LotV Design Changes announced - Page 41

On August 19 2016 21:32 Tuczniak wrote:
This is classical "don't let they get there" which is terrible game design. The game should be winnable at all points. The queen patch was necessary. It was necessary for zerg to be able compete in midgame. Whether the game continued in fun way or turtling is completely unrelated to the patch. If zerg didn't have unbeatable lategame and had strong midgame, the queen patch would called good. It's funny that some people still consider queen the cause.

Btw good points TT1 and Destruction.

On August 19 2016 20:37 Destructicon wrote:


Except its the wrong kind of hard and it spews into volatility.
When you have so much freely available damage the game stops becoming a game about who can consistently control his units best and more about who doesn't have a 1 second lapse in concentration that leads to the loss of his game.

Its not normal for entire economies or armies to be vaporized in seconds, it makes the game too volatile. Slowing down the game by reducing damage numbers in some way will actually benefit the game because:

1st The better player will lose less in those small intervals where their concentration falters.
2nd The better player will have less of those moments of inattention.
3rd The better player, will have more time to recover in the long run.

Adding more abilities to all units is also not a very interesting way to make the game harder, it just promotes more spamming on the units itself instead of more interesting micro like pulling back weakened units, splitting, stutter-stepping, dodging etc.

I agree that the game should be hard, but this isn't the right way to do it.

Edit: And don't tell me the pros don't have lapses in concentration and moments where they make mistakes, that's not a valid argument since they are still humans, they make mistakes, everyone makes mistakes.

And as proof when a mistake happens at the pro level and its expertly punished we get those sort of games that end anticlimactically after one major battle or successful harass.

On August 19 2016 22:38 Creager wrote:


Well, a thing most people like to forget is that Zerg players didn't manage their creep very well back then and thus couldn't see an attack coming as early as they could later on when 4-6 Queen play was promoted due to the patch.

On August 19 2016 23:36 ROOTFayth wrote:

creep spread was buffed man.... at the end of hots or during lotv beta I'm not sure

On August 19 2016 23:32 ROOTFayth wrote:
I remember in broodwar there were a lot of games where I managed to come back after taking pretty bad damage to my economy early on just because I was quite a bit better than my opponent, in SC2 it's just not a thing

On August 19 2016 22:14 VHbb wrote:
Maybe I'm naive, but many people complain about worker harass and how it's too easy to destroy economies by killing many workers 'suddenly', but then I read a lot of complaints about mothership core and queens, which are the main units used to defend vs worker harass.. why is that? Do you have a different kind of 'defence' vs worker harass in mind?

On August 20 2016 00:10 ROOTFayth wrote:
volatility is ok to a degree but it's far too high in SC2, I mean there's already poker if people want to gamble, they can make SC2 more skill based

also what you want as a spectator won't fly if players don't want the same thing, they will just quit and you will have nothing to watch

On August 20 2016 00:24 ROOTFayth wrote:
good job on mentionning the very few players who did not quit haha, want me to list those who quit? it feels like you're being a bit delusional at this point, we all want starcraft 2 to be better, for more people to play it.... you clearly stated you don't give a crap if players don't enjoy the game, what you care about is enjoying watching those games

On August 20 2016 00:07 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:

Comebacks are a thing in SC2, its just a lot harder due to volatility. I've seen Polt, Zest, and a number of great players make amazing comebacks through crisp execution and great decision making.

We are expecting SC2 from different POV.

You are viewing it from the player's perspective, and want to play the game in a certain fashion.

I am viewing it from the spectator's perspective, and want to watch games played out in a different fashion.

By referencing BW, I feel you want SC2 to be similar to BW. I'm sorry but that train left a long time ago. These two games are similar only in lore.

On August 20 2016 00:41 Meta wrote:


I don't want to turn this into an "SC2 vs BW" nightmare, both games have their strong points, but BW's strong point is definitely from the spectator's perspective. I still have a blast watching BW, but playing is challenging to say the least. SC2 is more fun to play, but abysmal to watch. So I'm not sure how your reasoning plays out.

I do want to say that I love that Blizzard is making bold and interesting changes. I particularly love the siege tank change. I hope they continue to shake things up whenever they see stagnation.