond that. The BW hipsters who come out and tell me how much better their favorite game was only serve to make me ignore them. And the people who think that SC2 would have been more successful if it was more like BW, ie harder to play, are just crazy. It's like people who think if they just make an pretty version of Quake in 2014, it will become the new competitive FPS. Those people are nuts too.
Why? If you never gave BW the time and are not willing to do so ever, why not just accept that you don't know instead of calling them "hipsters" crazy? Keep in mind that that game survived with very little if any Blizzard support. Try SC2 WoL without 8327847 balance paches and expansions and i really think the game would have been dead a long time ago. Hell, a few months without Blizzard intervention and the game gets crazy stale due to how many limitations there are in strategy, map design, micro opportunities etc.
How do I dismiss them as hipsters? The same way that is dismiss people who tell me that a album I like "isn't as good as their old stuff. They were way better before they sold out and lost their passion." You don't argue with that, you just tell them to go away. They don't want to have a debate, they just want to shit on your music and make themselves feel awesome about their "more refined" musical tastes.
People who come out of the wood work to tell out how the older thing they liked is "objectively" better than the new thing you like and just obnoxious. I don't care if it is music, film or video games, it all sucks. We can never compaire SC2 to its contemparies because some hipster will come running and say " you can't compare it to modern games, only the 15 year old orginional, which was perfect. You can't argue with perfection."
Objectively speaking, it depends on whether or not SC2 have any "evolution" factors involved as BW.
In BW, everything was evolving organically w/ one strategy dominating and another one to conquer to current meta.
In that aspect, Blizzard royally messed up SC2's game flow by actively getting involved in solving problems for the players and thus renders pretty much all games futile and useless to play and watch as all balances are purely based upon Blizzard's decision making.
In terms of monetary support, it is known that Blizzard have sponsored the majority of SC2 tournaments. I believe that they helped SC2 to get off from their feet on GOM TV by giving sponsorship and direct support to GOM. Basing on such basis, the sequel's industry would most definitely be smaller than what it currently is because more money = more incentive to play better = higher quality of games = more viewership = more exposure = even more money. This is the "magical loop" of esport.
However since BW was constructed w/ grassroot support and organically and especially in an era where electronic sport was even less respected and rifed w/ skepticism. In an industrial perspective, BW's emergence into the scene is more superior than SC2's parental market penetration.
I must admit though that SC2's initial programmer have done an outstanding job in coding their editor system and 3D modeling and also improving unit's intelligence. Those parts were definitely superior to BW's. Then again a game that took less to develop and was build in a time of PC gaming inception.
People don't really care if the game is being pushed by dev though. Look at dota, slow progressive patches and occasionally one huge patch Lol has extremely aggressive patching and big changes very often.
Riot also fund a lot of the lcs and it doesn't matter so long they aren't going broke over supporting the tournament.
Seeing how big these two games are, I don't think there is any problem of sc2 not being as whatever you called bw growth was.