EPTSC2 Multiplayer Panel Summary - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
xTJx
Brazil419 Posts
| ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11133 Posts
| ||
|
Ansibled
United Kingdom9872 Posts
| ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On November 05 2016 10:40 Ansibled wrote: I'm not really sure why people expected new stuff from this panel, they give updates every week. I think I've just gotten used to big changes at Blizzcon, and while the current patch is cool, it doesn't feel as big. | ||
|
KappaKingPrime
United States468 Posts
| ||
|
StarscreamG1
Portugal1652 Posts
| ||
|
aQuaSC
717 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
edit: oh. it looks like they weren't supposed to put up the multiplayer panel vod. | ||
Shellshock
United States97274 Posts
| ||
|
striderx2048
6 Posts
| ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
| ||
|
ivancype
Brazil485 Posts
| ||
|
Solar424
United States4001 Posts
| ||
|
Fatam
1986 Posts
- they were thinking about a more tanky unit that spawns in group of three - were used pretty much like zerglings - created confusion about wheter to go ling/roach/new unit; counter-tech options weren't clear - felt really muddy and so they didn't like it and moved on Damn, I totally disagree with that design philosophy. Having to think about whether to make x or y unit, and then the opponent having to carefully consider what to build in order to best fight against that comp... that sure sounds like the trappings of a great strategy game to me. The unit you make shouldn't be an 100% given thing. "muddy" aka actually having to think.. is a good thing IMO. I know I'm kind of cherrypicking with that partial, second-hand quote but it just rubbed me the wrong way. Like damn let's limit SC2's strategic potential, we don't want people to have to think too hard about what to build. | ||
ihatevideogames
570 Posts
So why did Goliath not work out? - Because it overlaps with Thor - felt like mech marine I'm trying to think of a way to properly express the rage I feel at this without getting banned, but I can't. How more out of touch can this man be? | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2141 Posts
On November 05 2016 10:30 KeksX wrote: It really sounds like they just did a Warhound 2.0 with the Goliath lol It's their intention to have the Thor as a core AA option, with Cyclone being the ground core option for mech but with the current balance patch i don't think they buffed it to enough of a significant degree, it needs to completely shut down air options rather than merely counter/deflect them | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9341 Posts
On November 05 2016 10:40 Ansibled wrote: I'm not really sure why people expected new stuff from this panel, they give updates every week. Well the thing is that they the stuff they have added into the testmap takes like 3 hours to create in the editor. So after they spent 3 hours on that and then let it idle by itself. What are they doing with the rest of the time? Sc2 has a ton more fundamental issues that it doesn't seem like they are trying to fix. Why not just move the Sc2 design team onto Wc4 if they aren't even working parttime on the game. | ||
|
PharaphobiaSC
Czech Republic457 Posts
On November 05 2016 19:01 Hider wrote: Well the thing is that they the stuff they have added into the testmap takes like 3 hours to create in the editor. So after they spent 3 hours on that and then let it idle by itself. What are they doing with the rest of the time? Sc2 has a ton more fundamental issues that it doesn't seem like they are trying to fix. Why not just move the Sc2 design team onto Wc4 if they aren't even working parttime on the game. 3 hours hours for someone who already know what to change? Your statement doesnt even make sense and there will no WC4... jesus... | ||
|
sabas123
Netherlands3122 Posts
On November 05 2016 19:01 Hider wrote: Sc2 has a ton more fundamental issues that it doesn't seem like they are trying to fix. Why not just move the Sc2 design team onto Wc4 if they aren't even working parttime on the game. And replace them with whom? Ow wait... | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On November 05 2016 16:29 Fatam wrote: Damn, I totally disagree with that design philosophy. Having to think about whether to make x or y unit, and then the opponent having to carefully consider what to build in order to best fight against that comp... that sure sounds like the trappings of a great strategy game to me. The unit you make shouldn't be an 100% given thing. "muddy" aka actually having to think.. is a good thing IMO. I know I'm kind of cherrypicking with that partial, second-hand quote but it just rubbed me the wrong way. Like damn let's limit SC2's strategic potential, we don't want people to have to think too hard about what to build. I think your point is something they agree with, though that they don't want to artifically make it harder to think about something than it already is. Let me put my understanding of it: This more tanky unit that spawns in groups of 3 was supposed be T1.5 (in their definition: requires tech building on hatchery), and thus it could be out at relatively the same time as roaches or speedlings. So an opponent now had 3 relatively different units that required different answers, but could not really be sure about what type of unit will actually be used by a zerg user. Especially if that new unit doesn't require another tech building, but uses an existing one. I have no idea what they mean with "muddy" btw, but that was their wording. But go back to the point of "not more than 15 units per race". Having clear, seperate unit roles is really important to them. The original plan for this unit was to be "a buffer unit for the hydralisk". Then they pointed out that the swarmy part of the unit(groups of 3 etc) was overlapping with speedlings, and the high health/tank part was overlapping with the roach. What I don't understand is: Why did they look for a buffer for the hydralisk in the first place? I'm pretty sure the Roach fills that role just fine - there are way more interesting roles that could be explored for the zerg imho. But it sounds like this unit exploration resulted in the new hydralisk. | ||
| ||
