On May 09 2016 23:09 coolmiyo wrote: i like david kim is more confident and he finally takes the command of the game, patching it no matter what people thinks.
even if some of the changes are not the best, u have to patch the game and see what happens.
if he doesnt act like this, the game will stay the same forever.
Yup.
Involving the community was the worst decision Blizzard has ever made.
Such a shortsighted point of view. Big companies like Valve and Riot also take plenty of feedback from the community and it is usually for the better. The difference? The other companies know how to filter the constructive criticism from the bad one. Blizzard is fucking awful at tacking any sort of criticism, constructive or not. If they listen to all the criticism of course you get these god awful patches where nothing makes any sense, but if they don't listen to any criticism at all the game never evolves. Right now I have no idea of which direction the game is going because of the super erratic way Blizzard patches, but it most certainly is not good.
Now stop blaming the community for Blizzard's design choices, its their job to not only listen to it, but also to filter the information.
Both dota and league keep making volvo/riot money. SC2 does what for Blizzard, maybe a SP mission pack? Possible monetization of the game through unit skins could help alot in that direction. Also, dota's spectator options put sc2's to shame. Maybe a sort of monetization could make Blizz throw some money at the game and give us spectator options similar to dota. This would also mean a larger team for balancing, because i'm pretty convinced the balance team of sc2 is pretty small atm.
Most people that play DotA, League, Wot and any other free to play game never invest a cent. ALL SC2 players have invested at least 60$ if not 90 or 120 and more to fallow through mission packs. It is an investment up front and IMO this makes SC2 fans much more entitled to comment on Blizzards work in balance, design, etc. I personally feel like both HOTS and LOTV have failed me because they promised to fix and make mech viable and fun but they didn't.
That's why I referenced Hearthstone earlier, which is run by one of Blizzard's A teams. The colossus and swarm host are fundamentally bad designs that should've been removed from standard format. Hearthstone relegated some old cards to the wild format to reduce the bloat when they introduce new units.
SC2 has a very bloated roster full of overlapping units. Making every unit useful just results in very, very niche units that hard counter a very specific strategy.
On May 09 2016 23:09 coolmiyo wrote: i like david kim is more confident and he finally takes the command of the game, patching it no matter what people thinks.
even if some of the changes are not the best, u have to patch the game and see what happens.
if he doesnt act like this, the game will stay the same forever.
Yup.
Involving the community was the worst decision Blizzard has ever made.
Such a shortsighted point of view. Big companies like Valve and Riot also take plenty of feedback from the community and it is usually for the better. The difference? The other companies know how to filter the constructive criticism from the bad one. Blizzard is fucking awful at tacking any sort of criticism, constructive or not. If they listen to all the criticism of course you get these god awful patches where nothing makes any sense, but if they don't listen to any criticism at all the game never evolves. Right now I have no idea of which direction the game is going because of the super erratic way Blizzard patches, but it most certainly is not good.
Now stop blaming the community for Blizzard's design choices, its their job to not only listen to it, but also to filter the information.
Both dota and league keep making volvo/riot money. SC2 does what for Blizzard, maybe a SP mission pack? Possible monetization of the game through unit skins could help alot in that direction. Also, dota's spectator options put sc2's to shame. Maybe a sort of monetization could make Blizz throw some money at the game and give us spectator options similar to dota. This would also mean a larger team for balancing, because i'm pretty convinced the balance team of sc2 is pretty small atm.
Most people that play DotA, League, Wot and any other free to play game never invest a cent. ALL SC2 players have invested at least 60$ if not 90 or 120 and more to fallow through mission packs. It is an investment up front and IMO this makes SC2 fans much more entitled to comment on Blizzards work in balance, design, etc. I personally feel like both HOTS and LOTV have failed me because they promised to fix and make mech viable and fun but they didn't.
That's even worse then. A game that markets itself as an e-sport and costs 40 euros has such inferior implementation of spectating than a free to play game. If SC2 had something similar to DOTA TV, where you can watch high-level ongoing matches or tournaments ingame, I bet the game wouldn't have declined as much. For a game that markets itself as an esport, SC2 really doesn't have that many 'esport' features.
On May 09 2016 23:09 coolmiyo wrote: i like david kim is more confident and he finally takes the command of the game, patching it no matter what people thinks.
even if some of the changes are not the best, u have to patch the game and see what happens.
if he doesnt act like this, the game will stay the same forever.
Yup.
Involving the community was the worst decision Blizzard has ever made.
Such a shortsighted point of view. Big companies like Valve and Riot also take plenty of feedback from the community and it is usually for the better. The difference? The other companies know how to filter the constructive criticism from the bad one. Blizzard is fucking awful at tacking any sort of criticism, constructive or not. If they listen to all the criticism of course you get these god awful patches where nothing makes any sense, but if they don't listen to any criticism at all the game never evolves. Right now I have no idea of which direction the game is going because of the super erratic way Blizzard patches, but it most certainly is not good.
Now stop blaming the community for Blizzard's design choices, its their job to not only listen to it, but also to filter the information.
Both dota and league keep making volvo/riot money. SC2 does what for Blizzard, maybe a SP mission pack? Possible monetization of the game through unit skins could help alot in that direction. Also, dota's spectator options put sc2's to shame. Maybe a sort of monetization could make Blizz throw some money at the game and give us spectator options similar to dota. This would also mean a larger team for balancing, because i'm pretty convinced the balance team of sc2 is pretty small atm.
Most people that play DotA, League, Wot and any other free to play game never invest a cent. ALL SC2 players have invested at least 60$ if not 90 or 120 and more to fallow through mission packs. It is an investment up front and IMO this makes SC2 fans much more entitled to comment on Blizzards work in balance, design, etc. I personally feel like both HOTS and LOTV have failed me because they promised to fix and make mech viable and fun but they didn't.
That's even worse then. A game that markets itself as an e-sport and costs 40 euros has such inferior implementation of spectating than a free to play game. If SC2 had something similar to DOTA TV, where you can watch high-level ongoing matches or tournaments ingame, I bet the game wouldn't have declined as much. For a game that markets itself as an esport, SC2 really doesn't have that many 'esport' features.
I know, we barely got chat and many would argue it's not very good. Frankly, the lack of some "esport" features is indefensible, along with some of the failures and broken promises. But SC2 is no exception, Diablo had the same thing as did WoW. It's really Heartstone that is the shining beacon for Blizzard. I don't understand what happened with them and why they have become so disconnected from their own fanbase. That's how i see it anyway.
On May 10 2016 00:47 andrewlt wrote: That's why I referenced Hearthstone earlier, which is run by one of Blizzard's A teams. The colossus and swarm host are fundamentally bad designs that should've been removed from standard format. Hearthstone relegated some old cards to the wild format to reduce the bloat when they introduce new units.
SC2 has a very bloated roster full of overlapping units. Making every unit useful just results in very, very niche units that hard counter a very specific strategy.
it's pretty clear they didn't fully plan out the expansions. Like, they knew they wanted 2 expansions so they could milk Starcraft for all its commercial value, but they didn't have a plan for the actual game. They just knew they had to have new units because otherwise sales would suffer. So the game got polluted with units like widow mines, mothership cores, swarm hosts, hellbats etc. There were a few good new units here and there, but not enough to support 2 expansions.
This is a pattern in League of Legends and Hearthstone too. Game balance is constantly being worsened by new additions. Counter-Strike avoids the whole issue by monetizing around skins and mission packs instead.
Colossus - Would rather then Disruptor get worked on, it's infinitely more interesting to watch and play against then the Colossus.
.
The Disruptor is literally disruptive to Protoss. It requires so much micro that it means you can't micro all the other casters Protoss has. Also, for it to be effective versus certain units, it can't do friendly fire. It is the reason why Ling/Bane is working so well now, because without the Colossus Protoss has limited AOE options in the mid game to fight it.
Finally, the Disruptor is more effective against Roaches and slower moving armored units than faster moving light units, which is where the Colossus shined. And Protoss already has the Immortal to counter armored units. So yeah...
The Disruptor is a very poorly designed unit, it overlaps with other units, it doesn't replace the Colossus at all.
Colossus - Would rather then Disruptor get worked on, it's infinitely more interesting to watch and play against then the Colossus.
.
The Disruptor is literally disruptive to Protoss. It requires so much micro that it means you can't micro all the other casters Protoss has. Also, for it to be effective versus certain units, it can't do friendly fire. It is the reason why Ling/Bane is working so well now, because without the Colossus Protoss has limited AOE options in the mid game to fight it.
No it means that you can't micro the other casters. Micro-ing the disruptors perfectly and the army at the same time is what set apart Zest from every other protoss player in the world. Micro-ing the disruptors *almost perfectly and the army at the same time is what set apart Dear from every other protoss -except Zest- player in the world.
I mean, isn't it what we wanted and asked over the last five years? A game riche, complexe and impossible to master really perfectly that when someone get close you can truly appreciate the depth of his skill and see how that player can dominate the game?
Colossus - Would rather then Disruptor get worked on, it's infinitely more interesting to watch and play against then the Colossus.
.
The Disruptor is literally disruptive to Protoss. It requires so much micro that it means you can't micro all the other casters Protoss has. Also, for it to be effective versus certain units, it can't do friendly fire. It is the reason why Ling/Bane is working so well now, because without the Colossus Protoss has limited AOE options in the mid game to fight it.
No it means that you can't micro the other casters. Micro-ing the disruptors perfectly and the army at the same time is what set apart Zest from every other protoss player in the world. Micro-ing the disruptors *almost perfectly and the army at the same time is what set apart Dear from every other protoss -except Zest- player in the world.
I mean, isn't it what we wanted and asked over the last five years? A game riche, complexe and impossible to master really perfectly that when someone get close you can truly appreciate the depth of his skill and see how that player can dominate the game?
These complexities are also what are allowing more foreigners to compete with Koreans. With more areas to excel, there's more areas to be weak in. It's making the game more competitive.
Looking at Patch 3.3 it seems like Blizzard is indeed putting work and money in SC2. If there are major problems with 1v1 multiplayer, and there are for me, it's not down to money but to the people doing the design, balance and vision.
thats why I don´t understand the argument that SC II and BW are completely different games that always comes up, when they are actually quite similar in some designs.
thats why I don´t understand the argument that SC II and BW are completely different games that always comes up, when they are actually quite similar in some designs.
The argument comes from people that never played BW much. I've seen this attitude with other games and gamers like Morrowind vs Oblivion/Skyrim. People hate hearing how the things they did not have the chance to enjoy might be better then the once they do. It's an emotional thing, not a rational one. Best to ignore them if no actual arguments are given.
thats why I don´t understand the argument that SC II and BW are completely different games that always comes up, when they are actually quite similar in some designs.
The argument comes from people that never played BW much. I've seen this attitude with other games and gamers like Morrowind vs Oblivion/Skyrim. People hate hearing how the things they did not have the chance to enjoy might be better then the once they do. It's an emotional thing, not a rational one. Best to ignore them if no actual arguments are given.
This might be true. But I didn´t played much BW either (at least competitive). I got into it when SC II was still in Beta. Was searching for a new RTS game when EA ruined C&C with the terrible 4th installment and found a gameplay video of SC II. That interested me so much that I gave BW a shot and thought it was awesome (after I found out how SC works).
SC II is great too but it needs more attention to be more refined. But it also annoys me that I can´t play it properly right now because my PC sucks.
thats why I don´t understand the argument that SC II and BW are completely different games that always comes up, when they are actually quite similar in some designs.
The argument comes from people that never played BW much. I've seen this attitude with other games and gamers like Morrowind vs Oblivion/Skyrim. People hate hearing how the things they did not have the chance to enjoy might be better then the once they do. It's an emotional thing, not a rational one. Best to ignore them if no actual arguments are given.
This might be true. But I didn´t played much BW either (at least competitive). I got into it when SC II was still in Beta. Was searching for a new RTS game when EA ruined C&C with the terrible 4th installment and found a gameplay video of SC II. That interested me so much that I gave BW a shot and thought it was awesome (after I found out how SC works).
SC II is great too but it needs more attention to be more refined. But it also annoys me that I can´t play it properly right now because my PC sucks.
You might be more objective then others but a lot of people get very emotionally attached to what they like and can't stand to hear how something before might have been better. They take it personal.
I'll never forget Dustin Browder responding to a question comparing BW and SC2, on death balls i think, where his critical thinking was nullified by ego with the response "go play BW, great game". As if it was him against the past rather then making SC2 as best as it can be.
Buy a new CPU, Skylake is not expensive and you don't need a super GPU, unless you are a filthy casual that wants max graphics :p
Even if you want to max graphics the lowest end reasonable GPU's like a gtx950 are fine, leaving you CPU-limited with the fastest CPU's during periods of high stress like lategame fights.
There's also practically no scaling past 2 cores for sc2, so no need to spend a lot on CPU as long as it has high core performance. The main reason for using a 6600k instead of a skylake i3 is because of the unlocked overclock clock speeds for CPU core and RAM as they both help.
I have a proposal for the colossus... change it back to this: www.youtube.com
A continuous beam, that should be good vs clumped units and groups of low hp units, due to lack the of overkill. If it shoots while walking but has low dps, it would be a unique unit which I personally would love to use.
All the collosus "redesign" suggestions are basically 1A powerful deathball units. No thank you. Nerfing the collosus was the right decision LoTV has made. Just remove the unit which has marred WoL and HotS with its existence.
The colossus design has always been high tech, consistent splash damage that requires support to function well. That's not neccesarily a bad design, it was just not implemented particularly well
The cliff-walking idea was cool but in practice it works pretty badly. They're too expensive to be used in a harassment role so all they do is weaken high ground advantage by granting vision. Moreover their attack particles ignore cliffs/collision unlike reavers or disruptors, further weakening high ground advantage. They're also the cause of protoss deathballs, and they make protoss look like a War of the Worlds ripoff instead of a design with its own identity. It's hard to find anything positive about colossus.
My own two cents, I really like the Colossus and if it's a slight buff then I'm okay with it. People seems to think Blizz wants to bring the Colossus back to its HotS version, I believe Blizz doesn't want that. it would be cool to see the Colossus in competitive games again and but just a misclick from the players
EPT
