In one of latest Blizzard videos about Blizzard Arcade winners, we can see one new developer... well, not new, but if you played or just read news about currently cancelled F2P Command & Conquer, you will know that guy.
Tim Morten, who was C&C F2P (previously known as Generals 2, now cancelled, was only playable as Alpha) senior development director, now is a Lead Game Producer of SC2. Tim Morten does not correlates at all with C&C4, which was fail as we all know.
In my opinion, new developers can bring us some new fresh ideas to the game. So I think this is really good news that Tim Morten now is working on SC2. Also I want to remember you that Dustin Browder was one of Red Alert 2 developers. And also I want to remember you that fresh blood helped Diablo 3, when Jim Mosqueira joined D3 development team.
On August 15 2014 04:42 TotalBiscuit wrote: That doesn't sound too terrible. Generals 2 was shaping up quite nicely from what I played in the alpha (helps that I loved the original Generals).
I think new developers can bring us some new fresh ideas to the game. So I think this is really good news that Tim Morten now is working on SC2
On August 15 2014 04:42 TotalBiscuit wrote: That doesn't sound too terrible. Generals 2 was shaping up quite nicely from what I played in the alpha (helps that I loved the original Generals).
Generals 2 was to much copy paste of starcraft 2 and had few aspects of the original generals, it wasn't a bad game, but it was a bad continuation of the series.
interesting to see where this goes if it has any influence at all, great fan of C&C.
On August 15 2014 04:42 TotalBiscuit wrote: That doesn't sound too terrible. Generals 2 was shaping up quite nicely from what I played in the alpha (helps that I loved the original Generals).
Generals 2 was to much copy paste of starcraft 2 and had few aspects of the original generals, it wasn't a bad game, but it was a bad continuation of the series.
Generals was a quite similar to Blizzard RTS's as it was their first game that moved away from worker-less construction and added some more (not to the extent of Starcraft/Warcraft) faction diversity.
C&C generals was pretty good actually. C&C4 wasn't good and RA3 was questionable when the design idea of having every unit have an extra ability was introduced. Didnt get the chance to play generals 2 at all but it had some promise in design.
Together with heroes the storm, I hope sc2 can become a ongoing platform like what he tried to do in cnc f2p. Cycling units in and out in a beta client that would happen once a year or smth would be really great for the long term freshness of sc2.
I am a big fan of C&C from generals and earlier, but Tim seems to only have been involved with generals 2 which was canceled. In other words... not much to base on.
SC2 would be better if everyone involved in development actually played the game. Job requirement: X ladder games per week on company time, LOL
Seems like other than Generals 2 (aka C&C F2P), Tim Morten was a founder/owner of Savage Entertainment (source), which was mostly known for Star Wars: Battlefront 2. edit: oops, it's the PSP port
I doubt he'll get very deep into the design of SC2, but he may be calling the shots on what other features, such as Battle.net additions, may be implemented. I liked some of the concepts in C&C F2P, but I think it was pushed into the semi-closed Alpha too quickly, which seems typical of EA's practices.
On August 15 2014 05:22 eviltomahawk wrote: Seems like other than Generals 2 (aka C&C F2P), Tim Morten was a founder/owner of Savage Entertainment (source), which was mostly known for Star Wars: Battlefront 2.
On August 15 2014 05:22 eviltomahawk wrote: Seems like other than Generals 2 (aka C&C F2P), Tim Morten was a founder/owner of Savage Entertainment (source), which was mostly known for Star Wars: Battlefront 2.
No, that company was in charge of porting games
Oh yes, you're right. I forgot to read the fine print about it being a PSP port instead of the original.
On August 15 2014 04:45 Faust852 wrote: Is it a good news ? I heard last C&Cs were garbage... Was he the same developer? Anyway, If he can fix the broken UI and Hub, I'd be very happy !
All of the complaints in the forum was about how this game was too similar too Starcraft 2. The core C&C fan group wanted to have tanks that took like 5 seconds to turn around in order to create more "tactics".
That said, the micro still looked terrible in C&C f2p, so I don't have high expectations.
On August 15 2014 04:45 Faust852 wrote: Is it a good news ? I heard last C&Cs were garbage... Was he the same developer? Anyway, If he can fix the broken UI and Hub, I'd be very happy !
All of the complaints in the forum was about how this game was too similar too Starcraft 2. The core C&C fan group wanted to have tanks that took like 5 seconds to turn around in order to create more "tactics".
That said, the micro still looked terrible in C&C 4, so I don't have high expectations.
C&C4 was fail and Tim Morten does not correlates with C&C4 at all. He was a developer of cancelled C&C F2P (before it was named Generals 2). That game was playable for some time as alpha.
On August 15 2014 04:45 Faust852 wrote: Is it a good news ? I heard last C&Cs were garbage... Was he the same developer? Anyway, If he can fix the broken UI and Hub, I'd be very happy !
All of the complaints in the forum was about how this game was too similar too Starcraft 2. The core C&C fan group wanted to have tanks that took like 5 seconds to turn around in order to create more "tactics".
That said, the micro still looked terrible in C&C 4, so I don't have high expectations.
C&C4 was fail and Tim Morten does not correlates with C&C4 at all. He was a developer of cancelled C&C F2P (before it was named Generals 2). That game was playable for some time as alpha.
My biggest hope is that with a new guy at the top of the team is that we can finally tackle some of the ongoing issues that the developers have not wanted to budge on.
I'm looking very specifically at you Protoss. Collosus, Warp Gate, and Forcefield have been 3 eye sores in the race's design and they were also some of Dustin Browder's personal favorite projects.
Hopefully some new blood at the top will actually be willing to address these.
Im happy they're bringing on new ideas. It seems like product leaders for SC2 have been unimaginative. It also seems like there's alot of really sick game developers on TL these days...
On August 15 2014 05:50 Vindicare605 wrote: My biggest hope is that with a new guy at the top of the team is that we can finally tackle some of the ongoing issues that the developers have not wanted to budge on.
I'm looking very specifically at you Protoss. Collosus, Warp Gate, and Forcefield have been 3 eye sores in the race's design and they were also some of Dustin Browder's personal favorite projects.
Hopefully some new blood at the top will actually be willing to address these.
None of these are going away. I don't think anyone wants to completely and utterly overhaul Protoss at this point, nor do I think they should. We're already seeing cracks in the armor of Protoss dominance.
On August 15 2014 05:50 Vindicare605 wrote: My biggest hope is that with a new guy at the top of the team is that we can finally tackle some of the ongoing issues that the developers have not wanted to budge on.
I'm looking very specifically at you Protoss. Collosus, Warp Gate, and Forcefield have been 3 eye sores in the race's design and they were also some of Dustin Browder's personal favorite projects.
Hopefully some new blood at the top will actually be willing to address these.
None of these are going away. I don't think anyone wants to completely and utterly overhaul Protoss at this point, nor do I think they should. We're already seeing cracks in the armor of Protoss dominance.
I'm not talking in the slightest about Protoss win rates, I'm talking about their design.
On August 15 2014 05:50 Vindicare605 wrote: My biggest hope is that with a new guy at the top of the team is that we can finally tackle some of the ongoing issues that the developers have not wanted to budge on.
I'm looking very specifically at you Protoss. Collosus, Warp Gate, and Forcefield have been 3 eye sores in the race's design and they were also some of Dustin Browder's personal favorite projects.
Hopefully some new blood at the top will actually be willing to address these.
None of these are going away. I don't think anyone wants to completely and utterly overhaul Protoss at this point, nor do I think they should. We're already seeing cracks in the armor of Protoss dominance.
I don't think people want a protoss redesign for balance as much as its for design purposes. I'm so in favor of any sort of change that makes it easier for map makers to produce cooler maps.
On August 15 2014 06:19 algue wrote: What is "Lead Game Producer" precisely ? Could this guy have a huge influence on the game or is he working with his hand tied ?
On August 15 2014 05:50 Vindicare605 wrote: My biggest hope is that with a new guy at the top of the team is that we can finally tackle some of the ongoing issues that the developers have not wanted to budge on.
I'm looking very specifically at you Protoss. Collosus, Warp Gate, and Forcefield have been 3 eye sores in the race's design and they were also some of Dustin Browder's personal favorite projects.
Hopefully some new blood at the top will actually be willing to address these.
None of these are going away. I don't think anyone wants to completely and utterly overhaul Protoss at this point, nor do I think they should. We're already seeing cracks in the armor of Protoss dominance.
I don't think people want a protoss redesign for balance as much as its for design purposes. I'm so in favor of any sort of change that makes it easier for map makers to produce cooler maps.
I think the underlying reason is because of the way protoss is played now. Protoss relies on gimmicks because of the way it is designed - stuff like abusing forcefield and chokepoints (which prevents mapmakers from making similar maps), deathball, etc. The entire concept of protoss is kinda flawed, and while it may be balanced it is less interesting to play, compared to its BW counterpart.
On August 15 2014 06:40 ZeromuS wrote: So people are reacting stupidly.
He has experience in RTS games and got hired to work on an RTS game.
Would you rather the CoD developers or someone who had done a mobile game instead?
The god awful original UI came from Xbox dashboard devs ...
starcraft elitism for you. infinite skill ceiling, no one can possibly understand Our Beautiful Game, etc
i for one am hyped just to see fresh faces on the team as it shows a willingness to move forward rather than crapping out a lotv that doesn't try to innovate or fix anything
I think new faces on the team are good, every fresh idea for Legacy of the Void is welcome. They would've hired him for a reason, I am sure he knows his Starcraft stuff and won't try to make something else out of it. So good luck!
Edit: Oh producer, not designer, so he won't have anything to do with gameplay really. Well maybe he has good ideas about micro transactions or something if he was on a f2p project.
On August 15 2014 06:19 algue wrote: What is "Lead Game Producer" precisely ? Could this guy have a huge influence on the game or is he working with his hand tied ?
I think at a level were you are a "Lead Game Producer" you have very little to do with the developement. Its more strategy, human resources managment, collecting money and talking.
this is why a vibrant RTS scene outside of SC is important for SC's continued development. outside RTS game design experts can came in with great new fresh ideas.
On August 15 2014 06:05 Genome852 wrote: They could have snatched day9 from his current company that is making an rts. That would be a twist.
Yes, they should have done this as well! I would love to see Day[9] working on LotV, maybe with some aid from Apollo, Artosis, Tasteless and whoelse. HotS killed the game for me and I hope LotV will be the restart many of us are waiting for.
Since Dustin managed to completely destroy my excitment for the starcraft franchise with his questionable design choices for sc2, this means for me personally that there may be hope again. that is ofc if he has something to do in designing.
On August 15 2014 07:04 404AlphaSquad wrote: Since Dustin managed to completely destroy my excitment for the starcraft franchise with his questionable design choices for sc2, this means for me personally that there may be hope again. that is ofc if he has something to do in designing.
whatever this guys job is, it is a job that exists for a reason, which means that he can bring fresh ideas to the development of the game whether it's on a media level or a design level or whatever. people don't get hired to do nothing. no reason to dread this move imo
On August 15 2014 05:07 Rescawen wrote: Together with heroes the storm, I hope sc2 can become a ongoing platform like what he tried to do in cnc f2p. Cycling units in and out in a beta client that would happen once a year or smth would be really great for the long term freshness of sc2.
Oh god that sounds so terrible, I hope thats not going to happen lol. Well getting someone from the newer C&C titles sounds terrible already.
On August 15 2014 05:50 Vindicare605 wrote: My biggest hope is that with a new guy at the top of the team is that we can finally tackle some of the ongoing issues that the developers have not wanted to budge on.
I'm looking very specifically at you Protoss. Collosus, Warp Gate, and Forcefield have been 3 eye sores in the race's design and they were also some of Dustin Browder's personal favorite projects.
Hopefully some new blood at the top will actually be willing to address these.
I aggree on Forcefields, and to a lesser extent collosus, however I would say that if you make Warp Gate a lategame teh it would be fine, it actually discourages passive turtle play and encourages multitasking ( Forcefields and colossus both encourage the opposite), it also makes the race feel even ore unique than it was in BW.
The big downsite to Warp Gate are the all-ins which benefit heavily from it, so moving it to the lategame (like making TA a requirement) would help, I would assume.
I would say that Forcefields are the most important thing, and then its all about anti turtle/deathabll stuff, so you should make the economy better, you should make Units more microable (like freaking probe micro in BW makes the game way more epic) you should get rid of smart targeting (which makes splash waaay to strong so you kind of have to go death ball with splash, also reduces fight times -> less micro opportunity and raises the skill ceiling in a subtle way), make units clump less (also makes splash too strong) that would be my personal priority list, after that comes the collosus and after that comes changing /removing the warpgate, which as I said earlier I personally would prefer the WarpGate to just be lategame tech.
On August 15 2014 05:50 Vindicare605 wrote: My biggest hope is that with a new guy at the top of the team is that we can finally tackle some of the ongoing issues that the developers have not wanted to budge on.
I'm looking very specifically at you Protoss. Collosus, Warp Gate, and Forcefield have been 3 eye sores in the race's design and they were also some of Dustin Browder's personal favorite projects.
Hopefully some new blood at the top will actually be willing to address these.
I aggree on Forcefields, and to a lesser extent collosus, however I would say that if you make Warp Gate a lategame teh it would be fine, it actually discourages passive turtle play and encourages multitasking ( Forcefields and colossus both encourage the opposite), it also makes the race feel even ore unique than it was in BW.
The big downsite to Warp Gate are the all-ins which benefit heavily from it, so moving it to the lategame (like making TA a requirement) would help, I would assume.
I would say that Forcefields are the most important thing, and then its all about anti turtle/deathabll stuff, so you should make the economy better, you should make Units more microable (like freaking probe micro in BW makes the game way more epic) you should get rid of smart targeting (which makes splash waaay to strong so you kind of have to go death ball with splash, also reduces fight times -> less micro opportunity and raises the skill ceiling in a subtle way), make units clump less (also makes splash too strong) that would be my personal priority list, after that comes the collosus and after that comes changing /removing the warpgate, which as I said earlier I personally would prefer the WarpGate to just be lategame tech.
Oh god, it's that time of the month again ?
Dude has experience, probably knows some of the devs, seems like he should fit. I doubt he has much more input than yay or nay in the end, coordinating production of huge project is pretty time consuming as it is. HotS improved the game leaps and bounds with relatively minor changes, which I think is the way to go with expansions.
Lead Game Producer sounds like a project manager. For example, when LotV will be released, how many missions per expansion, scheduling new maps. I think we need a better description for this job title.
I loved the old C&C games until the games after Red Alert 2 they were all great games, but they were no eSports games. In terms of competitive gaming C&C was really bad. Still I hope there will be new great changes for LotV. Hopefully he brings some kind of changes which make SC2 more like BW = more small fights instead of one big deciding fight.
On August 15 2014 05:50 Vindicare605 wrote: My biggest hope is that with a new guy at the top of the team is that we can finally tackle some of the ongoing issues that the developers have not wanted to budge on.
I'm looking very specifically at you Protoss. Collosus, Warp Gate, and Forcefield have been 3 eye sores in the race's design and they were also some of Dustin Browder's personal favorite projects.
Hopefully some new blood at the top will actually be willing to address these.
I aggree on Forcefields, and to a lesser extent collosus, however I would say that if you make Warp Gate a lategame teh it would be fine, it actually discourages passive turtle play and encourages multitasking ( Forcefields and colossus both encourage the opposite), it also makes the race feel even ore unique than it was in BW.
The big downsite to Warp Gate are the all-ins which benefit heavily from it, so moving it to the lategame (like making TA a requirement) would help, I would assume.
I would say that Forcefields are the most important thing, and then its all about anti turtle/deathabll stuff, so you should make the economy better, you should make Units more microable (like freaking probe micro in BW makes the game way more epic) you should get rid of smart targeting (which makes splash waaay to strong so you kind of have to go death ball with splash, also reduces fight times -> less micro opportunity and raises the skill ceiling in a subtle way), make units clump less (also makes splash too strong) that would be my personal priority list, after that comes the collosus and after that comes changing /removing the warpgate, which as I said earlier I personally would prefer the WarpGate to just be lategame tech.
Oh god, it's that time of the month again ?
Dude has experience, probably knows some of the devs, seems like he should fit. I doubt he has much more input than yay or nay in the end, coordinating production of huge project is pretty time consuming as it is. HotS improved the game leaps and bounds with relatively minor changes, which I think is the way to go with expansions.
I wasn't talking at all about the dude tho, i was debating the other guy arguing that WarpGate and Collosus are some of the highest priorities they should change, which I disaggree with, since Collossus isn't AS bad as the other things I listed and WarpGate actually has some positives attached to it.
I personally trust Blizzard to give the job to the right person the C&C F2P model was fucked iirc. but they wouldn't hire him if he wasn't good at what he does.
I also never said that HotS didn't do anything good for the game, I would aggree that HotS is 10 times better than WoL, I looove SC2, there are just always things to make it better.
Do we know anything about what he helped develop that did finish, that someone's played?
Can we help spread the word and create pressure to get Rob Pardo to replace Browder as head of Sc2? Pardo led the team for broodwar, frozen throne, and wow/BC. We need to make this a thing before LotV development starts. Think about it.
If you already have major issues with SC2, I don't see how it getting any worse really matters. On the other hand, there's a lot of room for improvement and maybe this new guy will help.
On August 15 2014 09:26 IAmHaunteR wrote: C&C was sub-par and never even close to balanced.
This is a very very bad thing.
As a ConquerCup.com admin I can say RA3 was close to balanced. Balance depended mainly on the maps. We held over 100 competitive events and gave away thousands of dollars in prizes.
Kane's Wrath was also close to balanced. A very knowledgeable C&C expert level player Technique posts here occasionally and if you'd like to have a debate with him claiming Kane's Wrath was imbalanced and unplayable due to lack of balance.. gl with it
over all EALA was pretty good, EALA's top guy for RA3 Greg Black is working on LotV as well
On August 15 2014 09:26 IAmHaunteR wrote: C&C was sub-par and never even close to balanced.
This is a very very bad thing.
As a ConquerCup.com admin I can say RA3 was close to balanced. Balance depended mainly on the maps. We held over 100 competitive events and gave away thousands of dollars in prizes.
Kane's Wrath was also close to balanced. A very knowledgeable C&C expert level player Technique posts here occasionally and if you'd like to have a debate with him claiming Kane's Wrath was imbalanced and unplayable due to lack of balance.. gl with it
over all EALA was pretty good, EALA's top guy for RA3 Greg Black is working on LotV as well
the same greg black that said something along the lines of pro players play too fast? -.- david kim is 1000 times better than greg black. and kanes wrath had 9 factions and only 2 were winning any major tournaments at all. when you have players changing factions just because that faction was terrible left and right you have an issue...
The original concept of Generals 2 to be a competitive multiplayer-focused F2P RTS style is exactly what I've long thought Blizzard should do with starcraft, and with him there, maybe it's a sign that they will move in that direction after LotV.
It's a shame that they cancelled C&C Generals 2. I was looking forward to it, the first one had great multiplayer.
The people saying C&C wasn't competitive did not play Generals or Zero Hour (before EA stopped providing support and patches.) Those games were both fun and competitive, if a tad imbalanced especially in Zero Hour. Generals/ZH were the only games after RA2 to be fun to play multiplayer. I never got a chance to play Generals 2 but I am actually happy someone from the C&C team is on the SC2 train. Hopefully he can add some fun to SC2.
Mmmm, I did enjoy C&C Generals and Zero Hour; though I don't know how much of that is attributable to any one single developer.
It does remind one that, much as we love to imagine Starcraft in a league of its own, the developers are in the same industry as many other games of the same genre; some personnel moving back and forth is quite understandable.
as a programmer like a few on these forums im sure they will tell you that you are only as good as the team thats around you, i have worked on some projects before and its been a show case of brilliance and a load of slaps on the back saying how well it was done GJ buddy!. . On others people have literally questioned if i have a degree or even programmed before, its pretty knife edge in some cases. C&C wasnt a bad game really, starcraft however practically crushed it in all areas. C&C however went to the playstation (i think correct me if wrong) so got a lot of attention. This guy wont be a bad thing at all (i hope) cos even all of those people ive met who i would say were not so good were really bloody good when i consider graduate developers/programmers who havent cut their teeth and seen a few projects fail. You literally learn from your mistakes in the gaming industry but one things for sure noone really really shit and totally no idea ever gets anywhere in it. Lets see what happens over the next 3 yrs of the game. if it toilets in LOTV . . . . i suppose we could point a finger . Mr Kim might get the break he deserves finally
On August 15 2014 05:07 Rescawen wrote: Together with heroes the storm, I hope sc2 can become a ongoing platform like what he tried to do in cnc f2p. Cycling units in and out in a beta client that would happen once a year or smth would be really great for the long term freshness of sc2.
Oh god that sounds so terrible, I hope thats not going to happen lol. Well getting someone from the newer C&C titles sounds terrible already.
I think that sounds great long term... I'm talking real long term here tho, like post LotV. It's not that different from cycling maps.
On August 15 2014 05:07 Rescawen wrote: Together with heroes the storm, I hope sc2 can become a ongoing platform like what he tried to do in cnc f2p. Cycling units in and out in a beta client that would happen once a year or smth would be really great for the long term freshness of sc2.
Oh god that sounds so terrible, I hope thats not going to happen lol. Well getting someone from the newer C&C titles sounds terrible already.
I think that sounds great long term... I'm talking real long term here tho, like post LotV. It's not that different from cycling maps.
Yea i was implying maybe something like 1.5-2 years after legacies release.
On August 15 2014 08:44 CutTheEnemy wrote: Do we know anything about what he helped develop that did finish, that someone's played?
Can we help spread the word and create pressure to get Rob Pardo to replace Browder as head of Sc2? Pardo led the team for broodwar, frozen throne, and wow/BC. We need to make this a thing before LotV development starts. Think about it.
If you're gonna talk about things like you have some in-depth knowledge, then at least have in-depth knowledge.
On August 15 2014 05:50 Vindicare605 wrote: My biggest hope is that with a new guy at the top of the team is that we can finally tackle some of the ongoing issues that the developers have not wanted to budge on.
I'm looking very specifically at you Protoss. Collosus, Warp Gate, and Forcefield have been 3 eye sores in the race's design and they were also some of Dustin Browder's personal favorite projects.
Hopefully some new blood at the top will actually be willing to address these.
I aggree on Forcefields, and to a lesser extent collosus, however I would say that if you make Warp Gate a lategame teh it would be fine, it actually discourages passive turtle play and encourages multitasking ( Forcefields and colossus both encourage the opposite), it also makes the race feel even ore unique than it was in BW.
The big downsite to Warp Gate are the all-ins which benefit heavily from it, so moving it to the lategame (like making TA a requirement) would help, I would assume.
I would say that Forcefields are the most important thing, and then its all about anti turtle/deathabll stuff, so you should make the economy better, you should make Units more microable (like freaking probe micro in BW makes the game way more epic) you should get rid of smart targeting (which makes splash waaay to strong so you kind of have to go death ball with splash, also reduces fight times -> less micro opportunity and raises the skill ceiling in a subtle way), make units clump less (also makes splash too strong) that would be my personal priority list, after that comes the collosus and after that comes changing /removing the warpgate, which as I said earlier I personally would prefer the WarpGate to just be lategame tech.
On August 15 2014 05:50 Vindicare605 wrote: My biggest hope is that with a new guy at the top of the team is that we can finally tackle some of the ongoing issues that the developers have not wanted to budge on.
I'm looking very specifically at you Protoss. Collosus, Warp Gate, and Forcefield have been 3 eye sores in the race's design and they were also some of Dustin Browder's personal favorite projects.
Hopefully some new blood at the top will actually be willing to address these.
I aggree on Forcefields, and to a lesser extent collosus, however I would say that if you make Warp Gate a lategame teh it would be fine, it actually discourages passive turtle play and encourages multitasking ( Forcefields and colossus both encourage the opposite), it also makes the race feel even ore unique than it was in BW.
The big downsite to Warp Gate are the all-ins which benefit heavily from it, so moving it to the lategame (like making TA a requirement) would help, I would assume.
I would say that Forcefields are the most important thing, and then its all about anti turtle/deathabll stuff, so you should make the economy better, you should make Units more microable (like freaking probe micro in BW makes the game way more epic) you should get rid of smart targeting (which makes splash waaay to strong so you kind of have to go death ball with splash, also reduces fight times -> less micro opportunity and raises the skill ceiling in a subtle way), make units clump less (also makes splash too strong) that would be my personal priority list, after that comes the collosus and after that comes changing /removing the warpgate, which as I said earlier I personally would prefer the WarpGate to just be lategame tech.
so pretty much Starbow? lol
Or BW, the prequel to SC2 lol
Starbow uses the BW units, but yea I like a lot of those changes in StarBow I want those in SC2 (StarBow pretty much just went back to how things were in BW), those are just all things to prevent Deathballs and super passive turtle play, so I think Blizzard can take some things from BW/StarBow to improve SC2 a bit more.
I would however say that they didn't handle Warp-In correctly, then again it would be really really really broken if you had arbiters AND the SC2 warp-in, so for SC2 I would keep Warp-In as it is and just move it to the later stages of the game.
So economy, and all those things mentioned back to BW but the rest stays SC2 (and remove ForceFields).
On August 15 2014 10:44 BuddhaMonk wrote: The original concept of Generals 2 to be a competitive multiplayer-focused F2P RTS style is exactly what I've long thought Blizzard should do with starcraft, and with him there, maybe it's a sign that they will move in that direction after LotV.
It's a shame that they cancelled C&C Generals 2. I was looking forward to it, the first one had great multiplayer.
Right direction business model wise or right direction game design wise? Those are two different things. :-/
On August 15 2014 18:12 Big J wrote: Great! Was looking forward to the CnC:f2p for a long time and very disappointed when it got canceled, because it looked really nice in some aspects.
Wasn't their F2P implementation completely fucking stupid?
And then after fans complained about it and about it beeing very similiar to SC they cancelled it.
On August 15 2014 09:26 IAmHaunteR wrote: C&C was sub-par and never even close to balanced.
This is a very very bad thing.
You are a very very bad thing, for our community.
Looking forward to changes triggered by this new face.
On August 15 2014 09:56 Phanekim wrote: whats up with hiring all the failed cnc guys?
Well you know, in the real world, there is something like a CV. And yea things like "experience with the matter" is pretty highly rated. And if you look around, how many RTS were released in the last 5 years? But I guess considering the posts in this thread they either should have employed just 50% of the TL community or just went with some random computerscience graduate. Dellusions everywhere, what a naive world we surf in.
Generals and Zero Hour were great although Zero Hour had its flaws and even a bug or two. I fondly remember the days of modding Zero Hour as part of the ShockWave team. It had a ton of potential and was pretty easy to mod as well.
That said, C&C went downhill after Zero Hour. Tiberium Wars wasn't *that* terrible but the multiplayer was just spamming the big units at each other. RA3 and C&C 4 were just eye candy with nothing much else behind it.
F2P RTS can only work as long as money can't influence the game balance. If the F2P aspect remains restricted to vanity items (like DOTA2) it should be feasible to keep things balanced. It would attract more players although it would also mean an increase in potential balance whines/ragers/angry newbies if the game is free.
On August 15 2014 18:12 Big J wrote: Great! Was looking forward to the CnC:f2p for a long time and very disappointed when it got canceled, because it looked really nice in some aspects.
Wasn't their F2P implementation completely fucking stupid?
And then after fans complained about it and about it beeing very similiar to SC they cancelled it.
The f2p implementation was that you had tons of factions that differed in like 1-2units. Not sure how great that would have been, but obviously if you'd (fundamentally) change a unit like the roach or the marine in SC2, the game would play very differently so it could have been quite interesting.
They canceled because EA doesn't know what they want. The game was originally Generals 2 with a regular "buy-your-copy"-model. Then EA got a new management, who gave the order to make everything f2p. So they changed it. They got pretty far with it. Then EA got a new management, that gave the order to focus on mobile devices. So they canceled it. I guess there were some fans that didn't like how the game was designed about being competetive and stuff like that, but in all honesty, those 3guys could not have supported the game anyways. EA just needed a to give a reason to blow it off when they changed their firm policy (again). The team that was working on it didn't even know about those "concerns" from the management. They were just told overnight that the project would be stopped and that's it. Never did EA ever mention to them that there are fan concerns that they should evaluate.
On August 15 2014 04:45 Faust852 wrote: Is it a good news ? I heard last C&Cs were garbage... Was he the same developer? Anyway, If he can fix the broken UI and Hub, I'd be very happy !
While no C&C game even approaches the likes of Starcraft, the games were pretty fun. Generals and C&C3 in particular were quite good multiplayer games.
The guy is lead game producer... What does that have to do with the game design ? He won't fix any of the "issues" that you think the game has. But hey, you can always drop some hateful, unrelated comment... That's always fun.
His LinkedIn page has a ton of people's recommendations. He's apparently good at leading people and managing a team. He's not here for game design guys.
He directed a few short movies too, maybe he will direct a LofV cinematic... ?
Whenever I read about the evil Forcefields, I put BW in todays internet society and imagine how people would cry about Plague forcing the Protoss to attack into a setup Zerg defense. Or the Finger of Death skill called Irradiate.
On August 15 2014 20:46 FeyFey wrote: Whenever I read about the evil Forcefields, I put BW in todays internet society and imagine how people would cry about Plague forcing the Protoss to attack into a setup Zerg defense. Or the Finger of Death skill called Irradiate.
On August 15 2014 20:30 Pr0wler wrote: The guy is lead game producer... What does that have to do with the game design ? He won't fix any of the "issues" that you think the game has. But hey, you can always drop some hateful, unrelated comment... That's always fun.
Producer, as I understand, can control entire game developing strategy, how it goes, average ideas and concepts behind it.
On August 15 2014 20:46 FeyFey wrote: Whenever I read about the evil Forcefields, I put BW in todays internet society and imagine how people would cry about Plague forcing the Protoss to attack into a setup Zerg defense. Or the Finger of Death skill called Irradiate.
If the zerg managed to put mass static defense into the middle of the map in BW, he earned that victory.
On August 15 2014 05:03 Tuczniak wrote: Probably too late to push big changes in LotV.
thank god, c&c was garbage since westwood days
C&C3 and RA3 were good, those games just died without support.
c&c3 was good yes but RA3 was awful, such a let down from RA2 (my favorite rts of all time), I couldn't even finish the soviet campaign i got to the last mission and just gave up, the game felt so unbalanced and stupid and EVERYTHING was gimmicked. I TRYED to like it i really did i just couldn't
I was part of the CnC Beta and the game was crap. Altough Tim was active on the forums, which was great, he was incompetent and gave a shit about the response of the beta testers.
On August 15 2014 04:46 Newbton wrote: Because having C&C people develop SC2 was such a great thing... TT
C&C developers did such a great job for sc2...why are this people still getting jobs they sold their soul to EA, will burn in hell (lets hope this exists) but dont give them jobs!!!
you would also not hire bush jr to be the spokesmen of your company...OMG
On August 15 2014 20:05 Highways wrote: Can't be any worse with the current state of SC2.
Hopefully they bring micro back to the game, rather than this attack move crap.
On August 15 2014 23:06 TaShadan wrote: I was part of the CnC Beta and the game was crap. Altough Tim was active on the forums, which was great, he was incompetent and gave a shit about the response of the beta testers.
On August 15 2014 04:46 Newbton wrote: Because having C&C people develop SC2 was such a great thing... TT
This.
On August 15 2014 23:13 tadL wrote: C&C developers did such a great job for sc2...why are this people still getting jobs they sold their soul to EA, will burn in hell (lets hope this exists) but dont give them jobs!!!
you would also not hire bush jr to be the spokesmen of your company...OMG
Can't be any worse for the game than comments like yours are.
Out of the many flaws of Sc2, I think EVERY user can agree with a strong need for a UI and Hub overhaul.
I'm getting fed up with the lack of real changes by Blizzard, if they used half the time failing at "balancing" the game on actually improving player experience with UI, bonus skins (not party hats), and increased arcade support the player numbers wouldn't have dropped so significantly after HotS.
On August 15 2014 23:06 TaShadan wrote: I was part of the CnC Beta and the game was crap. Altough Tim was active on the forums, which was great, he was incompetent and gave a shit about the response of the beta testers.
On August 15 2014 04:46 Newbton wrote: Because having C&C people develop SC2 was such a great thing... TT
On August 15 2014 23:13 tadL wrote: C&C developers did such a great job for sc2...why are this people still getting jobs they sold their soul to EA, will burn in hell (lets hope this exists) but dont give them jobs!!!
you would also not hire bush jr to be the spokesmen of your company...OMG
Can't be any worse for the game than comments like yours are.
Maybe their comments were a bit harsh, but lets be real about their past works. In almost every aspect of "production" or "development" they haven't met the industry standards, much less Blizzard standards.
Can you please be more specific about those industry standards. If you can name 3 RTS games that are universally considered better than SC2 you can come again with that argument. It's basically down to WC3, BW and AoE for which you can only start to discuss that you might find more than a handful of people that prefer them over SC2. DoW or SupCom or CoH are - for the greatest amount of people - not even worth comparing to SC2 because SC2 wins by such a large margin.
On August 15 2014 20:46 FeyFey wrote: Whenever I read about the evil Forcefields, I put BW in todays internet society and imagine how people would cry about Plague forcing the Protoss to attack into a setup Zerg defense. Or the Finger of Death skill called Irradiate.
And whining about how bio isn't viable in TvP .
Don't forget Arbiters: I can't micro anymore wtf is this that is just bad game design! Wait he can just magically teleport his units into my base? Its soo unforgiving to to play Terran Protoss ez race Blizzard please!
Or what people would say about stronger storms >.<
On August 15 2014 23:43 Big J wrote: Can you please be more specific about those industry standards. If you can name 3 RTS games that are universally considered better than SC2 you can come again with that argument. It's basically down to WC3, BW and AoE for which you can only start to discuss that you might find more than a handful of people that prefer them over SC2. DoW or SupCom or CoH are - for the greatest amount of people - not even worth comparing to SC2 because SC2 wins by such a large margin.
Ok. If you want to compare Sc2 to outdated RTS market that doesn't have anyone really working on it then maybe sc2 is on par with the standards. However, if you compare it to the development, production, marketing, accessibility, ect, ect to industry leaders like CoD, Dota2, or Battlefield they are far from their competitors. Even comparing them to low budget products like DayZ, Minecraft, or Dark Souls, Sc2 is barely if at all better produced. If you want to compare it to more recent RTS like Wargames Red Dragon, Rome Total War 2 or Arma 3 you can clearly see the different level of development but only because Sc2's budget is tenfold the budget for Arma 3 (maybe not Rome 2). I don't know how you think comparing Sc2 with games that came out ages ago is a good example of industry standards.
On August 15 2014 23:43 Big J wrote: Can you please be more specific about those industry standards. If you can name 3 RTS games that are universally considered better than SC2 you can come again with that argument. It's basically down to WC3, BW and AoE for which you can only start to discuss that you might find more than a handful of people that prefer them over SC2. DoW or SupCom or CoH are - for the greatest amount of people - not even worth comparing to SC2 because SC2 wins by such a large margin.
You forgot Total annihilation and Homeworld. But of course, because SC2 is not worth comparing to those games, right ? Well i could also list a few more old time hits (because RTS is basically a dead genre, trying to look for nowaday comparisons is just... well pointless), which provided way more fun than SC2 did.
Also,i wonder if people really played the games they are criticizing, or just complain because. C&C generals vanilla was an awesome game. Zero hour was a bit crazy for my taste, but generals was solid. Multiplayer included.
I think everyone agrees SC2 has room for improvement (ie: drop in/out spectator mode, automated tournaments) but if anyone tries to pretend like SC2 is just pure crap as a game has lost their mind
I'm very curious to see what direction LoV goes in considering how much the RTS market has changed even just since they first released WoS. Still love the game but want more people to get into the game and that requires some changes on the publishing side as well as how they choose to highlight the gameplay in a single player/multiplayer environment.
On August 15 2014 23:43 Big J wrote: Can you please be more specific about those industry standards. If you can name 3 RTS games that are universally considered better than SC2 you can come again with that argument. It's basically down to WC3, BW and AoE for which you can only start to discuss that you might find more than a handful of people that prefer them over SC2. DoW or SupCom or CoH are - for the greatest amount of people - not even worth comparing to SC2 because SC2 wins by such a large margin.
Ok. If you want to compare Sc2 to outdated RTS market that doesn't have anyone really working on it then maybe sc2 is on par with the standards. However, if you compare it to the development, production, marketing, accessibility, ect, ect to industry leaders like CoD, Dota2, or Battlefield they are far from their competitors. Even comparing them to low budget products like DayZ, Minecraft, or Dark Souls, Sc2 is barely if at all better produced. If you want to compare it to more recent RTS like Wargames Red Dragon, Rome Total War 2 or Arma 3 you can clearly see the different level of development but only because Sc2's budget is tenfold the budget for Arma 3 (maybe not Rome 2). I don't know how you think comparing Sc2 with games that came out ages ago is a good example of industry standards.
wat
Battlefield 4 was a buggy mess for months after release.
So was the latest Call of Duty, which by the way is worse than the previous CoD in every way on PC and runs like garbage.
DayZ is not even finished.
Dark Souls 1 had a horrible PC port with 30 fps cap and very low internal resolution that had to be modded to be changed. DS2 is much better though.
Rome 2 on release probably wins the award for most broken game ever made.... was almost unplayable that the devs even publicly apologized for releasing it in that state.
On the other hand, SC2 even on launch was one of the most bug-free games I've played. Did you play half the games you mentioned? From a quality / polish / FUNCTIONING product perspective, SC2 shits on most of those games..
On August 16 2014 01:02 Genome852 wrote: Dark Souls 1 had a horrible PC port with 30 fps cap and very low internal resolution that had to be modded to be changed. DS2 is much better though.
But still based on frames so playing it on a PC at more than 30fps causes quite a few issues, so not *that* much better
On August 16 2014 01:02 Genome852 wrote: On the other hand, SC2 even on launch was one of the most bug-free games I've played. Did you play half the games you mentioned?
Why do you try to give whiners less reasons to whine? That's not nice. What else would they do with their time? :/
All of this because of a new *producer*, which is nothing even remotely related to game design...
Anyone claiming they already know this is a bad thing, and that this will have a major effect on the game, is hopefully not actually as unintelligent as the statements they're making in this thread.
On August 16 2014 01:02 Genome852 wrote: Dark Souls 1 had a horrible PC port with 30 fps cap and very low internal resolution that had to be modded to be changed. DS2 is much better though.
But still based on frames so playing it on a PC at more than 30fps causes quite a few issues, so not *that* much better
On August 16 2014 01:02 Genome852 wrote: On the other hand, SC2 even on launch was one of the most bug-free games I've played. Did you play half the games you mentioned?
Why do you try to give whiners less reasons to whine? That's not nice. What else would they do with their time? :/
All of this because of a new *producer*, which is nothing even remotely related to game design...
So I guess that was the reason that Sc2 is much more popular than CoD and Battlefield? As I stated these games had a much smaller budget than Blizzard had for Sc2, but the end product these games had similar to a higher quality product. If you want to make a real comparison instead of misunderstand what I've written about the games, that would be great. Look at the games objectively in terms of sales and production costs, while taking into account the resources their parent companies used to promote, support, and maintain the games. Or just keep misusing my examples and stroke Blizzard's ego more.
On August 16 2014 01:02 Genome852 wrote: Dark Souls 1 had a horrible PC port with 30 fps cap and very low internal resolution that had to be modded to be changed. DS2 is much better though.
But still based on frames so playing it on a PC at more than 30fps causes quite a few issues, so not *that* much better
On August 16 2014 01:02 Genome852 wrote: On the other hand, SC2 even on launch was one of the most bug-free games I've played. Did you play half the games you mentioned?
Why do you try to give whiners less reasons to whine? That's not nice. What else would they do with their time? :/
All of this because of a new *producer*, which is nothing even remotely related to game design...
So I guess that was the reason that Sc2 is much more popular than CoD and Battlefield? As I stated these games had a much smaller budget than Blizzard had for Sc2, but the end product these games had similar to a higher quality product. If you want to make a real comparison instead of misunderstand what I've written about the games, that would be great. Look at the games objectively in terms of sales and production costs, while taking into account the resources their parent companies used to promote, support, and maintain the games. Or just keep misusing my examples and stroke Blizzard's ego more.
Have you considered that RTS is a niche genre whereas FPS is not? Or that CoD and BF have a huge portion of the playerbase on consoles, which does not mesh with RTS?
You clearly have never played most of the games you mentioned, if you could even think some of them are 'higher quality' than SC2. You could have picked far better examples. BF4 and CoD: Ghosts are possibly the worst ones you could have chosen... the only thing they prove is how far standards have fallen and how alphas are being released as finished products.
On August 16 2014 01:02 Genome852 wrote: Dark Souls 1 had a horrible PC port with 30 fps cap and very low internal resolution that had to be modded to be changed. DS2 is much better though.
But still based on frames so playing it on a PC at more than 30fps causes quite a few issues, so not *that* much better
On August 16 2014 01:02 Genome852 wrote: On the other hand, SC2 even on launch was one of the most bug-free games I've played. Did you play half the games you mentioned?
Why do you try to give whiners less reasons to whine? That's not nice. What else would they do with their time? :/
All of this because of a new *producer*, which is nothing even remotely related to game design...
So I guess that was the reason that Sc2 is much more popular than CoD and Battlefield? As I stated these games had a much smaller budget than Blizzard had for Sc2, but the end product these games had similar to a higher quality product. If you want to make a real comparison instead of misunderstand what I've written about the games, that would be great. Look at the games objectively in terms of sales and production costs, while taking into account the resources their parent companies used to promote, support, and maintain the games. Or just keep misusing my examples and stroke Blizzard's ego more.
SC2 was sold at over 6millions copies in 2012. We are in 2014 and there was HotS in the meantime. I guess SC2 is close to the top5 of all time best selling PC games now.
On August 16 2014 01:02 Genome852 wrote: Dark Souls 1 had a horrible PC port with 30 fps cap and very low internal resolution that had to be modded to be changed. DS2 is much better though.
But still based on frames so playing it on a PC at more than 30fps causes quite a few issues, so not *that* much better
On August 16 2014 01:02 Genome852 wrote: On the other hand, SC2 even on launch was one of the most bug-free games I've played. Did you play half the games you mentioned?
Why do you try to give whiners less reasons to whine? That's not nice. What else would they do with their time? :/
All of this because of a new *producer*, which is nothing even remotely related to game design...
So I guess that was the reason that Sc2 is much more popular than CoD and Battlefield? As I stated these games had a much smaller budget than Blizzard had for Sc2, but the end product these games had similar to a higher quality product. If you want to make a real comparison instead of misunderstand what I've written about the games, that would be great. Look at the games objectively in terms of sales and production costs, while taking into account the resources their parent companies used to promote, support, and maintain the games. Or just keep misusing my examples and stroke Blizzard's ego more.
Have you considered that RTS is a niche genre whereas FPS is not? Or that CoD and BF have a huge portion of the playerbase on consoles, which does not mesh with RTS?
You clearly have never played most of the games you mentioned, if you could even think some of them are 'higher quality' than SC2. You could have picked far better examples. BF4 and CoD: Ghosts are possibly the worst ones you could have chosen...
You are still misusing my niche arguments without proper objective analysis accounting for the parameters I've outlined, but my lack of English proficiency may have to do with the difficulty in communicating. If you want to analyze a game straight up, Dota2 or LoL are the only choices but they have a much larger budget so I thought it wouldn't be fair to Sc2 developers to do that. If you want to look at a lower budget game with some perspective, take into account Wargames Red Dragon, which has a strong player base despite its very small budget. Also, if you actually knew what you were doing for Rome2 and used mods it was a playable game around a month after release and it is developing into a better game than sc2 with the help of the large modding community for it.
And the guy that wants to argue only about the sales, I suggest reading more so you can understand the argument not just make an irrelevant statement.
On August 16 2014 01:02 Genome852 wrote: Dark Souls 1 had a horrible PC port with 30 fps cap and very low internal resolution that had to be modded to be changed. DS2 is much better though.
But still based on frames so playing it on a PC at more than 30fps causes quite a few issues, so not *that* much better
On August 16 2014 01:02 Genome852 wrote: On the other hand, SC2 even on launch was one of the most bug-free games I've played. Did you play half the games you mentioned?
Why do you try to give whiners less reasons to whine? That's not nice. What else would they do with their time? :/
All of this because of a new *producer*, which is nothing even remotely related to game design...
So I guess that was the reason that Sc2 is much more popular than CoD and Battlefield? As I stated these games had a much smaller budget than Blizzard had for Sc2, but the end product these games had similar to a higher quality product. If you want to make a real comparison instead of misunderstand what I've written about the games, that would be great. Look at the games objectively in terms of sales and production costs, while taking into account the resources their parent companies used to promote, support, and maintain the games. Or just keep misusing my examples and stroke Blizzard's ego more.
Have you considered that RTS is a niche genre whereas FPS is not? Or that CoD and BF have a huge portion of the playerbase on consoles, which does not mesh with RTS?
You clearly have never played most of the games you mentioned, if you could even think some of them are 'higher quality' than SC2. You could have picked far better examples. BF4 and CoD: Ghosts are possibly the worst ones you could have chosen...
You are still misusing my niche arguments without proper objective analysis accounting for the parameters I've outlined, but my lack of English proficiency may have to do with the difficulty in communicating. If you want to analyze a game straight up, Dota2 or LoL are the only choices but they have a much larger budget so I thought it wouldn't be fair to Sc2 developers to do that. If you want to look at a lower budget game with some perspective, take into account Wargames Red Dragon, which has a strong player base despite its very small budget. Also, if you actually knew what you were doing for Rome2 and used mods it was a playable game around a month after release and it is developing into a better game than sc2 with the help of the large modding community for it.
And the guy that wants to argue only about the sales, I suggest reading more so you can understand the argument not just make an irrelevant statement.
You talked about game popularity, sales and revenue, didn't you? So can a poster not bring that up?
You also talked about how you think SC2 is lower quality than the standards for games today, which is objectively wrong. Quality standards have decreased, not increased. You list a bunch of games that prove this.
I put a lot of time into Rome2 when it came out, since I am a huge TW fan. The game was a complete mess. I think they even promised 'one patch a week' along with an apology, it was that bad. Yes you could play it, but there were huge glaring issues that certainly took more than a month or user mods to fix... saying it is a better game than SC2 from a gameplay standpoint is personal preference, as they are not alike.
I am also not sure where you are going with Wargame. A small budget game can have a loyal fanbase, how is that relevant?
If we are all missing your point, please clarify...
Honestly, I think that this could either be a huge curse or a huge blessing. I hope its a blessing because SC2 is such an incredible game that could be so much more popular with better marketing and popularization tactics.
I don't know if there are people here that want Generals 2. But you can try mod Rise of the reds. It add Russia and EU, change 3 old factions, have articles with story and you can talk to developers on their forum. It is stil in beta.
On August 16 2014 01:02 Nuka wrote: All you retards acting like starcraft will drastically change please shut up
User was banned for this post.
Oh, I'm positive the game will drastically change; it has to in order to address the concerns of the playerbase.
Which wont happen. Blizzard have proven themselves useless time and time again.
Diablo 3 dramatically changed in light of community driven feedback after it broke sales records, there is no real reason to think SC2 wouldn't. HotS was a weird case because SC2 was doing really well when it entered beta, which wasn't nearly enough time for them to really do some reworking.
On August 16 2014 05:34 TeeTS wrote: C&C Generals was the best C&C game ever made and the only one, that had an interesting multiplayer mode. So this might be a good thing... might.
This guy was not working on Generals. He was working on Generals 2 the Pay2Win abomination. To be honest i enjoyed playing it during the beta, but it turned out to be a imbalanced and bugged pay2win game. The preferred working on monetization instead of fixing bugs and imbalances (in fact they even made the balance worse with every new pay2win faction commander they added).
On August 15 2014 09:26 IAmHaunteR wrote: C&C was sub-par and never even close to balanced.
This is a very very bad thing.
As a ConquerCup.com admin I can say RA3 was close to balanced. Balance depended mainly on the maps. We held over 100 competitive events and gave away thousands of dollars in prizes.
Kane's Wrath was also close to balanced. A very knowledgeable C&C expert level player Technique posts here occasionally and if you'd like to have a debate with him claiming Kane's Wrath was imbalanced and unplayable due to lack of balance.. gl with it
over all EALA was pretty good, EALA's top guy for RA3 Greg Black is working on LotV as well
the same greg black that said something along the lines of pro players play too fast? -.- david kim is 1000 times better than greg black. and kanes wrath had 9 factions and only 2 were winning any major tournaments at all. when you have players changing factions just because that faction was terrible left and right you have an issue...
Kane's Wrath was only like that for one patch. At this point, and for the last few years Kane's Wrath is as well balanced as any other C&C game made.. inluding RA3 which is fairly well balanced
Greg Black provides some good insight into life at EALA making RTS games.
He did a nice job of ignoring Avilo's hissy fits about how underpowered the Allies were in RA3 and how Vindicators were going to become suicide bombers after they were nerfed
Vindicators continued to be viable after their nerf and never became the suicide bombers Avilo whined about.
On August 16 2014 01:02 Nuka wrote: All you retards acting like starcraft will drastically change please shut up
User was banned for this post.
Oh, I'm positive the game will drastically change; it has to in order to address the concerns of the playerbase.
Which wont happen. Blizzard have proven themselves useless time and time again.
Diablo 3 dramatically changed in light of community driven feedback after it broke sales records, there is no real reason to think SC2 wouldn't. HotS was a weird case because SC2 was doing really well when it entered beta, which wasn't nearly enough time for them to really do some reworking.
Poll: Will the majority of the community like LoTV when it comes out?
meh, it wont make a difference because the real problems are unfixable (ie the core of sc2 is bad) (48)
71%
yes, this new guy will be a great improvement (11)
16%
no, this new guy will not get the chance to drastically change the game (9)
13%
68 total votes
Your vote: Will the majority of the community like LoTV when it comes out?
(Vote): yes, this new guy will be a great improvement (Vote): no, this new guy will not get the chance to drastically change the game (Vote): meh, it wont make a difference because the real problems are unfixable (ie the core of sc2 is bad)
On August 16 2014 01:02 Nuka wrote: All you retards acting like starcraft will drastically change please shut up
User was banned for this post.
Oh, I'm positive the game will drastically change; it has to in order to address the concerns of the playerbase.
Which wont happen. Blizzard have proven themselves useless time and time again.
Diablo 3 dramatically changed in light of community driven feedback after it broke sales records, there is no real reason to think SC2 wouldn't. HotS was a weird case because SC2 was doing really well when it entered beta, which wasn't nearly enough time for them to really do some reworking.
Poll: Will the majority of the community like LoTV when it comes out?
meh, it wont make a difference because the real problems are unfixable (ie the core of sc2 is bad) (48)
71%
yes, this new guy will be a great improvement (11)
16%
no, this new guy will not get the chance to drastically change the game (9)
13%
68 total votes
Your vote: Will the majority of the community like LoTV when it comes out?
(Vote): yes, this new guy will be a great improvement (Vote): no, this new guy will not get the chance to drastically change the game (Vote): meh, it wont make a difference because the real problems are unfixable (ie the core of sc2 is bad)
Im going with Faust852 here. Why are people putting up useless polls and some are making comments ala: "Cant get worse than it is" ? He is a PRODUCER not a DESIGNER.
On August 15 2014 09:26 IAmHaunteR wrote: C&C was sub-par and never even close to balanced.
This is a very very bad thing.
As a ConquerCup.com admin I can say RA3 was close to balanced. Balance depended mainly on the maps. We held over 100 competitive events and gave away thousands of dollars in prizes.
Kane's Wrath was also close to balanced. A very knowledgeable C&C expert level player Technique posts here occasionally and if you'd like to have a debate with him claiming Kane's Wrath was imbalanced and unplayable due to lack of balance.. gl with it
over all EALA was pretty good, EALA's top guy for RA3 Greg Black is working on LotV as well
the same greg black that said something along the lines of pro players play too fast? -.- david kim is 1000 times better than greg black. and kanes wrath had 9 factions and only 2 were winning any major tournaments at all. when you have players changing factions just because that faction was terrible left and right you have an issue...
Kane's Wrath was only like that for one patch. At this point, and for the last few years Kane's Wrath is as well balanced as any other C&C game made.. inluding RA3 which is fairly well balanced
Greg Black provides some good insight into life at EALA making RTS games.
He did a nice job of ignoring Avilo's hissy fits about how underpowered the Allies were in RA3 and how Vindicators were going to become suicide bombers after they were nerfed
Vindicators continued to be viable after their nerf and never became the suicide bombers Avilo whined about.
Greg Black did a solid job.
I agree Greg Black did a solid job but RA 3 was far from balanced. Especially at the end when they made Empire and Allies OP as hell and left Soviets UP(I wont get too much into detail here. One example is that Sov units were way overpriced and too expensive). RA 3 had a time similar to SC 2 where the game was in a really bad state. And lol at David Kim is doing a better job. He is far away from that. Dustin Browder is a great Designer but the execution from DK balancing the units is suboptimal.
He's a producer, most likely won't have any input whatsoever when it comes to the design, after all, that's what designers are for.
Getting worked up over this is like getting worked up over the announcement of a new art director, and then saying the game is now going to be really buggy and unstable. Two completely separate disciplines, especially in a team the size that Blizzard have.
New blood could be good.. sad that yet again they focussed on "previous RTS experience" from lesser titles. Hopefully he can change some fundamentals and isn't just there to build a better warhound....
On August 16 2014 08:29 mostevil wrote: New blood could be good.. sad that yet again they focussed on "previous RTS experience" from lesser titles. Hopefully he can change some fundamentals and isn't just there to build a better warhound....
To be fair, are there really any better titles than Starcraft or Warcraft?
On August 16 2014 07:41 BisuDagger wrote: SC2 can't get worse. This is good news.
Get a grip dude. I seem to remember you saying that you don't even play SC2, but rather BW. That is all dandy, but anyone who have played this game since release will agree, that SC2 in its current form is no where near as bad as it has been.
As to whether this is a good or a bad thing, i have no idea, but my guess is that SC2 will experience a spike when LotV is released, but then continue to decline, just as it is happening now - and just how every other game has its time.
Man TL turned into a massive trollfest. I asked why people say "Cant get any worse". Two people after me make a post: "Cant get any worse"... With people being in super dick mode like this, this forum is slowly turning into Bnet forums. Do people really have this much fun annoying other users? Sometimes I hate the Internet.
On August 16 2014 07:41 BisuDagger wrote: SC2 can't get worse. This is good news.
that is all dandy, but anyone who have played this game since release will agree, that SC2 in its current form is no where near as bad as it has been.
I disagree sc2 was in a better state before hots. Hell I even liked beta more than the stage the game is in now. and I have played since WOL Beta.
I think SC2 was better after HotS than during WoL. BL+Infestor was way more commonplace and harder to watch, and the prevalence of mediocre Blizzard maps was annoying during the earlier months.
With HotS, matchups look more skillful and thus more entertaining IMO.
Majority of people here would bitch how bad something was even if it got dramatically better, because people just like to bitch, and that will never stop, To those people i simply say, fuck off, although you wont... no one who actually enjoys Sc2 wants to hear your constant bitching, but that seems to be the gaming culture these days, Bitch bitch bitch, sigh =/
On August 16 2014 07:41 BisuDagger wrote: SC2 can't get worse. This is good news.
that is all dandy, but anyone who have played this game since release will agree, that SC2 in its current form is no where near as bad as it has been.
I disagree sc2 was in a better state before hots. Hell I even liked beta more than the stage the game is in now. and I have played since WOL Beta.
Indeed. I would put pre-Queen Patch Wings of Liberty up as the pinnacle of SC2 so far. Like say April 2012 Wings of Liberty. The matchups were all relatively balanced and at the same time, all of the matchups were at least somewhat interesting if not significantly more interesting than they currently are. TvZ was about as good as it could get, PvZ was interesting, PvT was rather good and quite entertaining, and the mirror matchups were either the same or better than they currently. Marine/tank or mech vs. bio TvT on the maps of the time was a ton of fun to watch.
On August 16 2014 01:02 Nuka wrote: All you retards acting like starcraft will drastically change please shut up
User was banned for this post.
Oh, I'm positive the game will drastically change; it has to in order to address the concerns of the playerbase.
Which wont happen. Blizzard have proven themselves useless time and time again.
Diablo 3 dramatically changed in light of community driven feedback after it broke sales records, there is no real reason to think SC2 wouldn't. HotS was a weird case because SC2 was doing really well when it entered beta, which wasn't nearly enough time for them to really do some reworking.
Poll: Will the majority of the community like LoTV when it comes out?
meh, it wont make a difference because the real problems are unfixable (ie the core of sc2 is bad) (48)
71%
yes, this new guy will be a great improvement (11)
16%
no, this new guy will not get the chance to drastically change the game (9)
13%
68 total votes
Your vote: Will the majority of the community like LoTV when it comes out?
(Vote): yes, this new guy will be a great improvement (Vote): no, this new guy will not get the chance to drastically change the game (Vote): meh, it wont make a difference because the real problems are unfixable (ie the core of sc2 is bad)
loaded questions poll is loaded. Option to say that it might make sc2 worse?
I would recommend making SC2 co-op with 4v4 and actually making it interesting with balancing gameplay and improving the game's dynamic. The future in e-sports is multi-player co-op. People might think what I'm typing is blasphemy but I think there is something valuable to be said about making SC co-op.
Two team-members on Team X can set up a base on one corner(top right) of the map. That top right corner would house two mineral patches total. Those two mineral patches can fit two command centers/lair/nexus (one CC for each patch). One team member could control one command center and the team-mate would take charge of the other command center. The next two players, on the same team as Team X, can set up on the top left corner of the map and set up a base there with two mineral patches. Each mineral patch over here would be controlled by one team-member on Team X( Each mineral patch feeds into a Command Center/Lair). once again one mineral patch is operated by each player. The opposing Team Y can set up shop on the bottom half of the map set up in the similar positions. Game is over when one team forfeits/white flag or if every command center/Lair/Nexii is annihilated by one team.
As well borrowing from LoL, there can be 5 minute scheduled bonuses or objectives (like slaying dragons) something to that effect which would favor one military dominion against the opposing faction if achieved. There can also be bans like banning a race that someone is ridiculously good at against one player on each team, or maybe two depending on gameplay dynamics. Banning races might encourage player to be more diversified in utilizing multiple races. Imagine if Flash was forced to play Protoss right in a pro-league match?
In theory, games should be more interesting with 4v4 strategy. There would be tons of strategy and average people would be entertained by its prospects. Starcraft was a revolutionary/vangaard enterprising game that introduced the world to online competition that succeeded the 1st person shooters. It surpassed WC3 and CS as the go to games of that decade. What StarCraft needs is an evolution and transition into the next decade. I believe my ideas can further along the game of StarCraft into the next decade and hopefully the next few decades.
On August 16 2014 03:41 pNRG wrote: Nothing helped D3...
D3 is WAAAY better now than it used to be o-o
Oh why is that? Let me guess, because they removed the RMAH/AH due to tax issues, FinCEN regulations and most probably the whole RMAH thing was not making the kind of money for a company like ActiBlizz to be bothered with it all. If ActiBlizz felt they needed to remove the feature which did promote a negative pay2win feel about the game then I guess they had to do it. Thing is though it turned a mediocre hack n slash with two interesting features (smooth combat and rampant trade) into a mediocre hack n slash with one interesting feature (smooth combat). Can't wait for those lolseasons though with zero reason to re-roll characters and no economy to reset...
About the new dev involved with sc2, I have to say I have not heard of him before. Hopefully he can add some interesting ideas to the team and I probably will be buying LotV anyways even though after HotS I am not overly enthusiastic about its release.
On August 16 2014 03:41 pNRG wrote: Nothing helped D3...
D3 is WAAAY better now than it used to be o-o
Oh why is that? Let me guess, because they removed the RMAH/AH due to tax issues, FinCEN regulations and most probably the whole RMAH thing was not making the kind of money for a company like ActiBlizz to be bothered with it all. If ActiBlizz felt they needed to remove the feature which did promote a negative pay2win feel about the game then I guess they had to do it. Thing is though it turned a mediocre hack n slash with two interesting features (smooth combat and rampant trade) into a mediocre hack n slash with one interesting feature (smooth combat). Can't wait for those lolseasons though with zero reason to re-roll characters and no economy to reset...
About the new dev involved with sc2, I have to say I have not heard of him before. Hopefully he can add some interesting ideas to the team and I probably will be buying LotV anyways even though after HotS I am not overly enthusiastic about its release.
D3 is way better than it was at launch. I do wish something could be done about trading but the game is so fun to just play now it won't bother you as much.
SC2 has also vastly improved over the years and while there are still great games from the past (obviously) your average match is much more interesting/dynamic/entertaining/etc than your average match from the past not to mention some of crazy memorable games in recent months. There are still some things I'd like to see LotV get right so that SC2 can appeal to an even larger audience so we shall see what this new guy can bring.
Given that Blizzard didn't make serious changes to the game with HotS, they will definitely not do it with LotV. So anything short of a different lead designer will hardly make a difference- and even that probably wouldn't.
I think the thing is that the bigger a company gets, the more conservative it tends to become. They decided to go with the safest possible route with HotS, which was to add a few new units/tweaks. They should've experimented with some drastic changes in beta. Worst case scenario would've been to revert it back to the way it was before.
On August 16 2014 07:41 BisuDagger wrote: SC2 can't get worse. This is good news.
that is all dandy, but anyone who have played this game since release will agree, that SC2 in its current form is no where near as bad as it has been.
I disagree sc2 was in a better state before hots. Hell I even liked beta more than the stage the game is in now. and I have played since WOL Beta.
Please never say that BL/infestor was better than hots again lol.
oh wow citing the worst out of the WOL era and comparing it to the general HOTS gameplay is stupid. Okay I do the same: never say sh vs sh is better than wol. see where this logic fails? There were tons of ways on how to fix the WOL problems without HOTS. The infestor nerf came with HOTS. That could have easily been done before or other approaches of redesign would have at least been possible in HOTS. But HOTS just kept the same problems of WOL and created new ones. To be fair, it fixed some. But overall it did hurt the game more than it did good.
On August 16 2014 07:41 BisuDagger wrote: SC2 can't get worse. This is good news.
that is all dandy, but anyone who have played this game since release will agree, that SC2 in its current form is no where near as bad as it has been.
I disagree sc2 was in a better state before hots. Hell I even liked beta more than the stage the game is in now. and I have played since WOL Beta.
Indeed. I would put pre-Queen Patch Wings of Liberty up as the pinnacle of SC2 so far. Like say April 2012 Wings of Liberty. The matchups were all relatively balanced and at the same time, all of the matchups were at least somewhat interesting if not significantly more interesting than they currently are. TvZ was about as good as it could get, PvZ was interesting, PvT was rather good and quite entertaining, and the mirror matchups were either the same or better than they currently. Marine/tank or mech vs. bio TvT on the maps of the time was a ton of fun to watch.
Agreed. pre queen range patch was the best time of the entire sc2 history. until Blizz decided to go full retard mode and patch something, where no players complained, an nobody expected. Then we saw the gameplay shift into the bl/infestor era. And instead of reverting their mistakes well you know....
On August 16 2014 07:41 BisuDagger wrote: SC2 can't get worse. This is good news.
Get a grip dude. I seem to remember you saying that you don't even play SC2, but rather BW. That is all dandy, but anyone who have played this game since release will agree, that SC2 in its current form is no where near as bad as it has been.
As to whether this is a good or a bad thing, i have no idea, but my guess is that SC2 will experience a spike when LotV is released, but then continue to decline, just as it is happening now - and just how every other game has its time.
Correction. I don't have time to play either game to be honest, but I do watch both SC1 and SC2 a lot. My post has nothing to do with a comparison to Brood War. So let's kill that thought right now.
My point of view: Just because SC2 is nearing state of total balance does not mean I should be satisfied with the product as a spectator. I watch the majority of every GSL, most of Proleague, Dreamhacks, IEMs, MLGs, and WCS US and EU RO8 on games so I am entitled to have my own opinion on SC2. I think the game has tons of potential. I think there have also been a variety of amazing games such as jjajki widow mines eating mutas. That being said, the game as a spectator sport still has a lot to improve on imo. With top tier programmers and state of the art tools, there is no need for us to be satisfied with our current product. LoTV has tons of open potential to improve upon the current game. Getting a new lead could really add a different perspective of creative direction. IMO, nothing bad can happen from here cause I'm not happy with how the product currently rests.
To address your second point: SC2 actually feels like it's on the rise. Viewer numbers look great and production by organizers is quite amazing. I feel like as a community SC2 hasn't felt more positive then it does now.
On August 16 2014 07:41 BisuDagger wrote: SC2 can't get worse. This is good news.
Get a grip dude. I seem to remember you saying that you don't even play SC2, but rather BW. That is all dandy, but anyone who have played this game since release will agree, that SC2 in its current form is no where near as bad as it has been.
As to whether this is a good or a bad thing, i have no idea, but my guess is that SC2 will experience a spike when LotV is released, but then continue to decline, just as it is happening now - and just how every other game has its time.
To address your second point: SC2 actually feels like it's on the rise. Viewer numbers look great and production by organizers is quite amazing. I feel like as a community SC2 hasn't felt more positive then it does now.
On August 16 2014 07:41 BisuDagger wrote: SC2 can't get worse. This is good news.
that is all dandy, but anyone who have played this game since release will agree, that SC2 in its current form is no where near as bad as it has been.
I disagree sc2 was in a better state before hots. Hell I even liked beta more than the stage the game is in now. and I have played since WOL Beta.
Indeed. I would put pre-Queen Patch Wings of Liberty up as the pinnacle of SC2 so far. Like say April 2012 Wings of Liberty. The matchups were all relatively balanced and at the same time, all of the matchups were at least somewhat interesting if not significantly more interesting than they currently are. TvZ was about as good as it could get, PvZ was interesting, PvT was rather good and quite entertaining, and the mirror matchups were either the same or better than they currently. Marine/tank or mech vs. bio TvT on the maps of the time was a ton of fun to watch.
I think you guys only remember the good stuff, and forget about the bad. Remember PvP? Colossis only and no way of expanding without getting hit by a 4 gate. Remember the 1 1 1 build in TvP? That was not to be called 'interesting'. Hell, even the msc which every terran hates, is better than the constant stupid forcefields in PvT (which are now almost gone in early game).
I also think the reaper is a GREAT improvement in HOTS, you have ways of scouting without using a scan. And the widow mine gives a new dimension in TvZ.
So overall, if you want to compare the two era's, it's just a matter of focus and it's very hard to compare because the game play itself was not truly developed yet in WOL.
On August 16 2014 18:54 Faust852 wrote: I feel like sc2 is close to perfect, the only true anoyings things are how laggy and buggy the hub is, and the hackers. For the rest I'm pretty happy.
To have this kind of opinion is fine, but it's so fucking stupid to call other peoples posts and opinions as trolls or haters or whatever just because they don't think the game is all wonderful.
On August 16 2014 08:52 Tresher wrote: Man TL turned into a massive trollfest. I asked why people say "Cant get any worse". Two people after me make a post: "Cant get any worse"... With people being in super dick mode like this, this forum is slowly turning into Bnet forums. Do people really have this much fun annoying other users? Sometimes I hate the Internet.
People don't criticize the game to annoy you, they don't even care about you. Some people think the game is close to perfect, others that it's in a poor state. Neither of them is trolling.
On August 16 2014 18:54 Faust852 wrote: I feel like sc2 is close to perfect, the only true anoyings things are how laggy and buggy the hub is, and the hackers. For the rest I'm pretty happy.
To have this kind of opinion is fine, but it's so fucking stupid to call other peoples posts and opinions as trolls or haters or whatever just because they don't think the game is all wonderful.
On August 16 2014 08:52 Tresher wrote: Man TL turned into a massive trollfest. I asked why people say "Cant get any worse". Two people after me make a post: "Cant get any worse"... With people being in super dick mode like this, this forum is slowly turning into Bnet forums. Do people really have this much fun annoying other users? Sometimes I hate the Internet.
People don't criticize the game to annoy you, they don't even care about you. Some people think the game is close to perfect, others that it's in a poor state. Neither of them is trolling.
Hey, it's my second post ITT and my first was a question about the guy v_v I never called anyone a troll.
On August 16 2014 18:54 Faust852 wrote: I feel like sc2 is close to perfect, the only true anoyings things are how laggy and buggy the hub is, and the hackers. For the rest I'm pretty happy.
To have this kind of opinion is fine, but it's so fucking stupid to call other peoples posts and opinions as trolls or haters or whatever just because they don't think the game is all wonderful.
On August 16 2014 08:52 Tresher wrote: Man TL turned into a massive trollfest. I asked why people say "Cant get any worse". Two people after me make a post: "Cant get any worse"... With people being in super dick mode like this, this forum is slowly turning into Bnet forums. Do people really have this much fun annoying other users? Sometimes I hate the Internet.
People don't criticize the game to annoy you, they don't even care about you. Some people think the game is close to perfect, others that it's in a poor state. Neither of them is trolling.
Hey, it's my second post ITT and my first was a question about the guy v_v I never called anyone a troll.
I know, i was referring to the second guy i quoted. I just used your post to show the contrast of perfect game vs it can't get any worse.
The game he was doing was shaping up to be the most "progamey" C&C ever made, so I'm not too worried about the direction he's going to take the game to.
2013 WoW - Warlords announced Diablo - RoS Updates Hearthstone - Naxxramas Info Heroes - Announced Starcraft - Nothing
2014 WoW - Warlords pre launch info Diablo - Maybe expansion? more likey new patches info and console focus Hearthstone - Maybe new solo adventure announcement Heroes - Maybe release date and new heroes/maps Starcraft - Since nothing last year one can assume LotV, If not I'd wonder if LotV is on hold til Heroes is done
Oh wow. That's rather not good news. I mean there must be a reason why C&C F2P wasn't even released, right?
What I don't understand is: Why don't they just take one of their own guys as Lead Designer? Blizzard has so many good people that know the franchise in and out.
On August 16 2014 22:27 ZodaSoda wrote: Based on the following assumption
2013 WoW - Warlords announced Diablo - RoS Updates Hearthstone - Naxxramas Info Heroes - Announced Starcraft - Nothing
2014 WoW - Warlords pre launch info Diablo - Maybe expansion? more likey new patches info and console focus Hearthstone - Maybe new solo adventure announcement Heroes - Maybe release date and new heroes/maps Starcraft - Since nothing last year one can assume LotV, If not I'd wonder if LotV is on hold til Heroes is done
For fun Titan - fuck all~
I guess they are focusing on Hearthstone now. It is the new Blizzard cash cow.
I don't know anything about him but it is good to see resources being put onto the game after some were taken off for Hearthstone and Heroes.
Since the latest patch I have started to watch more games again (GSL sub again, Proleague, WCS, etc). I can even appreciate when P or Z win now because all of the bitterness caused by the T game being underpowered has dissipated. I hope the new hire helps to diversify opening options, especially T in the P matchup.
On August 16 2014 07:41 BisuDagger wrote: SC2 can't get worse. This is good news.
that is all dandy, but anyone who have played this game since release will agree, that SC2 in its current form is no where near as bad as it has been.
I disagree sc2 was in a better state before hots. Hell I even liked beta more than the stage the game is in now. and I have played since WOL Beta.
Please never say that BL/infestor was better than hots again lol.
oh wow citing the worst out of the WOL era and comparing it to the general HOTS gameplay is stupid. Okay I do the same: never say sh vs sh is better than wol. see where this logic fails? There were tons of ways on how to fix the WOL problems without HOTS. The infestor nerf came with HOTS. That could have easily been done before or other approaches of redesign would have at least been possible in HOTS. But HOTS just kept the same problems of WOL and created new ones. To be fair, it fixed some. But overall it did hurt the game more than it did good.
On August 16 2014 07:41 BisuDagger wrote: SC2 can't get worse. This is good news.
that is all dandy, but anyone who have played this game since release will agree, that SC2 in its current form is no where near as bad as it has been.
I disagree sc2 was in a better state before hots. Hell I even liked beta more than the stage the game is in now. and I have played since WOL Beta.
Indeed. I would put pre-Queen Patch Wings of Liberty up as the pinnacle of SC2 so far. Like say April 2012 Wings of Liberty. The matchups were all relatively balanced and at the same time, all of the matchups were at least somewhat interesting if not significantly more interesting than they currently are. TvZ was about as good as it could get, PvZ was interesting, PvT was rather good and quite entertaining, and the mirror matchups were either the same or better than they currently. Marine/tank or mech vs. bio TvT on the maps of the time was a ton of fun to watch.
Agreed. pre queen range patch was the best time of the entire sc2 history. until Blizz decided to go full retard mode and patch something, where no players complained, an nobody expected. Then we saw the gameplay shift into the bl/infestor era. And instead of reverting their mistakes well you know....
When you said "SC2 was in a better state before HOTS" I naturally assumed you were referring to the time period immediately before HOTS, i.e. BL/infestor. BL/infestor lasted for a long time. The infestor nerf could have come before HOTS, but it didn't. Overall, HOTS is an improvement over the BL/infestor era.
On August 16 2014 07:41 BisuDagger wrote: SC2 can't get worse. This is good news.
Get a grip dude. I seem to remember you saying that you don't even play SC2, but rather BW. That is all dandy, but anyone who have played this game since release will agree, that SC2 in its current form is no where near as bad as it has been.
As to whether this is a good or a bad thing, i have no idea, but my guess is that SC2 will experience a spike when LotV is released, but then continue to decline, just as it is happening now - and just how every other game has its time.
Correction. I don't have time to play either game to be honest, but I do watch both SC1 and SC2 a lot. My post has nothing to do with a comparison to Brood War. So let's kill that thought right now.
My point of view: Just because SC2 is nearing state of total balance does not mean I should be satisfied with the product as a spectator. I watch the majority of every GSL, most of Proleague, Dreamhacks, IEMs, MLGs, and WCS US and EU RO8 on games so I am entitled to have my own opinion on SC2. I think the game has tons of potential. I think there have also been a variety of amazing games such as jjajki widow mines eating mutas. That being said, the game as a spectator sport still has a lot to improve on imo. With top tier programmers and state of the art tools, there is no need for us to be satisfied with our current product. LoTV has tons of open potential to improve upon the current game. Getting a new lead could really add a different perspective of creative direction. IMO, nothing bad can happen from here cause I'm not happy with how the product currently rests.
To address your second point: SC2 actually feels like it's on the rise. Viewer numbers look great and production by organizers is quite amazing. I feel like as a community SC2 hasn't felt more positive then it does now.
I think we can all agree that saying "sc2 can't get worse" is an exaggeration and is definitely not being a positive member of the community.
On August 16 2014 18:54 Faust852 wrote: I feel like sc2 is close to perfect, the only true anoyings things are how laggy and buggy the hub is, and the hackers. For the rest I'm pretty happy.
To have this kind of opinion is fine, but it's so fucking stupid to call other peoples posts and opinions as trolls or haters or whatever just because they don't think the game is all wonderful.
On August 16 2014 08:52 Tresher wrote: Man TL turned into a massive trollfest. I asked why people say "Cant get any worse". Two people after me make a post: "Cant get any worse"... With people being in super dick mode like this, this forum is slowly turning into Bnet forums. Do people really have this much fun annoying other users? Sometimes I hate the Internet.
People don't criticize the game to annoy you, they don't even care about you. Some people think the game is close to perfect, others that it's in a poor state. Neither of them is trolling.
Lmao coming from a person who makes obnoxious balance posts in all bold on Bnet forums. No need to be rude. When the first two posts after mine say "Cant get any worse" when I wrote people shouldnt say that in my VERY first sentence, than I must assume its trolling. To be fair, nobody cares about you either. I dont make balance posts all bolded like you on Bnet forums to get attention.
On August 16 2014 18:54 Faust852 wrote: I feel like sc2 is close to perfect, the only true anoyings things are how laggy and buggy the hub is, and the hackers. For the rest I'm pretty happy.
To have this kind of opinion is fine, but it's so fucking stupid to call other peoples posts and opinions as trolls or haters or whatever just because they don't think the game is all wonderful.
On August 16 2014 08:52 Tresher wrote: Man TL turned into a massive trollfest. I asked why people say "Cant get any worse". Two people after me make a post: "Cant get any worse"... With people being in super dick mode like this, this forum is slowly turning into Bnet forums. Do people really have this much fun annoying other users? Sometimes I hate the Internet.
People don't criticize the game to annoy you, they don't even care about you. Some people think the game is close to perfect, others that it's in a poor state. Neither of them is trolling.
Lmao coming from a person who makes obnoxious balance posts in all bold on Bnet forums.
haha what are you talking about?
No need to be rude
I'm not. It's the reality. The people that made those posts probably never even read your posts.
When the first two posts after mine say "Cant get any worse" when I wrote people shouldnt say that in my VERY first sentence, than I must assume its trolling.
That SC2 is in a bad state is a common held opinion (regardless if you agree with it or not). Why do you tell people what they should or shouldn't say? It's not trolling, it's an honest opinion that has nothing to do with you or any of your posts.
To be fair, nobody cares about you either. I dont make balance posts all bolded like you on Bnet forums to get attention.
I hate the bnet forum and i only posted a few times and almost always in relation to mech. Who do you think i am on that forum and again, why are so sure of yourself when you know nothing at all?
I though you were just taking yourself a bit to seriously but i see the problem goes much deeper. You are entertaining though.
I looked at HoTS along with most people as an opportunity to fix or at least change fundamental game play, unfortunately this didn't happen and what we got was a design team with poor imagination thus ending up with some extra lack lustre units tacked onto WoL.
I Remember the promises by this team, such as nydus worm revamp, bad units being removed etc. Instead we ended up with swarm hosts, a piss poor implementation of the defiler, shitty versions of Firebats and Spider mines and the buffing of Protoss to the point where the game is over run with PvP
Really cant see thisperson making any difference unless Blizzard are going to be brave in LoTV.
On August 16 2014 22:46 Caladan wrote: Oh wow. That's rather not good news. I mean there must be a reason why C&C F2P wasn't even released, right?
What I don't understand is: Why don't they just take one of their own guys as Lead Designer? Blizzard has so many good people that know the franchise in and out.
He's Lead Producer, not designer. His job is basically to get the product development is moving along, gets finished and shipped. He's not probably not going to be directly responsible for any design aspects I don't think.
On August 15 2014 04:46 Newbton wrote: Because having C&C people develop SC2 was such a great thing... TT
He worked on a C&C game that never came out. He did not work on any of the existing C&C games. Negro please, read the thread.
Besides, the original Command & Conquer and its sequel are nothing like C&C: Generals. Generals is C&C in name only, made by different people. So when you want to talk about C&C design, you really have to be more specific.
On August 17 2014 10:59 Joedaddy wrote: So.... what does that mean for David Kim?
David Kim is one of the few who didn't join the Heroes of the Storm team.
Pretty sure 80%+ of the team did, and they'll have to rehire a new SC2 team to finish LotV or pause development on Heroes of the Storm (doesn't look likely).
This happened around a year ago, though, so they might have already rehired a new team and this guy was the pièce de résistance or something.
SC2 DLC 3 will include a naxramas Instance Heroes of the Storm will inculde a naxramas Instance And because of the timeline reset - the addon after WoD will include again a naxrams
This could be awesome for sc2. Unfortunately they mention D3, which is a fail(not a total fail because they suckered alot of us out of 100 bucks). Steadily declining players, I played it again when RoS came out a whole 2 days, honestly terrible game with a Diablo title.
On August 17 2014 07:42 halfaspider wrote: RA3 was a great game IMO. Anybody who thinks it was shit probably didn't give it very much time.
Agree. This great game just dead without support and patches.
I never played it, but I watched some competitive matches and it really looked fun I thought.
It was really fun I played it fanatically until the community shrunk to a size were it became a pain to find good match making. It had super simple macro mechanics but the units, micro opportunities and constant aggression made it really fun.
On August 16 2014 01:02 Nuka wrote: All you retards acting like starcraft will drastically change please shut up
User was banned for this post.
Oh, I'm positive the game will drastically change; it has to in order to address the concerns of the playerbase.
Which wont happen. Blizzard have proven themselves useless time and time again.
Diablo 3 dramatically changed in light of community driven feedback after it broke sales records, there is no real reason to think SC2 wouldn't. HotS was a weird case because SC2 was doing really well when it entered beta, which wasn't nearly enough time for them to really do some reworking.
Poll: Will the majority of the community like LoTV when it comes out?
meh, it wont make a difference because the real problems are unfixable (ie the core of sc2 is bad) (48)
71%
yes, this new guy will be a great improvement (11)
16%
no, this new guy will not get the chance to drastically change the game (9)
13%
68 total votes
Your vote: Will the majority of the community like LoTV when it comes out?
(Vote): yes, this new guy will be a great improvement (Vote): no, this new guy will not get the chance to drastically change the game (Vote): meh, it wont make a difference because the real problems are unfixable (ie the core of sc2 is bad)
We don't even know what is his job...
Interesting results. Maybe they will change how unit spreads or how units are microed for Lotv
On August 16 2014 01:02 Nuka wrote: All you retards acting like starcraft will drastically change please shut up
User was banned for this post.
Oh, I'm positive the game will drastically change; it has to in order to address the concerns of the playerbase.
Which wont happen. Blizzard have proven themselves useless time and time again.
Diablo 3 dramatically changed in light of community driven feedback after it broke sales records, there is no real reason to think SC2 wouldn't. HotS was a weird case because SC2 was doing really well when it entered beta, which wasn't nearly enough time for them to really do some reworking.
Poll: Will the majority of the community like LoTV when it comes out?
meh, it wont make a difference because the real problems are unfixable (ie the core of sc2 is bad) (48)
71%
yes, this new guy will be a great improvement (11)
16%
no, this new guy will not get the chance to drastically change the game (9)
13%
68 total votes
Your vote: Will the majority of the community like LoTV when it comes out?
(Vote): yes, this new guy will be a great improvement (Vote): no, this new guy will not get the chance to drastically change the game (Vote): meh, it wont make a difference because the real problems are unfixable (ie the core of sc2 is bad)
We don't even know what is his job...
Interesting results. Maybe they will change how unit spreads or how units are microed for Lotv
If that guy was invovled in Generals 1, then I'm totally okay for that. And I think that he has the potential to bring great improvements to SC2. Generals is in my eyes the last really good C&C out there, and I can only be happy that an STR veteran that worked on a great game moves onto Starcraft!
Now, waiting to see how it fares but I'm optimistic
On August 18 2014 16:52 Ragnarork wrote: If that guy was invovled in Generals 1, then I'm totally okay for that. And I think that he has the potential to bring great improvements to SC2. Generals is in my eyes the last really good C&C out there, and I can only be happy that an STR veteran that worked on a great game moves onto Starcraft!
Now, waiting to see how it fares but I'm optimistic
This guy was not involved at older C&C games at all. he worked only on C&C F2P project
I still think that the fact that this is a news on the TL frontpage shows how little people actually know about game development. This guy is a producer and as such, he has no role in the design nor direction of the game. There's 10 pages of posts of people wondering, debating about it and even a poll about this dude's addition to the team and how it may affect starcraft's future.
It's like if a football team gets a new injury/therapy guy for the matches and it goes front page and people start debating whether or not now manchester united will have tactical changes in the upcoming games
even news about a therapist can go off topic like crazy and actually become interesting. Especially if uninformed that don't want to be informed face people that love to lecture and spread knowledge. And I know I belong to either on group most of the time. Also people need a place where they can write down their blizzard hate. And Blizzard people threads are the thing for it. I mean there is even a d3 hate post in here lol.
On August 18 2014 23:09 meshfusion wrote: I still think that the fact that this is a news on the TL frontpage shows how little people actually know about game development. This guy is a producer and as such, he has no role in the design nor direction of the game. There's 10 pages of posts of people wondering, debating about it and even a poll about this dude's addition to the team and how it may affect starcraft's future.
It's like if a football team gets a new injury/therapy guy for the matches and it goes front page and people start debating whether or not now manchester united will have tactical changes in the upcoming games
On August 18 2014 23:24 FeyFey wrote: even news about a therapist can go off topic like crazy and actually become interesting. Especially if uninformed that don't want to be informed face people that love to lecture and spread knowledge. And I know I belong to either on group most of the time. Also people need a place where they can write down their blizzard hate. And Blizzard people threads are the thing for it. I mean there is even a d3 hate post in here lol.
well, but the news of a new therapist would never be front page on ESPN or something like that, while on TL it happened to be the case (in the starcraft counter-part). I am not saying that a news about one couldn't become interesting, but I feel that this is totally misleading, there is a title in the front page saying that this guy is now "leading SC2" (not correct) and there's 10 pages of people debating how he could change or effect the game (also not correct) and then I realized that even a site like TL has actually very little clue about game development (and seems like, game development terminology).
On August 18 2014 23:09 meshfusion wrote: I still think that the fact that this is a news on the TL frontpage shows how little people actually know about game development. This guy is a producer and as such, he has no role in the design nor direction of the game. There's 10 pages of posts of people wondering, debating about it and even a poll about this dude's addition to the team and how it may affect starcraft's future.
It's like if a football team gets a new injury/therapy guy for the matches and it goes front page and people start debating whether or not now manchester united will have tactical changes in the upcoming games
What does a producer do then?
A producer in a game production (and in this case, at Blizzard) is someone that deals with "production tasks" that have nothing to do with in game, design or balance. "Production" is the word used to indicate things like scheduling, managing, etc. in a game studio there are positions like "associate producer" for people that are starting out, and usually those have tasks like take notes during meetings, help coordinate things, send emails and reminders, then there's the producer who does the same but with less trivial tasks and then there's lead or senior producers who simply coordinate more producers, hire new ones and schedule/organize things from a bit of a higher up position rather than as the last spot of the food chain.
Being a "producer" in games doesn't mean you actually ""work"" on the game, you are there as a support member of the actual developing team. The producers that actually do have powers are the ones in the live action and feature animation movies and in some cases, in the VFX shops, but not in games. I hope that helps clarify why this topic should have not existed in the first place.
On August 17 2014 07:42 halfaspider wrote: RA3 was a great game IMO. Anybody who thinks it was shit probably didn't give it very much time.
Agree. This great game just dead without support and patches.
Sounds like typical EA
As for generals 1, I remember playing with 5-20ms ping, I also remember playing with 70, 130 and 300 in that order as time progressed. I also watched as the ammount of hack users rise from a few to pretty much 90% of the playerbase, which didn't exactly make for great games.
On August 18 2014 23:24 FeyFey wrote: even news about a therapist can go off topic like crazy and actually become interesting. Especially if uninformed that don't want to be informed face people that love to lecture and spread knowledge. And I know I belong to either on group most of the time. Also people need a place where they can write down their blizzard hate. And Blizzard people threads are the thing for it. I mean there is even a d3 hate post in here lol.
well, but the news of a new therapist would never be front page on ESPN or something like that, while on TL it happened to be the case (in the starcraft counter-part). I am not saying that a news about one couldn't become interesting, but I feel that this is totally misleading, there is a title in the front page saying that this guy is now "leading SC2" (not correct) and there's 10 pages of people debating how he could change or effect the game (also not correct) and then I realized that even a site like TL has actually very little clue about game development (and seems like, game development terminology).
On August 18 2014 23:09 meshfusion wrote: I still think that the fact that this is a news on the TL frontpage shows how little people actually know about game development. This guy is a producer and as such, he has no role in the design nor direction of the game. There's 10 pages of posts of people wondering, debating about it and even a poll about this dude's addition to the team and how it may affect starcraft's future.
It's like if a football team gets a new injury/therapy guy for the matches and it goes front page and people start debating whether or not now manchester united will have tactical changes in the upcoming games
What does a producer do then?
A producer in a game production (and in this case, at Blizzard) is someone that deals with "production tasks" that have nothing to do with in game, design or balance. "Production" is the word used to indicate things like scheduling, managing, etc. in a game studio there are positions like "associate producer" for people that are starting out, and usually those have tasks like take notes during meetings, help coordinate things, send emails and reminders, then there's the producer who does the same but with less trivial tasks and then there's lead or senior producers who simply coordinate more producers, hire new ones and schedule/organize things from a bit of a higher up position rather than as the last spot of the food chain.
Being a "producer" in games doesn't mean you actually ""work"" on the game, you are there as a support member of the actual developing team. The producers that actually do have powers are the ones in the live action and feature animation movies and in some cases, in the VFX shops, but not in games. I hope that helps clarify why this topic should have not existed in the first place.
Hm, given his former job at CnC and that these titles often just mean what you are in charge off, not that you cannot do something else as well, I could see him having some influence on game features too. Like, DK has been the balance chief. But I think he has also openly talked about his involvment in unit design. Similarily, DB was the lead designer, but he was also the guy who brought us a lot of information about balance changes. I could see Morten being a coordinator, but also someone who sits in gameplay discussions and brings input from his former design experience or plainly new ideas.
On August 18 2014 23:45 meshfusion wrote: Being a "producer" in games doesn't mean you actually ""work"" on the game, you are there as a support member of the actual developing team. The producers that actually do have powers are the ones in the live action and feature animation movies and in some cases, in the VFX shops, but not in games. I hope that helps clarify why this topic should have not existed in the first place.
If the producers role is entirely one of project manager than its rather odd that they'd seek out someone from a cancelled RTS. In many cases they're responsible for ensuring the direction of the project meets its intended goals in addition to simply assuring delivery.
As such there is scope for some impact on mechanics if improved gameplay, fun and esportyness is a stated goal of the project from effectively managing feedback and testing with respect to design. It feels like both sides of that coin are currently DK, which probably isn't an ideal model.
On August 17 2014 07:42 halfaspider wrote: RA3 was a great game IMO. Anybody who thinks it was shit probably didn't give it very much time.
Agree. This great game just dead without support and patches.
I never played it, but I watched some competitive matches and it really looked fun I thought.
RA3 was pretty damn good, and relatively balanced near the end of it's lifespan. Just didn't have the $$$ backing.
Yup RA3 was fun, some of the ideas in the RA universe like planes with limited ammo, running over infantry (and tanks), the hero infantry units, garrisons and some other stuff was great and could be great in sc2 I think. Some other stuff sucked though, especially the mcv sell tactic which was quite good but not fun and the limitedness of just 1 resource. RA was basically beelining towards some strategy typically as there isn't really a equivalent to gas that keeps stuff back, whereas in sc2 teching is constrained by gas and time requirements.
On August 16 2014 18:54 Faust852 wrote: I feel like sc2 is close to perfect, the only true anoyings things are how laggy and buggy the hub is, and the hackers. For the rest I'm pretty happy.
To have this kind of opinion is fine, but it's so fucking stupid to call other peoples posts and opinions as trolls or haters or whatever just because they don't think the game is all wonderful.
On August 16 2014 08:52 Tresher wrote: Man TL turned into a massive trollfest. I asked why people say "Cant get any worse". Two people after me make a post: "Cant get any worse"... With people being in super dick mode like this, this forum is slowly turning into Bnet forums. Do people really have this much fun annoying other users? Sometimes I hate the Internet.
People don't criticize the game to annoy you, they don't even care about you. Some people think the game is close to perfect, others that it's in a poor state. Neither of them is trolling.
That's the internet, though. People accusing others of being trolls in order to insult and marginalize the opinions of others. I don't like what you have to say, or magically find the tone of it offensive? TROLL! It's the most rampant word used on the internet vs anyone who has a different opinion and isn't being supplicating.
On August 16 2014 07:41 BisuDagger wrote: SC2 can't get worse. This is good news.
that is all dandy, but anyone who have played this game since release will agree, that SC2 in its current form is no where near as bad as it has been.
I disagree sc2 was in a better state before hots. Hell I even liked beta more than the stage the game is in now. and I have played since WOL Beta.
Indeed. I would put pre-Queen Patch Wings of Liberty up as the pinnacle of SC2 so far. Like say April 2012 Wings of Liberty. The matchups were all relatively balanced and at the same time, all of the matchups were at least somewhat interesting if not significantly more interesting than they currently are. TvZ was about as good as it could get, PvZ was interesting, PvT was rather good and quite entertaining, and the mirror matchups were either the same or better than they currently. Marine/tank or mech vs. bio TvT on the maps of the time was a ton of fun to watch.
I think you guys only remember the good stuff, and forget about the bad. Remember PvP? Colossis only and no way of expanding without getting hit by a 4 gate. Remember the 1 1 1 build in TvP? That was not to be called 'interesting'. Hell, even the msc which every terran hates, is better than the constant stupid forcefields in PvT (which are now almost gone in early game).
I also think the reaper is a GREAT improvement in HOTS, you have ways of scouting without using a scan. And the widow mine gives a new dimension in TvZ.
So overall, if you want to compare the two era's, it's just a matter of focus and it's very hard to compare because the game play itself was not truly developed yet in WOL.
There's a lot of gameplay About SC2 HotS that I think we can call uninteresting. Overcharge, Swarm host, oracle, etc.
I mean, look at the fact that they added the oracle, giving Protoss two early game harass options MSC, oracle, in addition to all the all ins. What can Zerg or Terran do early game vs T and/or Z/P respectively, apart from cheeses? It's a tiny sacrifice for Protoss to get an oracle that also delays Terran macro by the threat alone forcing large resource deviation. T and Z have no such similar openings.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Mylqiyu.png)
