|
Canata, one of SPL commentator, had an interview with xportsnews and was asked to make a statement about LotV.
FYI, I translated it - wondering if you agree with his opinion.
Here`s what he said:
"Still it needs much improvement. The point is, compared with HotS, it becomes more harder to control your units due to additional active skills. This is quite retrograde, considering games like Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm, which has recently risen for its 'easy to learn, hard to master' strategy. LotV is, as I said, going against this current. For instance, entry barrier has been raised; every unit has its active skill and base resources deplete so quickly. Though I`m quite sure that Blizz has its own plan, I must say that a loved the game is the game that ordinary people can easily enjoy.
'LotV is too difficult now, even for me, a former pro-gamer.' "
http://game.xportsnews.com/?ac=article_view&entry_id=604805
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, Koreans complain about its 'too-fast-pace' and shoddiness.
Here`s the summary: "they`re doing cursory treatment by attaching active everywhere"
Furthermore, IMO, this topic is not only for novice; even some progamers made a statement that it requires too much physical, cause its too fast, saying "there`s no room for strategy. So far we`ve been doing hard and fast enough, even in WoL and HotS."
we definetely need a change, otherwise it`ll be a APM showcase, not a strategy game.
|
kind of ironic that this is a common attitude nowadays given so many people's initial complaints that sc2 was too dumbed down compared to bw...
|
Perfectly sums up the direction of LOTV.
|
On July 08 2015 13:43 -NegativeZero- wrote: kind of ironic that this is a common attitude nowadays given so many people's initial complaints that sc2 was too dumbed down compared to bw... There were plenty of idiots complaining that, yes, but the main legitimate complaint was that it greatly flattened the skill curve, by making the difference between different points near the skill ceiling harder to differentiate.
I agree with his point. The whole game feels too fast in general. Not just with active abilities and bases running out, but those make the game speed itself feel much less tolerable. They make the basic pace of the game feel more obviously out of line with what I feel most comfortable with. I wish it were bumped down slightly. BW was roughly 7 to 9 percent slower, depending on your metric for determining that. A "normal" game speed that was calibrated to be about halfway between the old "fast" and "faster" would be much more friendly for casuals.
|
imo the LOTV developers are making the game with eSport spectators in mind more so than any of their other games. As someone who hasn't played Starcraft (or any game) what so ever and still enjoys watching Starcraft, I can appreciate what they are doing. From a players perspective... well... let's just say I'm happy I'm not playing. I can see Canata's point. Makes perfect sense. I don't think about the casual gamer much I suppose and never really thought about it like that.
|
P is just very bad designed on LOTV active everywhere, developpers need to work really hard on redesigning/balancing protoss on LOTV, the actual direction of the race is really bad (around disruptor +wp or mass adept).
|
On July 08 2015 15:27 G5 wrote: I don't think about the casual gamer much I suppose and never really thought about it like that.
Without the casual gamer, the game will die. People have to start somewhere.
People fall in love with sports when they play it, not by watching other people on TV. And if the sport isn't fun to play, then people won't play it, won't fall in love with it, and won't want to do it as a profession.
Basketball, football, ect are all easy to play, but incredibly difficult to master. SC2 needs to follow that lead.
|
Casual gamers aren't the market for 1v1 ranked ladder is the thing. Blizzard is not -- and should not -- design 1v1 ladder around the casual gamer. The 1v1 ladder is for the competitive folk. For casual gamers, there's archon mode and the arcade (which I hope gets revamped).
|
On July 08 2015 16:14 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2015 15:27 G5 wrote: I don't think about the casual gamer much I suppose and never really thought about it like that. Without the casual gamer, the game will die. People have to start somewhere. People fall in love with sports when they play it, not by watching other people on TV. And if the sport isn't fun to play, then people won't play it, won't fall in love with it, and won't want to do it as a profession. Basketball, football, ect are all easy to play, but incredibly difficult to master. SC2 needs to follow that lead. Yes, this is true. LotV is supposed to bring in more (casual) players to increase the playerbase, and through that the overall popularity of SC2. I fear what is really going to happen is very few new players actually pick up the game, and old players stop playing because they somehow don't like it.
|
Canata is an intelligent man, it seems. I think we need more opinions from Koreans on LotV because right now they are pretty much only negative if I'm not mistaken?
|
On July 08 2015 16:21 mrjpark wrote: Casual gamers aren't the market for 1v1 ranked ladder is the thing. Blizzard is not -- and should not -- design 1v1 ladder around the casual gamer. The 1v1 ladder is for the competitive folk. For casual gamers, there's archon mode and the arcade (which I hope gets revamped).
This is a steaming pile of bullshit and I really hope that Blizzard is not adopting this attitude. 1v1 is perfectly fine for any level of play and the only thing deterring casuals from laddering are the endless stupid comments about how it is so competitive and about the idiotic concept of ladder anxiety. Just stop.
|
My two cents:
The effect of these changes - moving towards a more micro-heavy, fast-paced type of Starcraft, ultimately serve to raise the skill cap of the game. - For pros, there are a plethora of new and exciting skills that are fun to watch and hard to learn to play well. - For lower levels though, I don't believe the effect is inherently negative. Two main reasons:
1. MOBAs are VERY micro-intensive. While the types of active abilities in LotV are not necessarily exactly the same as MOBAs (no skillshots, etc), they both appeal to a similar kind of playstyle relying heavily on mouse accuracy.
2. In HotS overall, Macro is more important than Micro. This isn't necessarily something that I have hard data on, but in my opinion and observation, the majority of lower level games are determined by who builds more stuff faster, and who builds the stuff which counters the other stuff. Now this isn't universally true - marine splits vs banelings in tvz is a nice counter example - but I feel confident saying that as a whole, HotS prioritizes macro. This means that it is much harder for good micro to turn around a game; not that it is impossible, but that the game has to be very close in order to be determined by control. BW had a very different prioritization. There was a much higher difficulty and ceiling of control in that game thanks to things like the control group mechanics, and this means that compared to WoL/HotS, BW had a much higher emphasis on micro. The point of this is not BW worship, but rather to explain a potential line of thought that Blizzard may be following.
I think what we will see in lower LotV ladder, is that players with bad macro, but very good micro, are more able to be successful. Good control allows you to get a lot more value out of your units and counterbalance a macro deficit.
I think comments like Canata's are based on a misconception that has developed over the course of WoL/HotS - that professionals should be able to play sc2 with near-perfect control. This was never the case in BW. Jaedong, Bisu: a rare handful of players reached levels of micro and control skill unequaled by even other professionals, and this is a part of why the idea of a "bonjwa" was possible in BW but never in SC2. Canata could probably still wreck 99% of the players out there, but the fact that the control ceiling is so much higher than even him just means that we will see more exciting games. It means more upsets of "better" players in exciting games where control really matters. It sets the stage for incredibly powerful strategies that are unimaginably difficult to execute, and it creates the opportunity for a kind of strategic tradeoff that pros didn't have to deal with in sc2: Ease of execution vs. Strength of strat. When was the last time you heard a commentator of a pro game wonder whether a player could actually execute a strategy effectively? Fewer build order wins; more asymmetrical but close games.
Lastly, the effect of this on viewers: Control is Visible. Strangely, raising the control ceiling for players actually lowers the challenge and threshold for viewer understanding. MOBAs are so watchable for exactly this reason. When a player pulls off a difficult skillshot or combo in a MOBA, audiences can see it, and it is far more immediate and rewarding than watching a player with perfect macro building a lot of units, never getting supply-blocked, and just winning.
An example: Proxy Adepts. The ceiling on a strategy like this is unimaginably high. It isn't necessarily OP or unbalanced, but there exists the potential for a player with BW levels of micro to attack with five control groups of adepts and absolutely destroy an opponent. Isn't that so much interesting, so much less "coin-flippy", and so much more fun than proxy zealot?
|
1. MOBAs are VERY micro-intensive. While the types of active abilities in LotV are not necessarily exactly the same as MOBAs (no skillshots, etc), they both appeal to a similar kind of playstyle relying heavily on mouse accuracy.
I don't really agree here. I think the type of micro that appeals to both players are stuff like
- Casting impactful abilities (e.g. Psy Storm) - Skillshots and dodging them - Splitting units - Focus fire and move back focus fired' units when they have low HP
To sum up, I think the interactions MOBA players will enjoy in an RTS are those where player X does an action and player Y can respond with movement-based micro.
On the other hand, I think spam-based abilities such as Immortal Shield and too a large extent Reaper bombs, fit better into those who want mechanics for the sake of mechanics.
LOTV is kinda in the middle here. It has added some micro interactions that MOBA players will enjoy, and also some mechanical-based abilities, which I unfortunately think will make the game less enjoyable for the former target group.
Further, the extreme reliance on build orders (if you have the wrong build order you die) is also not something that is liked by the MOBA-segment.
|
As an aging gamer (31) I'm inclined to agree with him. I was master in WOL, and I'm master in HOTS, but if this game becomes more intense \ demanding than it already is I might just start looking for another game to play competitively. I've played different RTS games since I was 16 and always been pretty good, but I'm not sure if I can actually be bothered if the game gets alot harder which it seems it will. The major part of what makes SC2 fun to me is the competitiveness \ skills required, but there can be too much of a good thing.
If it feels like me and the pros play a totally different game, then I feel that Blizzard has lost me as a demographic and I'm pretty hardcore when it comes to games. I can only imagine how it would feel for a newbie\casual to enter SC2 at this stage, or the LOTV stage. It would be like me picking up gymnastics @ age 31.
I understand the direction (fun to watch), I appreciate the solution to it being harder (Archaon-mode), but it's starting to feel borderline sadistic to maintain "high" level in 1v1 without resorting to cheeses.
|
Finally someone meamingful has said it.
|
On July 08 2015 16:49 Vexon wrote: My two cents:
The effect of these changes - moving towards a more micro-heavy, fast-paced type of Starcraft, ultimately serve to raise the skill cap of the game. - For pros, there are a plethora of new and exciting skills that are fun to watch and hard to learn to play well. - For lower levels though, I don't believe the effect is inherently negative. Two main reasons:
1. MOBAs are VERY micro-intensive. While the types of active abilities in LotV are not necessarily exactly the same as MOBAs (no skillshots, etc), they both appeal to a similar kind of playstyle relying heavily on mouse accuracy.
2. In HotS overall, Macro is more important than Micro. This isn't necessarily something that I have hard data on, but in my opinion and observation, the majority of lower level games are determined by who builds more stuff faster, and who builds the stuff which counters the other stuff. Now this isn't universally true - marine splits vs banelings in tvz is a nice counter example - but I feel confident saying that as a whole, HotS prioritizes macro. This means that it is much harder for good micro to turn around a game; not that it is impossible, but that the game has to be very close in order to be determined by control. BW had a very different prioritization. There was a much higher difficulty and ceiling of control in that game thanks to things like the control group mechanics, and this means that compared to WoL/HotS, BW had a much higher emphasis on micro. The point of this is not BW worship, but rather to explain a potential line of thought that Blizzard may be following.
I think what we will see in lower LotV ladder, is that players with bad macro, but very good micro, are more able to be successful. Good control allows you to get a lot more value out of your units and counterbalance a macro deficit.
I think comments like Canata's are based on a misconception that has developed over the course of WoL/HotS - that professionals should be able to play sc2 with near-perfect control. This was never the case in BW. Jaedong, Bisu: a rare handful of players reached levels of micro and control skill unequaled by even other professionals, and this is a part of why the idea of a "bonjwa" was possible in BW but never in SC2. Canata could probably still wreck 99% of the players out there, but the fact that the control ceiling is so much higher than even him just means that we will see more exciting games. It means more upsets of "better" players in exciting games where control really matters. It sets the stage for incredibly powerful strategies that are unimaginably difficult to execute, and it creates the opportunity for a kind of strategic tradeoff that pros didn't have to deal with in sc2: Ease of execution vs. Strength of strat. When was the last time you heard a commentator of a pro game wonder whether a player could actually execute a strategy effectively? Fewer build order wins; more asymmetrical but close games.
Lastly, the effect of this on viewers: Control is Visible. Strangely, raising the control ceiling for players actually lowers the challenge and threshold for viewer understanding. MOBAs are so watchable for exactly this reason. When a player pulls off a difficult skillshot or combo in a MOBA, audiences can see it, and it is far more immediate and rewarding than watching a player with perfect macro building a lot of units, never getting supply-blocked, and just winning.
An example: Proxy Adepts. The ceiling on a strategy like this is unimaginably high. It isn't necessarily OP or unbalanced, but there exists the potential for a player with BW levels of micro to attack with five control groups of adepts and absolutely destroy an opponent. Isn't that so much interesting, so much less "coin-flippy", and so much more fun than proxy zealot?
I had the opposite view before reading your post, but you actually have a really solid point IMO. Maybe once the game has been practiced at the highest level for a while we can judge - I think it will be very entertaining, if nothing else.
Although I don't think it'll be nice for the people in Masters/GM who aren't pro to suddenly feel like their play is far sloppier. Comes with the territory of a "new game" though.
|
david kims reponse: thats why we have archon mode for casual players like Canata to play, the future of starcraft is that in order to play a 1v1 you need to players to spam click abilities!
|
lolll
'LotV is too difficult now, even for me, a former pro-gamer.'
|
This is my opinion, posted it on reddit a few weeks back. Got 252upvotes, so I think Canata doesn't stand alone with his opinion: Blizzard is making the game overly complicated to the point that even a seasoned player like myself doesn't really want to play it anymore.
The game needs clear counterrelations between a-moveable units and then there needs to be micro-possibilities to turn those relations around. That makes for an easy to understand, easy to utilize, hard to master and deep playing experience.
Currently, we are getting too much of hard to understand, hard to utilize unit interactions. Even if they end up deep, they are not ending up fun or implementable into weaker players' gameplans.
This is not a big problem for a top5% veteran like me, or a real professional. But it makes for a tedious playing experience and it is a huge problem for the lower 50% of the playerbase who cannot really utilize the game's content. Not to mention the 1000% potential playerbase, who turned back on starcraft's frustrating, overly fast and complex playing experience.
Blizzard is wildly guessing around in the beta about what to do with the game, instead of trying robust suggestions from the community. I fear, it's beyond broken at this point with blizzard not willing to reconsider their own ideas.
|
Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh...
|
On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh...
This is too unnuanced. People always wanted more "interesting" micro interactions. I think the amount of people who wanted more APM-spam-mechanics were always in the minority.
|
On July 08 2015 18:43 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh... This is too unnuanced. People always wanted more "interesting" micro interactions. I think the amount of people who wanted more APM-spam-mechanics were always in the minority. i doubt canata meant that too much apm spam abilities is what makes the game harder for him.
|
On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh...
That's sadly how blizzard understood it, when the reality was:
Community: "We would like this and this in the game, which would increase micro-capabilities. And we think the game could do with a little bit of this or this, so expanding players get more rewarded."
Blizzard: "We heard you. Extra buttons for all units and everyone gets choked from now on!"
You know, the fun story is that the community concepts all tried to spoonfeed blizzard their own designgoals. Blizzard said (e.g. Dustin Browder) that they don't want to overload units with abilities and micro in starcraft should come from movement and interesting attacks. The community came with mentioned ideas. Blizzard does a 180degree turn and puts buttons on everything. Blizzard said that they want consistent bases and they don't want to confuse people by scattering bases all around the map. The community delivers, invents a model that does not only allow players to play the way they are used to (with 3bases), but also does fit into blizzard's accelerated game start. Blizzard does a 180degree turn and suddenly mineral nodes are different from each other within a base and you are forced to scatter all across the map just to maintain your playstyle.
|
Ya I agree with all the comments here...
I have watched many LotV streams and the issues the pro players raised are all legit. I will not play LotV until it is in a state that at least resembles a good game...
The list of 'Blurps' (unbalances, glitches, stupidities etc...) is enormous.
That said:
I believe the game will be fixed....one way or another and I will play it. I have faith in this community. Blizz included to eventually create a Masterpiece of an RTS game.
|
On July 08 2015 18:51 acccky1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2015 18:43 Hider wrote:On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh... This is too unnuanced. People always wanted more "interesting" micro interactions. I think the amount of people who wanted more APM-spam-mechanics were always in the minority. i doubt canata meant that too much apm spam abilities is what makes the game harder for him.
Then I doubt Canata previously demanded more active abilities in the game. You can't have it both ways.
Community: "We would like this and this in the game, which would increase micro-capabilities. And I think the game could do with a little bit of this or this, so expanding players get more rewarded."
Blizzard: "We heard you. Extra buttons for all units and everyone gets choked from now on!"
Yes this so much. It's mostly blizzard that has a misconception of the type of micro the community actually wants.
|
I do think the game is slightly, very slightly, too fast now due to the changes to the amount of minerals at each amount.
Since the new mineral changes aren't actually changing the 3 base economy model, I wonder what the game would look like with a revert to the WOL/HOTS style mineral patches and just have everyone start with 2 extra workers to cut down the start time a bit.
Either way I still think LOTV is much more interesting and fun to play compared to HOTS. Everyone is just freaking out because we don't have the pros playing much, and nobody knows how to correctly play against a meta that doesn't exist. If Flash, Jaedong and Stork each streamed it for a month while they were learning the game and what build to do everyone would feel a lot better.
|
[QUOTE]On July 08 2015 19:00 Hider wrote: [QUOTE]On July 08 2015 18:51 acccky1 wrote: [QUOTE]On July 08 2015 18:43 Hider wrote: [QUOTE]On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh...[/QUOTE]
This is too unnuanced. People always wanted more "interesting" micro interactions. I think the amount of people who wanted more APM-spam-mechanics were always in the minority.[/QUOTE] i doubt canata meant that too much apm spam abilities is what makes the game harder for him. [/QUOTE]
Then I doubt Canata previously demanded more active abilities in the game. You can't have it both ways. ur right
|
"Still it needs much improvement. The point is, compared with HotS, it becomes more harder to control your units due to additional active skills. This is quite retrograde, considering games like Hearthstone and Heroes of the Storm, which has recently risen for its 'easy to learn, hard to master' strategy. LotV is, as I said, going against this current. For instance, entry barrier has been raised; every unit has its active skill and base resources deplete so quickly. Though I`m quite sure that Blizz has its own plan, I must say that a loved the game is the game that ordinary people can easily enjoy.
yeah about that part Im not so sure. Also impressive that BW was so popular considering that it was much harder than LotV...
Harsh but what he says there is bs imo.
|
I keep hearing this kind of complaint about LotV, and it really makes me want to try it. It's reminiscent of the complaints about Brood War that existed before SC2 had been released.
|
On July 08 2015 18:53 Big J wrote:Community: "We would like this and this in the game, which would increase micro-capabilities. And we think the game could do with a little bit of this or this, so expanding players get more rewarded." Blizzard: "We heard you. Extra buttons for all units and everyone gets choked from now on!" Nailed it
|
I agree, when you lose as a newer player. Often you're response would be, guess my strategy was wrong, maybe I should get THIS unit instead. It's really only competitive players that think, if I micro better, I can learn to hold this.
For pro level I think LotV will be amazing, a hard to execute Immortal allin might be able to beat all with inferior micro than you. Even though their counter strategy might be spot on, which makes for consistency in who can be pro players and who cannot. But losing every game to an Immortal allin that you cannot defeat unless you micro better than the opponent is absolutely atrocious for newcomers to the game.
|
Canada38 Posts
On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh...
Blizzard addressed the community's desire for more micro, but not in the ways that the community suggested. In BW, most units did two things: move and shoot. Everybody can get something to move and shoot (easy to pick up). However, due to the limitations of the engine, getting units to move effectively was extremely hard (e.g. Dragoons, vultures, scouts, corsairs, mutas, unsieged tanks, even carriers). This resulted in the best possible situation for both casual and competitive players, and the audience. It's hard to understand all of these spells and abilities, but a group of units moving and attacking effectively can be understood and admired even by non-players. The 'depth of micro' article here on TL explained this better than I ever could.
We asked for more cool ways to control our units, like less clumping, decreased turning times on some units, moving shots, faster move speeds etc. What we got was a bunch of confusing spells/abilities that all have to be learned individually. Moving and shooting is intuitive, but can be made very hard to master given the right tweaks. Blizzard shouldn't be taking the same old units and slapping some abilities on them - they should be fundamentally changing the ways that those units are moved and controlled by the player.
|
I cant stand the pacing of lotv, imo the pacing of wol/hots is pretty spot on its just there's alot of other problems within that. ive played sc2 since the start and my impression of lotv beta was almost entirely negative. I really don't have much love for hots but its way better than where lotv seems to be going. If lotv stays the way it is I don't think I could bring myself to play it. its like an unnecessarily more complicated version of hots on speed. Also there's too many fucking units in it.
|
On July 08 2015 18:43 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh... This is too unnuanced. People always wanted more "interesting" micro interactions. I think the amount of people who wanted more APM-spam-mechanics were always in the minority.
I think that the problem is that Blizz is again using community as an excuse to do what they like into the game.
The problems of the game are quite clear:
- Some rigged unit interactions, no way to decide battles with real micro/army positioning. (Mass FF ZvP, PvT-MMM, some stages of ZvT Mech).
- And units whose control has low impact/ lack of micro opportunities or not very responsive. Design of some units, and attack codification values - Movement codification, damage point.
- Forced design of some matchups (lack of flexibility).
- Lack of strong defensive mechanisms/ units.
- Improvable economy model (But I think that the problem is not really on econ itself but strong macroboosting)
- Early-midgame is asimmetrical and explosive, leading to easy, very destructive rushes (specially vs P because it's the race with the weaker macrobooster and Gateways produce too slow - MSC band-aid). Harass options are also very, very very strong most of the times. (Cloak banshee / oracle)
- Game overall moves too fast, specially on lower levels. Everything volatilizes in seconds and there is a ton of stuff to do, specially with the new macro, something that, paired with the low defensive factor, the asimmetric macro strength and the power of harass (Banshee, Oracles, Mutas with regen) makes the game not exactly funny
- Almost 0 introduction to game mechanics / noob friendly environment.
So far, we've been told by Blizz that some of the core aspects of micro, and better defensive units have been given, but in fact, we have very few solutions to the core problems of the game yet. We have a ton of new abilities for sure and some new units, but we haven't solved many things.
We have 3 unit concepts (Ravager Bile, Lurker, Disruptor) that improve some aspects of the game and work relatively well, since they are offensively and defensively strong, and force micro/ positioning from both parts with heavy impact on the outcome of fights, even if units themselves aren't very refined yet. The siege-tank medivac thing is also quite interesting since it works well in low-scale fights and empowers defensive strats involving tanks, but is hard to balance, for sure. Specially since Tanks are already quite strong in TvZ and TvP.
But almost every other issue remains untouched.
We have heard wonderful words about future ideas, but they aren't there just yet.
|
I want more vanilla icecream. Then i get more icecream but its chocolate.
No, i would not be happy. And ITS not what I asked for.
|
On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh... It's how micro and active abilities have been implemented more than anything, and how broken unit design is (i.e. Ravagers, Lurkers)
|
I have to agree that there are too many active abilities at this point . I can't play LotV so I can't really tell if it's unhandleable, but it would be nice to have more basic units that just "work" out of the box and do not require pressing a hotkey every 10 seconds. I'm alright with the economy though.
|
I hope this point gets adressed in the next community update. The ability frenzy and the overwhelming lack of elegance/simplicity is something that has been brought up like a million times since beta launch and there is no sign Blizzard is ready to call their approach (more micro = more buttons, which is woefully wrong) in question.
|
On July 08 2015 22:18 ZenithM wrote:I have to agree that there are too many active abilities at this point . I can't play LotV so I can't really tell if it's unhandleable, but it would be nice to have more basic units that just "work" out of the box and do not require pressing a hotkey every 10 seconds. I'm alright with the economy though.
exactly. Like lurker or ravager(so called micro-forcing units), Blizz can make it without putting new hotkeys.
|
I see this is a good reason to implement a method where you are required to maintain 5 bases for optimal income. Fewer active abilities, more focus on the macro aspect so it becomes necessary to keep an eye on 5 bases, which also adds to the skill level but doesn't force you into making purely tactical calls after you made some units.
|
On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh... Clickable abilities are not micro. Micro is more about controlling the movement of units and abusing terrain and / or unit interactions. It's boring to watch an infinite number of differently coloured shiny things appearing on the screen.
|
I think OP should add that Canata was not only a random b-teamer, he was captain of SKT1 (which was one of the best teams in BW, if not the best).
That said, the game is probably 10 patches away from the release. Too soon to say if real compositions will be too ability-driven.
|
Honestly, I have to agree with him.
It's something similar to what TheDwF said about if you speed up the game too much you make it more random and remove strategy. It becomes an APM fest.
I really like certain things about LotV. But at times it does feel like a struggle just to do basic things. If my third gets harassed while I'm doing something else I have like half a second to activate my disruptor before it dies or it will do absolutely nothing. For a unit that costs 300 gas that is quite punishing.
Game needs to have a solid casual base so that it can succeed at the pro level. BW did not have much competition when it came to e-sports, but SC2 has a LOT more. FPS and MOBAs are way more beginner friendly.
So I think that making LotV even harder is not a good idea.
I think LotV with the HotS economy would be fun. Maybe even start with more workers if they want. But don't have the bases run out of minerals so fast.
|
More difficult , more mechanics, more skill, more like broodwar, sounds good to me.
|
As long as the game is good and you offer casual stuff like a great arcade and the archon mode ladder etc. I don't think we have to worry.
Making the game better (even if it makes the game harder) is what matters, not making it easier.
Valve made CS:GO better, even if that meant it would become harder (weapons got a real recoil, you don't hit as well while moving etc...) and it worked well, dumbing a game down and making it easier won't help sc2.
I agree that LotV may have too many abilities, but we should test that more and just focus on improving the game, without having "this is too hard" or "this is too easy" in mind. Starcraft being hard is one of it's strong points than make it unique anyway imo.
|
Russian Federation1607 Posts
Why does everyone act like a pro? I mean this game is hard to master, isn't it? Why a commentator or a diamond player want to play like Maru or herO? Too many buttons? Just don't use them. You don't like to blink-micro, don't blink-micro. You like to a-click win? Do it. But it won't make you a pro.
It's easy to learn, hard to master. Not easy to learn, easy to master.
Try hard or play for fun! (or be a commentator )
|
On July 09 2015 00:23 Jenia6109 wrote:Why does everyone act like a pro? I mean this game is hard to master, isn't it? Why a commentator or a diamond player want to play like Maru or herO? Too many buttons? Just don't use them. You don't like to blink-micro, don't blink-micro. You like to a-click win? Do it. But it won't make you a pro. It's easy to learn, hard to master. Not easy to learn, easy to master. Try hard or play for fun! (or be a commentator ) The point Canata was making that it's turning into hard to learn, hard to master, which is an unappealing concept. It's not as easy as "Too many buttons? Just don't use them." if you want to have fun and improve.
And I hope you realise he's not just some random dude but a former (BW and SC2) pro who to this date still is a pretty good player.
|
Russian Federation1607 Posts
On July 09 2015 00:29 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 00:23 Jenia6109 wrote:Why does everyone act like a pro? I mean this game is hard to master, isn't it? Why a commentator or a diamond player want to play like Maru or herO? Too many buttons? Just don't use them. You don't like to blink-micro, don't blink-micro. You like to a-click win? Do it. But it won't make you a pro. It's easy to learn, hard to master. Not easy to learn, easy to master. Try hard or play for fun! (or be a commentator ) The point Canata was making that it's turning into hard to learn, hard to master, which is an unappealing concept. It's not as easy as "Too many buttons? Just don't use them." if you want to have fun and improve. And I hope you realise he's not just some random dude but a former (BW and SC2) pro who to this date still is a pretty good player. I learned SC2 at first day of playing WoL beta. Did you ever lose to computer AI? I mean it's really easy to learn. There's even a training in the game (unlike BW).
I think Canata means that it's hard to learn to master or something like that but, anyway, to learn to master = to master, so there is no easy way.
PS Maru became a progamer at 13 years old. Was it hard for him to learn a game? I don't think so.
|
Blizzard already made this mistake before. Warcraft 3 had a lower skill cap than BW because of the mechanics of the game. But I got turned off watching it because there were like 7 different attack types doing different damage percentages to like 7 different armor types. And there were a lot of buttons in that game, too.
They really need to go back to BW micro. Most units can only move and shoot. The micro comes from the differing move speeds, attack speeds, attack properties, responsiveness, etc. of the units. There are way too many active abilities now. The temporary buff abilities like the one on void rays are the worst.
The active abilities disguise how boring the design of the base units are. Units like tempests and corruptors were pretty much given active abilities because of how vanilla and boring the base unit is.
|
On July 08 2015 18:53 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh... That's sadly how blizzard understood it, when the reality was: Community: "We would like this and this in the game, which would increase micro-capabilities. And we think the game could do with a little bit of this or this, so expanding players get more rewarded." Blizzard: "We heard you. Extra buttons for all units and everyone gets choked from now on!" .
Lol, couldn't be more true.
|
On July 08 2015 22:37 a_flayer wrote: I see this is a good reason to implement a method where you are required to maintain 5 bases for optimal income. Fewer active abilities, more focus on the macro aspect so it becomes necessary to keep an eye on 5 bases, which also adds to the skill level but doesn't force you into making purely tactical calls after you made some units. You can try this......I made a mod called "Happy Harvesters" which encourages taking more bases by reducing the food taken by workers.
|
On July 09 2015 00:47 Jenia6109 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 00:29 Elentos wrote:On July 09 2015 00:23 Jenia6109 wrote:Why does everyone act like a pro? I mean this game is hard to master, isn't it? Why a commentator or a diamond player want to play like Maru or herO? Too many buttons? Just don't use them. You don't like to blink-micro, don't blink-micro. You like to a-click win? Do it. But it won't make you a pro. It's easy to learn, hard to master. Not easy to learn, easy to master. Try hard or play for fun! (or be a commentator ) The point Canata was making that it's turning into hard to learn, hard to master, which is an unappealing concept. It's not as easy as "Too many buttons? Just don't use them." if you want to have fun and improve. And I hope you realise he's not just some random dude but a former (BW and SC2) pro who to this date still is a pretty good player. I learned SC2 at first day of playing WoL beta. Did you ever lose to computer AI? I mean it's really easy to learn. There's even a training in the game (unlike BW). I think Canata means that it's hard to learn to master or something like that but, anyway, to learn to master = to master, so there is no easy way. PS Maru became a progamer at 13 years old. Was it hard for him to learn a game? I don't think so. But he isn't talking about WoL or HotS, he's talking about LotV and how the "entry barrier" is raised with that. It's about what's going to change with LotV making it harder for new and less skilled players aswell as veterans and skilled players which is unappealing and has the potential to drive people away from the game.
|
Netherlands4511 Posts
It's the macro mechanics that speed up the game immensely. Which it why it feels much more fast-paced and if you disregard the aspect of how hard it was to control your shit properly in BW mechanically, it's actually a harder game because you make decisions much faster and there is 0 room for error.
|
Bisutopia19042 Posts
The new, fast paced economy actually has me playing Starcraft again. I rather enjoy the heavy focus on macro. I have no argument here, but if you asked me, "Am I having fun with new LoTV economy?" then the answer is YES.
|
On July 08 2015 23:31 GGzerG wrote: More difficult , more mechanics, more skill, more like broodwar, sounds good to me. So LotV is more like Broodwar? Oo
|
Bisutopia19042 Posts
On July 09 2015 01:14 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2015 23:31 GGzerG wrote: More difficult , more mechanics, more skill, more like broodwar, sounds good to me. So LotV is more like Broodwar? Oo If that's the target, then I think they are closing in on it in some areas for sure. The fast economy and mass expansions cause a lot of action at many locations on the map based on the games I've played.
|
Guess I'm really in the minority as someone who has genuinely enjoyed playing Void. Hmm.
Edit: I do also agree that maybe there are too many army obliterating abilities at the moment. I love the economy changes though.
|
Minority here too. I'm gettting smashed BY THE AI but having a blast playing
|
Not only was Canata a progamer, Captain of SK, and now commentator, he's also ranked Grand Master in the Korean Ladder. He knows what he's saying.
|
On July 09 2015 01:45 jotmang-nojem wrote: Not only was Canata a progamer, Captain of SK, and now commentator, he's also ranked Grand Master in the Korean Ladder. He knows what he's saying.
Intellect and knowledge can not make up for incompatible values.
|
I think most ppl are having fun, because they made really fun micro interactions and stuff, along with making expanding more important. The bad things are that while there's much more you need to do, all the while you can lose to one mishap, like some Oracles flying into your base. There's a lot more unit options, but they haven't expanded on the tech path at all, which means you see one unit structure and you still have no clue what is coming, because there's so much that can come from it. The instance you make a Star Gate for example, immediately there's 3 units you can make, then you see Fleet Beacon and that allows 3 more units incl. the Mothership. Scouting is much less reliable, you see Factory+Starport that can mean Siege Tank drop, Banshee Harass, Widow Mine drop, Hellions/Hellbat, Cyclones and many other non-standard options. Many of them require different counter measures.
|
|
On July 09 2015 02:06 ejozl wrote: I think most ppl are having fun, because they made really fun micro interactions and stuff, along with making expanding more important. The bad things are that while there's much more you need to do, all the while you can lose to one mishap, like some Oracles flying into your base. There's a lot more unit options, but they haven't expanded on the tech path at all, which means you see one unit structure and you still have no clue what is coming, because there's so much that can come from it. The instance you make a Star Gate for example, immediately there's 3 units you can make, then you see Fleet Beacon and that allows 3 more units incl. the Mothership. Scouting is much less reliable, you see Factory+Starport that can mean Siege Tank drop, Banshee Harass, Widow Mine drop, Hellions/Hellbat, Cyclones and many other non-standard options. Many of them require different counter measures. Yup, probably one of the reasons why the original Starcraft and Starcraft2 design was working with as few units as needed. I assume that the amount of useless or pidgeonholed units is going to skyrocket even more. Otherwise we're gonna have huge scouting problems. But I feel like that's part of the plan for LotV. Blizzard doesnt really plan with some of the units to begin with or tries to push them in niches. (Swarm Host, Sentry, Thor, Ravager, BC, Tempest, Mothership, Collossus) I guess it is kind of like removing them!?
|
On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh...
You've generalized the arguments so much to make your point, that you've misrepresented them.
The problem with WOL and HOTS are things like Force Field, Vortex, Fungal Growth, Abduct, ect... They are one and done spells. You use X ability well, and your opponent can do nothing. Forcefields and Fungal Growth and other spells literally take away opportunities to control units
For that reason, people want more control. Instead Blizzard gives us more to do and more abilities to cast. That isn't more control.
And the worst part is abilities hard countering other abilities. Hard counters are a plague on this game. Think about the interaction between Ravagers and Force Fields.
The control there is all in the Zerg players hand. The Zerg would say "if my opponent builds Sentries, I can counter them with Ravagers and make them useless." And if the Zerg doesn't build Ravagers, then the Force Fields and Disruptors could rip them apart.
So what will happen is, Protoss won't build Sentries and we won't see much of them (save the occasional player who needs one or two for Hallucinations or wants to use Guardian Shield), and unless Ravagers end up being superior to Roaches and Hydras in some way other than the ability to break Force Fields, we simply won't see many Ravagers either.
There are better ways to design a game.
|
I guess if ppl enjoy watching pro games being decided by one mistake they'll enjoy lotv. the comeback potential isn't exactly huge in hots but it is non existant in lotv.
And downfall must be happy to see his exact concept being used by Canata. Hyper-development and making everything goes faster isn't actually good for the game.
|
Bisutopia19042 Posts
On July 09 2015 03:01 sAsImre wrote: I guess if ppl enjoy watching pro games being decided by one mistake they'll enjoy lotv. the comeback potential isn't exactly huge in hots but it is non existant in lotv.
And downfall must be happy to see his exact concept being used by Canata. Hyper-development and making everything goes faster isn't actually good for the game. Your statement is such a blatant lie. There is comeback potential in LoTV. I'd say even if you are in the beta and make your statement it's just plain wrong. Just to be clear, you are saying in no game what so ever where you fall behind there is no chance of winning. I guess I've never been behind in any game of LoTV I've played. But by all means preach another myth that people will just spread around these forums.
edit: sAsImre, your words carry a heavier weight then an average poster. When people hear a caster quote stuff like "non existent comeback potential" and those same people haven't played LoTV then it causes pitch forks to rise over something that isn't proven. Please present data that actually backs up a statement such as yours.
|
With their inability to balance HotS after all this time I honestly wish that they would just make fun to use units and a more casual friendly experience for LotV.
SC2 has been eclipsed as an eSport and we are losing, not gaining ground on the popular games (Dota2, LoL, HearthStone, Heroes, CS:GO, COD). Now is the time to balance the game for the casual player and let the eSports side continue its inevitable decline.
|
On July 09 2015 03:32 DeadByDawn wrote: With their inability to balance HotS after all this time I honestly wish that they would just make fun to use units and a more casual friendly experience for LotV.
SC2 has been eclipsed as an eSport and we are losing, not gaining ground on the popular games (Dota2, LoL, HearthStone, Heroes, CS:GO, COD). Now is the time to balance the game for the casual player and let the eSports side continue its inevitable decline. They should just focus on unit basic interactions. A balanced game that is fun to play even with basic units that do not have abilities and not a frustrating/stressful game to play (1 lost engagement= loss without comeback potential) will increase the popularity of the game more. Focus on the desire of the players first, then E-sports and spectators for sc2 come naturally.
I have a beta key and didnt even touch lotv for months after about 50 games. Its basically the same as HOTS, except that its now sped up with more wonky abilites and frustrating units.
|
On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh...
This, people will seriously never be pleased. For years people have argued that the game is too dumbed down compared to BW so this is a hilarious bit of irony from a "pro gamer" that I have never heard of.
The only thing that makes the game feel too fast is how by the time you saturate your natural your main is already getting mined out and you need to start your third, but that is waay better then being able to just turtle on your original 3 bases for 15 minutes.
If they just reduced the starting workers to 10 instead of 12 LOTV would be damn near perfect economy wise. It would still start faster but not tooooo too fast.
|
On July 09 2015 03:32 DeadByDawn wrote: With their inability to balance HotS after all this time I honestly wish that they would just make fun to use units and a more casual friendly experience for LotV.
SC2 has been eclipsed as an eSport and we are losing, not gaining ground on the popular games (Dota2, LoL, HearthStone, Heroes, CS:GO, COD). Now is the time to balance the game for the casual player and let the eSports side continue its inevitable decline.
You know what all those games have in common? An entry-barrier that is closer to the core than to the surface. And it would be possible for RTS games too if communities and developers wouldnt start off with "well, it's gotta be insanely hard and the only way to make it popular is to give it all the gimmicks that Mobas have".
|
The problem with LOTV is that Blizzard heard the community begging to make the units more microable. They then ignored the work done by lalush and jakatak and added more "micro" by simply adding more buttons to press. Units are still slow and unresponsive, but the have an ability so I guess that means they're more microable in Blizzard's eyes.
|
Maybe economically it can be similar to bw but units interactions are still pretty bad: -too much powerful harass & bullshits -hard counters and speedlight fights -too many spellcasters, i mean almost every unit has an abilty that must be activated or it is garbage, this maybe can make qxc happy but not me, the casual gold/plat player, as protoss i need 74 control groups to make effective all units, and im sorry im not an octopus
Where are the strategy elements in all this?
For all those reasons i dont think i will buy the game at the actual stage of development
|
On July 09 2015 03:43 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh... This, people will seriously never be pleased. For years people have argued that the game is too dumbed down compared to BW so this is a hilarious bit of irony from a "pro gamer" that I have never heard of. The only thing that makes the game feel too fast is how by the time you saturate your natural your main is already getting mined out and you need to start your third, but that is waay better then being able to just turtle on your original 3 bases for 15 minutes. If they just reduced the starting workers to 10 instead of 12 LOTV would be damn near perfect economy wise. It would still start faster but not tooooo too fast. more micro by units positioning/movement DURING a fight is what we need. NOT moar spells. Economy is too high/fast since WoL. game-pace is way too fast and utterly boring with 50+ supply producing per minutes nonstop. 2sec 200/200 fights are way too short. sc2 has too many hardcounter units.
|
I find SC2 to be very lonely, and for a very good reason. None of my friends want to play it, because it is so intimidating and ultimately unsocial. A good game is one that can both be picked up by a casual player and enjoyed, and invested into by a hardcore gamer for mastery of it. Right now, SC2 does little to attract new players who just want to have fun; instead, almost everyone I know only uses SC2 for it's Arcade features, and that certainly doesn't last very long either.
When I announced that LotV was going to be faster paced, with more abilities and a heavy emphasis on fast expanding, that quickly put a nail in the coffin for any of my friends who were showing remote interest in SC2. It simply doesn't attract players (especially when there are "easier", more community orientated games that they can pick up and enjoy without ladder anxiety).
While I personally enjoy the challenge of SC2, and many others do as well, most people don't want an antisocial steep skill curve, and both sides need to seriously be considered if SC2 is going to see any growth, or continue to decline (and you can't tell me it isn't in a decline.)
|
The macro mechanic ideas (mule, chrono boost, larva) originated from this site since we were trying to come up with ways to maintain some sort of skill ceiling and APM with the introduction of MBS, so Blizz does listen to their fans. Little did we know this increased the pace of the game and everything thereafter, thereby making expanding a shitty prospect since you can max out on 2 bases in a matter of minutes. Take said 200/200 army and slam it into your opponent's army and hope you come out on top.
Anyone got any other bright ideas?
|
On July 09 2015 04:19 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 03:43 Beelzebub1 wrote:On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh... This, people will seriously never be pleased. For years people have argued that the game is too dumbed down compared to BW so this is a hilarious bit of irony from a "pro gamer" that I have never heard of. The only thing that makes the game feel too fast is how by the time you saturate your natural your main is already getting mined out and you need to start your third, but that is waay better then being able to just turtle on your original 3 bases for 15 minutes. If they just reduced the starting workers to 10 instead of 12 LOTV would be damn near perfect economy wise. It would still start faster but not tooooo too fast. more micro by units positioning/movement DURING a fight is what we need. NOT moar spells. Economy is too high/fast since WoL. game-pace is way too fast and utterly boring with 50+ supply producing per minutes nonstop. 2sec 200/200 fights are way too short. sc2 has too many hardcounter units.
Oh no I completely agree with you, more abilities does not equal more control, probably some of the abilities are going to be trimmed by the end of the beta just like they did with HOTS (I mean we can only hope) but I think we both know that to fix the things you are talking about would require design changes that the entire community DAMN well knows that David is not going to do any of that.
So instead of posting ideas or changes/criticisms of things we know aren't going to happen, let's just try to make the game as good as we can in the thresh hold of balance changes that are actually realistic to expect.
That being said, Gateway units need buffs (Zealots at least need legs to keep up and be microable in this faster paced meta) and Warpgate needs either a redesign or some type of tech movement with an actual buff to the Gateway itself so there is some type of choice other then, "rush to warpgate as fast as possible because it's better then gateways in every single scenario".
|
On July 09 2015 03:50 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 03:32 DeadByDawn wrote: With their inability to balance HotS after all this time I honestly wish that they would just make fun to use units and a more casual friendly experience for LotV.
SC2 has been eclipsed as an eSport and we are losing, not gaining ground on the popular games (Dota2, LoL, HearthStone, Heroes, CS:GO, COD). Now is the time to balance the game for the casual player and let the eSports side continue its inevitable decline. You know what all those games have in common? An entry-barrier that is closer to the core than to the surface. And it would be possible for RTS games too if communities and developers wouldnt start off with "well, it's gotta be insanely hard and the only way to make it popular is to give it all the gimmicks that Mobas have". I actually don't agree with your point here, especially mobas have an insanely high entry barrier, mostly due to the barrier of knowledge. (yes EVEN lol) The problem isn't how hard it is to be somewhat decent (and i don't talk about competetively decent), the problem is that all the other games have moments in the gameplay itself which are rewarding even if you lose. In starcraft this isn't really the case, nobody will be happy cause he killed some enemy units. In csgo every round is another chance to have a good round. In mobas you will almost always have the chance to do something important in teamfights. In hearthstone you will be lucky with the draw/RNG. In sc2? Well you either lose or you win pretty much. Almost nobody will say "hey i held that first wave, that was so enjoyable". This is imo the problem for most people.
|
Im sticking with BW. Sc2 is simply not my cup of tea. I agree with Canata in most parts, but Id still say its just the tip of the iceberg. The thing is, what canata is saying is not inherently a bad thing.
Oh and Id actually put it like this: BW is easy to learn, impossible to master. (Interesting for players, less so for viewers) SC2 is hard to learn, easy to almost master. (Interesting for viewers, less so for players)
Its how I see it.
|
On July 09 2015 05:24 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 03:50 Big J wrote:On July 09 2015 03:32 DeadByDawn wrote: With their inability to balance HotS after all this time I honestly wish that they would just make fun to use units and a more casual friendly experience for LotV.
SC2 has been eclipsed as an eSport and we are losing, not gaining ground on the popular games (Dota2, LoL, HearthStone, Heroes, CS:GO, COD). Now is the time to balance the game for the casual player and let the eSports side continue its inevitable decline. You know what all those games have in common? An entry-barrier that is closer to the core than to the surface. And it would be possible for RTS games too if communities and developers wouldnt start off with "well, it's gotta be insanely hard and the only way to make it popular is to give it all the gimmicks that Mobas have". I actually don't agree with your point here, especially mobas have an insanely high entry barrier, mostly due to the barrier of knowledge. (yes EVEN lol) The problem isn't how hard it is to be somewhat decent (and i don't talk about competetively decent), the problem is that all the other games have moments in the gameplay itself which are rewarding even if you lose. In starcraft this isn't really the case, nobody will be happy cause he killed some enemy units. In csgo every round is another chance to have a good round. In mobas you will almost always have the chance to do something important in teamfights. In hearthstone you will be lucky with the draw/RNG. In sc2? Well you either lose or you win pretty much. Almost nobody will say "hey i held that first wave, that was so enjoyable". This is imo the problem for most people.
I see your point, but honestly, to start playing DotA it took me like 5games. Then I had settled on a first hero I could start to play at a low level and be rewarded with being a valueable component in those "DotA 5.xx only noobs GER" games on WC3 battle.net. Of course I wasn't good and the items I bought weren't really the best and all that shit, but I was good enough to run around, focus my attention on my guy and get kills on creeps and opponents. And that's basically all there is to the game, you just have to get better at all of that. But you breach the skill floor very fast and it gets fun very fast. In SC2 you just know when you play that you are shit. You are so shit that you don't even know where to begin to train. You are so shit that you don't know what to build against what, when to build what, how to build what or just to utilize what you built. New players - even experienced players - stray away from using anything that forces extra control groups and needs manual utilization. You skip >50% of the games content just to get your basics going like macro and getting a natural. You resort to using the most boring a-move units like colossi or roaches to get any success. And then you grind out 100games and still you are so shit that you are too embarassed to show your replays because you know everything you do is so bad that you don't even know where to begin. I think that's the problem with SC2. You realize all of that and then you start blaming the game ("balance") and the opponent's strategies ("cheap play") and get stressed and stop playing.
Edit: I guess what I'm saying is that too much of the game's difficulty stems from the UI and the optimization of mechanics and strategies, rather than from what your opponent does.
|
China6284 Posts
On July 09 2015 05:33 iloveav wrote: Im sticking with BW. Sc2 is simply not my cup of tea. I agree with Canata in most parts, but Id still say its just the tip of the iceberg. The thing is, what canata is saying is not inherently a bad thing.
Oh and Id actually put it like this: BW is easy to learn, impossible to master. (Interesting for players, less so for viewers) SC2 is hard to learn, easy to almost master. (Interesting for viewers, less so for players)
Its how I see it.
I don't really agree that SC2 is "hard to learn, easy to almost master", on the grand scheme of things SC2 is about as easy to get into as BW, slightly easier to master due to mechanic changes but still very difficult for average players.
The current LotV design philosophy is hardcore esports tail catching mode, but that ship has sailed. Ditching fun and chasing esports for the sake of esports won't get you anywhere since you need a healthy player base to support esports properly, but there isn't a good custom games solution for casual players to mess around unlike in BW and War3. The development status of LotV is a clear sign of lacking human resources to actually make big changes, as evidenced by the almost non-existent of meaningful client/engine/feature changes, the only change the client features received was a code merge for chat from Heroes of the Storm. While Heroes, the No.1 priority game for Team 1, received several massive UI redesigns in its beta phase.
|
I don't really agree with Canata here. If units become more difficult to use, it doesn't affect lower level players vs each other as they both have bad unit control. They will find someone on the ladder who is just as bad and incapable of using units to their ability, and they will both have a fun game. It only becomes pronounced when they are playing someone who is much better.
The important point Blizz has to master is that the 3 races require relatively the same levels of effort to succeed at the various skill levels, from newb to pro, otherwise a race can seem overpowered at a given level.
|
On July 09 2015 03:25 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 03:01 sAsImre wrote: I guess if ppl enjoy watching pro games being decided by one mistake they'll enjoy lotv. the comeback potential isn't exactly huge in hots but it is non existant in lotv.
And downfall must be happy to see his exact concept being used by Canata. Hyper-development and making everything goes faster isn't actually good for the game. Your statement is such a blatant lie. There is comeback potential in LoTV. I'd say even if you are in the beta and make your statement it's just plain wrong. Just to be clear, you are saying in no game what so ever where you fall behind there is no chance of winning. I guess I've never been behind in any game of LoTV I've played. But by all means preach another myth that people will just spread around these forums. edit: sAsImre, your words carry a heavier weight then an average poster. When people hear a caster quote stuff like "non existent comeback potential" and those same people haven't played LoTV then it causes pitch forks to rise over something that isn't proven. Please present data that actually backs up a statement such as yours.
sAsImre's words may be exaggerated but I agree with his observation. Come back potential is determined by the opportunity cost of decision making. Generally speaking, the faster a game plays out, the higher the opportunity cost of making any decisions, and the less chances for making come backs.
To illustrate, if in 2 minutes of game time, a player can either make 5 marines or 5 workers, the opportunity cost of either decision is low. The 5 extra marines player won't be very behind in economy, nor will the 5 extra workers player be very behind in army value, both players can easily make a come back.
Now if the game plays faster, in the same 2 minutes of game time, a player can either make 20 marines or 20 workers, the opportunity cost of either decision is now much higher. The 20 extra marines player is way too behind in economy to catch up in workers later, his attack is now all-in, he either wins the game with this attack or he gets rolled by the monstrous economy of his opponent later. The chances of making a come back drops significantly with the faster game pace.
LOTV is designed to play out faster than HOTS. Resources mine out faster, so the decision to not go for an expansion carries higher opportunity costs. A HOTS Terran can begins his parade push vs zerg on 3 bases and not worry about a 4th for quite sometime, if his initial push doesn't pan out, he has more TIME to make a come back before he is mined out. A LOTV Terran doing the same parade push on 3 base faces higher opportunity cost for not taking a 4th, if his initial push doesn't pan out, he has less TIME to make a come back before he is mine out. The faster game pace directly translates into higher opportunity costs for all decisions, and allow less come back chances.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, many players enjoy the faster pace even if the opportunity costs are higher, even if the come back potential is lower. But players who wants more come back chances will find LOTV a more frustrating game than HOTS.
|
Bisutopia19042 Posts
@w3jjjj, that's a valid argument. Thanks for your response. I see that as an issue if the new units, balance, and maps can't make up for the things you pointed out. I think blizzard still has an shot to find a balance between aggressive expanding and military investment.
|
On July 09 2015 07:24 w3jjjj wrote:LOTV is designed to play out faster than HOTS. Resources mine out faster, so the decision to not go for an expansion carries higher opportunity costs. A HOTS Terran can begins his parade push vs zerg on 3 bases and not worry about a 4th for quite sometime, if his initial push doesn't pan out, he has more TIME to make a come back before he is mined out. A LOTV Terran doing the same parade push on 3 base faces higher opportunity cost for not taking a 4th, if his initial push doesn't pan out, he has less TIME to make a come back before he is mine out. The faster game pace directly translates into higher opportunity costs for all decisions, and allow less come back chances.
This is only strictly true if players adopt HOTS builds mineral-for-mineral. As BisuDagger suggests, LOTV unit balance, map size and features, defender's advantage, and the strategies that ensue from the combination of all these things will have much more say in which positions are recoverable and which ones are not than game speed.
Just to illustrate: increase Bunker build time to 5 minutes while providing bunkered Marines with +50 DPS, and two bunkers at home will hold just about any midgame counter aggression. There's your comeback opportunity in a faster pace game.
|
On July 09 2015 06:41 ElMeanYo wrote: I don't really agree with Canata here. If units become more difficult to use, it doesn't affect lower level players vs each other as they both have bad unit control. They will find someone on the ladder who is just as bad and incapable of using units to their ability, and they will both have a fun game. It only becomes pronounced when they are playing someone who is much better.
The important point Blizz has to master is that the 3 races require relatively the same levels of effort to succeed at the various skill levels, from newb to pro, otherwise a race can seem overpowered at a given level. I disagree. This might be true if it wasnt humans playing against each other but artificial intelligences. A human will not have fun if he/she realizes that he/she is bad at a game. Not being able to use your units is frustrating. Watching your units die by the dozens without doing much because you are not good enough to control them does not suddenly become better just because your enemy has the same problem every now and then. At some point the game makes you feel like garbage for not being good enough, and at that point it is no longer fun no matter how much worse your opponent is.
|
Bisutopia19042 Posts
On July 09 2015 09:05 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 06:41 ElMeanYo wrote: I don't really agree with Canata here. If units become more difficult to use, it doesn't affect lower level players vs each other as they both have bad unit control. They will find someone on the ladder who is just as bad and incapable of using units to their ability, and they will both have a fun game. It only becomes pronounced when they are playing someone who is much better.
The important point Blizz has to master is that the 3 races require relatively the same levels of effort to succeed at the various skill levels, from newb to pro, otherwise a race can seem overpowered at a given level. I disagree. This might be true if it wasnt humans playing against each other but artificial intelligences. A human will not have fun if he/she realizes that he/she is bad at a game. Not being able to use your units is frustrating. Watching your units die by the dozens without doing much because you are not good enough to control them does not suddenly become better just because your enemy has the same problem every now and then. At some point the game makes you feel like garbage for not being good enough, and at that point it is no longer fun no matter how much worse your opponent is. I'm terrible at brood war. The game is incredibly frustrating. Those damn protoss never do what I want. (Looking at you dragoons!) I don't storm well, execute drop play, keep scouting workers alive, recall effectively. Still, I love the hell out of the game.
|
On July 09 2015 09:05 RoomOfMush wrote:At some point the game makes you feel like garbage for not being good enough, and at that point it is no longer fun no matter how much worse your opponent is.
I can't think of one remotely competitive game that under no circumstances "makes you feel like garbage for not being good enough."
I'm trying to get better at tennis, and you better believe I feel like garbage all the time. If there is sufficient perceived reward for winning (prestige, fitness, challenge, social entertainment, etc.) then people will play, no matter how grueling it is. If not, they won't.
edit: stupid double negatives
|
On July 09 2015 09:04 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 07:24 w3jjjj wrote:LOTV is designed to play out faster than HOTS. Resources mine out faster, so the decision to not go for an expansion carries higher opportunity costs. A HOTS Terran can begins his parade push vs zerg on 3 bases and not worry about a 4th for quite sometime, if his initial push doesn't pan out, he has more TIME to make a come back before he is mined out. A LOTV Terran doing the same parade push on 3 base faces higher opportunity cost for not taking a 4th, if his initial push doesn't pan out, he has less TIME to make a come back before he is mine out. The faster game pace directly translates into higher opportunity costs for all decisions, and allow less come back chances. This is only strictly true if players adopt HOTS builds mineral-for-mineral. As BisuDagger suggests, LOTV unit balance, map size and features, defender's advantage, and the strategies that ensue from the combination of all these things will have much more say in which positions are recoverable and which ones are not than game speed. Just to illustrate: increase Bunker build time to 5 minutes while providing bunkered Marines with +50 DPS, and two bunkers at home will hold just about any midgame counter aggression. There's your comeback opportunity in a faster pace game.
I've actually been thinking a lot about defender's advantage lately... Increasing defender's advantage may allow more come backs, but I fear it may also encourage players to turtle. In the late game, a player's decision to attack or defend is heavily influenced by defender's advantage. Raising defender's advantage encourages defending and discourages attacking, while lowering defender's advantage encourages attacking and discourages defending.
I'm in speculation territory since the game isn't finished, but I fear when we combine a few factors, namely 1. same high resource gathering speed of HOTS, 2. same high defender's advantage of HOTS, and 3. higher opportunity cost of not expanding due to resources mine out faster. The combination of these factors may actually lead the game into long turtle wars once the meta stabilizes. Let me explain my thoughts:
First, while LOTV reduces total resources available, it does not lower resource gathering speed. The issue here is not how many death balls a player can re-max on 3 bases, but rather how fast he can make his very first death ball, and as far as I can tell in beta, the speed of making your very first death ball hasn't changed from HOTS. You just won't have money to re-max on it without more expansions.
Second, defender's advantage is already very high in HOTS, if your opponent is turtling on his maxed out death ball, attacking into it is very difficult and often result in heavier loses for the attacker. Think swarmhost turtle zerg (pre-nerf), if Zerg was determined to sit on wall of spine/spore/swarmhost/viper/corrupter, it was extremely difficult to break this position. I strongly support the nerf to swarmhost (and PDD) because by lowering defender's advantage, we encourage more attacking and less turtling.
Third, resources mine out faster means higher opportunity cost for not expanding. If your resources are running low, even in HOTS, securing more resources is usually the safer decision than attacking your opponent, because if your attack fails and you no longer have your economy, the game ends in your loss. This is even more true in LOTV when your resources mine out faster. Given the choice to attack vs defend and expand, defending and securing more resources will in most cases be the safer option.
Combining the three factors, a player who has made his first death ball on 3 bases now has to make a decision. How does he use his death ball? Does he go attack into his opponent where his opponent enjoys defender's advantage? And if he fails the attack his main and natural will mine out and he basically loses the game.. Or does he use his death ball to secure a 4th and a 5th, park his death ball at a favorable defensive position where he enjoys defender's advantage? The defending (read turtling) choice is better because not only will the defender enjoy better engagements from defender's advantage, he also plays safe by securing more resources. I can already see situations where both players have this mentality, and both players would rather expand and defend than to attack each other, and long turtle wars emerge.
One potential fix is to keep defender's advantage high in the mid game, but lower it in the late game, so when both players are on death balls, the defender no longer enjoys more favorable trades. This will encourage more attacking and less defending.
|
On July 09 2015 09:18 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 09:05 RoomOfMush wrote:At some point the game makes you feel like garbage for not being good enough, and at that point it is no longer fun no matter how much worse your opponent is. I can't think of one remotely competitive game that under no circumstances "makes you feel like garbage for not being good enough." I'm trying to get better at tennis, and you better believe I feel like garbage all the time. If there is sufficient perceived reward for winning (prestige, fitness, challenge, social entertainment, etc.) then people will play, no matter how grueling it is. If not, they won't. edit: stupid double negatives
And some games are played by more players and others by less players. Some even die because the community shrinks so much that the presitge, social entertainment and so on becomes so little that players stop playing. Hence there must be a difference in reward size between games. And obviously SC2 fails to reward players that don't go somewhat hardcore into it. Other games don't and that is why they are more popular. And Blizzard punishes non-hardcore players even harder in LotV.
The problem in all of these discussions, especially on Teamliquid.net is that only the hardcores discuss to begin with. So you always end up with "just learn to play" and "I don't care if it is hard, I like the challenge" arguments. I guess it represents the playerbase and why not make the game for those who play it, one may say. Well, it's not a good scenario for a game on life support. Especially if you do so in a manner that may additionally drive away part of the existing community.
|
Didn't read much other than the op. However, as a passionate lover of brood war, the problem with sc2 is instead of the time resource being filled naturally, blizzard needs to come up with artificial tedious tasks to fill that time. That is why you have all these extra macro mechanics and abilities on every unit.
They don't really add anything to the enjoyment of the game. In brood war you felt as if you were fighting a battle against time, struggling to keep up with your opponents speed. It was a macro game. A macro game where you could gain an advantage by forcing your opponent to focus on an attack or harass, in order to slow their ability to macro effectively. In sc2 your opponent can macro basically just as well while being surprise attacked as they can with no attack to face at all. So no advantage is gained from constant aggression unless you happen to score a victory in that aggression. An example: in brood war if you played against a sick 300 apm terran, who was constantly moving out with a smaller force while also dropping your bases you would struggle heavily as a slower zerg. You simply wouldnt be able to keep up with all the actions needed to defend successfully. I understand this is a over simplification but a terran in sc2 is better off saving up and moving out with a unbeatable force than using constant smaller attacks because a zerg is more likely to be able to defend while maintaining maximum production. The downside is they won't be spreading as much creep, but thats much different than letting your resources get to over 2000 as you desperate struggle to get all your units where they need to be.
In the current sc2 the game is about fighting against tedious micro actions over and over again. It's not fluid or fun. To be honest this is what many TL.net veterans predicted would happen with sc2 when we first learned that it would "of course" have auto mining, (nearly)unlimited unit selection, and multiple building selection.
To me its less about skill gaps and more about "why am I doing this?". Hope this makes sense.
Note: reading around i see that others are echoing this, such as w3jjj. Blizzard needs to worry not about keeping players busy, but keeping players attacking.
|
Day9 emphatically brought up very good points in his Starbow episodes -- How in BW and Starbow, you can attack and defend at the same time through positioning. If you haven't seen it, look it up, it's a really good watch and an expose on what's wrong with SC2 where it's an either/or situation.
By making SC2 all about harass, action, and loldrops, positioning your units at strategic locations on the map is counterproductive since this opens up your bases to drops. You're units are useful only when they're either turtling in the base or at the gates of your opponent's base.
Game issues such as "turtling" automatically go away with good game design, of which we'll never see as long as DKim has a hard-on for drop play.
|
|
On July 09 2015 06:41 ElMeanYo wrote: I don't really agree with Canata here. If units become more difficult to use, it doesn't affect lower level players vs each other as they both have bad unit control.
Right.
So it wouldn't really matter if we raised basketball hoops to 25 feet high, because pros would still be able to score even though the game would become harder, so it wouldn't affect lower level players versus each other because they're bad shots would become even worse, and it'd be a race for the first team to score even a single shot. It's be a frustrating terrible good time, everyone likes to watch miss after miss after miss!
It fact, all the low level players would just become spectators, because the game would end up being more fun to spectate than play.
And that would be odd, because that game would be less fun to spectate than a game with the hoop at regulation height. I guess that says a lot about how fun the game becomes when the hoop is 25 feet high.
On July 09 2015 09:18 pure.Wasted wrote:
I'm trying to get better at tennis, and you better believe I feel like garbage all the time. If there is sufficient perceived reward for winning (prestige, fitness, challenge, social entertainment, etc.) then people will play, no matter how grueling it is. If not, they won't.
We should probably make the game harder and force you to play with a racket one quarter the size you have now. It will affect you and the "garbage" opponent you're facing equally, and the game will be more fun to play because it is will be more grueling.
Actually, let's just get rid of rackets all together, just use a baseball bat, that will make the game really hard. Sounds fun!
In fact, every game should be made as hard as possible at all times. That is why LoL is so successful, because it is so hard to play!
|
I feel Canata is right on the money with this one.
High skill ceiling is great but not when you NEED to do things that are very hard just to keep yourself in the game. I haven't played a lot of competetive bw but the way I see it skill and multitasking gave small advantages that over time became a big advantage. In sc2 one moment of bad multitasking or insufficient micro will have your whole army dead with basically no counter damage done. In bw you could win fights you shouldn't have if you microed well and your opponent didn't but you would still have taken damage its a huge difference here.
SC2 does not reward multitasking and good micro it punished bad multitasking and bad micro ruthlessly. Mistakes are unforgiving, we see this happen in pro matches a lot too. One mistake costing someone the game almost no matter how ahead the player was before, comebacks are good mistakes leading to defeats are good but not the scale at how punishing a mistake can be nowadays.
Adding more ablities to use makes the skill ceiling go up but it also makes the game much more punishing if you miss micro your army.
Why make the game faster and faster and faster until no one can play the game well enough to do what you are "supposed to". SC2 is almost already a game more about who plays the least bad than it is about who plays the best.
Slow the game down, don't add to the insanity of speedvacs, faster unload, teleporting BCs, unstoppable nyduses. I mean comeon, its basically becoming more and more of a game made for Maru. A game were that isn't about playing well, its about making the opponent play slightly worse. (Love Maru, huge fan but still)
|
Complexity arising out of simplicity is always the best way to go.... Complexity for the sake of complexity doesn't work.
Think: LoL, WoW, Chess, FPSs, Bridge, Soccer, AOE, SC1, Basketball, Fishing, Poker, Track and Field, basically anything that is competitive and popular, ETC.., The key being: ordinary people can understand and play, but only with extraordinary effort (and some natural talent) can a person become pro.
I do believe the complexity of SC2 (and fun) lies in micro... however complicating the units just makes it complicated. Eazy fix: let units live longer, ie get microed more, , open up the maps so units have more room to micro, don't have spells that make micro eazier or more difficult for players w/o proper counters (thus causing an imbalance). An example of a "bad" spell in this context is the siege tank pick-up and the new warp prism. In these situations it is much eazier for the dropper to micro and safe his units then the defender. In these spells the defender must chase. And its ugly.
For those who think the new spells on all units are good, think about the 2-3 years of losing players while discovering the best builds... Think of all the situations a player must be prepared to face in the first 10 mins. Think of all the auto-loses.
Fire David Kim.
|
OMG Canata jumped on the Casual train. Must have something to do with his job as a commentator.
Imo LotV needs to fall back to the BW origins in terms of a) no deathballs b) no hard counters
You could even win fights with weaker units in BW if you micro better than your opponent. In SC2 you will lose almost always if you opponent has a hard counter, no matter how good you micro.
|
On July 09 2015 01:10 BisuDagger wrote: The new, fast paced economy actually has me playing Starcraft again. I rather enjoy the heavy focus on macro. I have no argument here, but if you asked me, "Am I having fun with new LoTV economy?" then the answer is YES. Actually I'm fine with the new econonmy but the combination of "macro is really challenging" and "room for 0 mistakes in fights and micro" is just plain stupid. I feel like the most important thing about sc2 is how unforgiving it is.
|
On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh...
Canata is not specifically complaining about the "micro". The issue is that the game feels too difficult for players.
|
On July 09 2015 03:25 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 03:01 sAsImre wrote: I guess if ppl enjoy watching pro games being decided by one mistake they'll enjoy lotv. the comeback potential isn't exactly huge in hots but it is non existant in lotv.
And downfall must be happy to see his exact concept being used by Canata. Hyper-development and making everything goes faster isn't actually good for the game. Your statement is such a blatant lie. There is comeback potential in LoTV. I'd say even if you are in the beta and make your statement it's just plain wrong. Just to be clear, you are saying in no game what so ever where you fall behind there is no chance of winning. I guess I've never been behind in any game of LoTV I've played. But by all means preach another myth that people will just spread around these forums. edit: sAsImre, your words carry a heavier weight then an average poster. When people hear a caster quote stuff like "non existent comeback potential" and those same people haven't played LoTV then it causes pitch forks to rise over something that isn't proven. Please present data that actually backs up a statement such as yours.
The thing is that if you lose a base you're fucked so hard because you're mined out so fast. Like if you lose your 4th you're probably dead if you can't deal a blow back immediately since your econ will be gone in 2 minutes. Tbh I should've said almost non existant, since you can always bounce back in the next minute if you have an army. Losing a fight while being on scrappy eco will be gg 99% of time except if huge maps are the norm. And by huge it means deadwing cross pos minimum and losing the fight in your opponent side. Lotv is basically end game economy at minute 10, and don't tell me that in these situations there is much comeback potential when you either lose a base or a fight and you've got no income/bank. On the other hand it creates really tenses moment, as a caster it'll be a cool thing if we can avoid the whole "I cannot engage my opponent army and he cannot either" scenario.
And yes I'm really really bitter and sad about lotv right now but the one thing I'd like to be changed is macro mechanics. Keep them but tune them down and suddenly you slowed down the game a bit while keeping the need to expand rather quickly since you'll still mined out when you'll reach the late game but you'll allow the mid game to exist, and a bit the early game despite the 12 worker start.
btw you can call me imre, sAs is just my first clan haha
|
On July 09 2015 19:02 boxerfred wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 01:10 BisuDagger wrote: The new, fast paced economy actually has me playing Starcraft again. I rather enjoy the heavy focus on macro. I have no argument here, but if you asked me, "Am I having fun with new LoTV economy?" then the answer is YES. Actually I'm fine with the new econonmy but the combination of "macro is really challenging" and "room for 0 mistakes in fights and micro" is just plain stupid. I feel like the most important thing about sc2 is how unforgiving it is.
The more I play LotV, the less I feel like the "new economy" impacts the early-midgame strategies a lot. The time my main starts falling to half minerals is like 9:00, which with HotS-time is like 12:30. But with the accelerated start, I think at 12:30 you should be easily able to have a 4th base anyways, so you never really fall below 3-4base saturation in the midgame. The real deal is imo that you are just cut off resources at some much earlier point in the lategame as previously. As the rough strategy is still the same - rush and saturate 3bases and eventually a 4th - what happens is that your first 3bases run out in quick succession early and the game drags on on a 1-2basish economy, because you still cannot hold more than 4-5bases. And then it starts feeling weird because you have all that production built up that you can no longer afford, but not building it up in the midgame for when you have 3bases running is just not really possible. It's a bit like the conclusion of the FRB-mod from Barrin back in the days, without a defensive mechanism like high ground it is very hard to actually spread out. Especially against the mobile styles like Zerg and Bio.
|
On July 09 2015 21:13 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 19:02 boxerfred wrote:On July 09 2015 01:10 BisuDagger wrote: The new, fast paced economy actually has me playing Starcraft again. I rather enjoy the heavy focus on macro. I have no argument here, but if you asked me, "Am I having fun with new LoTV economy?" then the answer is YES. Actually I'm fine with the new econonmy but the combination of "macro is really challenging" and "room for 0 mistakes in fights and micro" is just plain stupid. I feel like the most important thing about sc2 is how unforgiving it is. The more I play LotV, the less I feel like the "new economy" impacts the early-midgame strategies a lot. The time my main starts falling to half minerals is like 9:00, which with HotS-time is like 12:30. But with the accelerated start, I think at 12:30 you should be easily able to have a 4th base anyways, so you never really fall below 3-4base saturation in the midgame. The real deal is imo that you are just cut off resources at some much earlier point in the lategame as previously. As the rough strategy is still the same - rush and saturate 3bases and eventually a 4th - what happens is that your first 3bases run out in quick succession early and the game drags on on a 1-2basish economy, because you still cannot hold more than 4-5bases. And then it starts feeling weird because you have all that production built up that you can no longer afford, but not building it up in the midgame for when you have 3bases running is just not really possible. It's a bit like the conclusion of the FRB-mod from Barrin back in the days, without a defensive mechanism like high ground it is very hard to actually spread out. Especially against the mobile styles like Zerg and Bio.
You're just playing this rare endgame scenarii where you get everything except money most of the games compared to a game out of dozens in hots/wol.
|
On July 09 2015 21:33 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 21:13 Big J wrote:On July 09 2015 19:02 boxerfred wrote:On July 09 2015 01:10 BisuDagger wrote: The new, fast paced economy actually has me playing Starcraft again. I rather enjoy the heavy focus on macro. I have no argument here, but if you asked me, "Am I having fun with new LoTV economy?" then the answer is YES. Actually I'm fine with the new econonmy but the combination of "macro is really challenging" and "room for 0 mistakes in fights and micro" is just plain stupid. I feel like the most important thing about sc2 is how unforgiving it is. The more I play LotV, the less I feel like the "new economy" impacts the early-midgame strategies a lot. The time my main starts falling to half minerals is like 9:00, which with HotS-time is like 12:30. But with the accelerated start, I think at 12:30 you should be easily able to have a 4th base anyways, so you never really fall below 3-4base saturation in the midgame. The real deal is imo that you are just cut off resources at some much earlier point in the lategame as previously. As the rough strategy is still the same - rush and saturate 3bases and eventually a 4th - what happens is that your first 3bases run out in quick succession early and the game drags on on a 1-2basish economy, because you still cannot hold more than 4-5bases. And then it starts feeling weird because you have all that production built up that you can no longer afford, but not building it up in the midgame for when you have 3bases running is just not really possible. It's a bit like the conclusion of the FRB-mod from Barrin back in the days, without a defensive mechanism like high ground it is very hard to actually spread out. Especially against the mobile styles like Zerg and Bio. You're just playing this rare endgame scenarii where you get everything except money most of the games compared to a game out of dozens in hots/wol.
Yeah, it's kind of like that. You get into this sort of game very often in LotV as it often starts around 10-12mins (14-17 HotS mins). But besides that, I don't feel that much difference between economies of HotS and LotV in macro games.
|
On July 09 2015 21:47 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 21:33 sAsImre wrote:On July 09 2015 21:13 Big J wrote:On July 09 2015 19:02 boxerfred wrote:On July 09 2015 01:10 BisuDagger wrote: The new, fast paced economy actually has me playing Starcraft again. I rather enjoy the heavy focus on macro. I have no argument here, but if you asked me, "Am I having fun with new LoTV economy?" then the answer is YES. Actually I'm fine with the new econonmy but the combination of "macro is really challenging" and "room for 0 mistakes in fights and micro" is just plain stupid. I feel like the most important thing about sc2 is how unforgiving it is. The more I play LotV, the less I feel like the "new economy" impacts the early-midgame strategies a lot. The time my main starts falling to half minerals is like 9:00, which with HotS-time is like 12:30. But with the accelerated start, I think at 12:30 you should be easily able to have a 4th base anyways, so you never really fall below 3-4base saturation in the midgame. The real deal is imo that you are just cut off resources at some much earlier point in the lategame as previously. As the rough strategy is still the same - rush and saturate 3bases and eventually a 4th - what happens is that your first 3bases run out in quick succession early and the game drags on on a 1-2basish economy, because you still cannot hold more than 4-5bases. And then it starts feeling weird because you have all that production built up that you can no longer afford, but not building it up in the midgame for when you have 3bases running is just not really possible. It's a bit like the conclusion of the FRB-mod from Barrin back in the days, without a defensive mechanism like high ground it is very hard to actually spread out. Especially against the mobile styles like Zerg and Bio. You're just playing this rare endgame scenarii where you get everything except money most of the games compared to a game out of dozens in hots/wol. Yeah, it's kind of like that. You get into this sort of game very often in LotV as it often starts around 10-12mins (14-17 HotS mins). But besides that, I don't feel that much difference between economies of HotS and LotV in macro games.
The other main difference is that your income speeds up way quicker than your tech does. You still need to build a twilight and blink ie, but you'll get way more money which means that massing core units quickly should be way more efficient vs tech builds generally speaking. That's the main reason that explains Protoss current state, they rely on tech and upgrades to be efficient and both have been kinda "nerfed" with the lotv economy expanding way more quickly than the hots one.
|
On July 09 2015 18:43 TurboMaN wrote: OMG Canata jumped on the Casual train. Must have something to do with his job as a commentator.
Imo LotV needs to fall back to the BW origins in terms of a) no deathballs b) no hard counters
You could even win fights with weaker units in BW if you micro better than your opponent. In SC2 you will lose almost always if you opponent has a hard counter, no matter how good you micro.
I dont think thats even possible... not at this point.
|
Bisutopia19042 Posts
On July 09 2015 21:00 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 03:25 BisuDagger wrote:On July 09 2015 03:01 sAsImre wrote: I guess if ppl enjoy watching pro games being decided by one mistake they'll enjoy lotv. the comeback potential isn't exactly huge in hots but it is non existant in lotv.
And downfall must be happy to see his exact concept being used by Canata. Hyper-development and making everything goes faster isn't actually good for the game. Your statement is such a blatant lie. There is comeback potential in LoTV. I'd say even if you are in the beta and make your statement it's just plain wrong. Just to be clear, you are saying in no game what so ever where you fall behind there is no chance of winning. I guess I've never been behind in any game of LoTV I've played. But by all means preach another myth that people will just spread around these forums. edit: sAsImre, your words carry a heavier weight then an average poster. When people hear a caster quote stuff like "non existent comeback potential" and those same people haven't played LoTV then it causes pitch forks to rise over something that isn't proven. Please present data that actually backs up a statement such as yours. The thing is that if you lose a base you're fucked so hard because you're mined out so fast. Like if you lose your 4th you're probably dead if you can't deal a blow back immediately since your econ will be gone in 2 minutes. Tbh I should've said almost non existant, since you can always bounce back in the next minute if you have an army. Losing a fight while being on scrappy eco will be gg 99% of time except if huge maps are the norm. And by huge it means deadwing cross pos minimum and losing the fight in your opponent side. Lotv is basically end game economy at minute 10, and don't tell me that in these situations there is much comeback potential when you either lose a base or a fight and you've got no income/bank. On the other hand it creates really tenses moment, as a caster it'll be a cool thing if we can avoid the whole "I cannot engage my opponent army and he cannot either" scenario. And yes I'm really really bitter and sad about lotv right now but the one thing I'd like to be changed is macro mechanics. Keep them but tune them down and suddenly you slowed down the game a bit while keeping the need to expand rather quickly since you'll still mined out when you'll reach the late game but you'll allow the mid game to exist, and a bit the early game despite the 12 worker start. btw you can call me imre, sAs is just my first clan haha Thanks for getting back to me imre. I get defensive lately because I really want people to be thorough about their stance on issues. The feedback in your post is really good. One point I really like is the "end game economy at 10 minutes'". If I had to pick at something, the fast paced economy really prevents early game units from being able to shine. Battles between teir 1 units is a rare thing and a decision to go for let's say a 4 zealot warp prism drop in the first 6 minutes of the game doesn't mean quite the same thing.
|
Totally agree with Canata.
|
On July 09 2015 22:52 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 21:00 sAsImre wrote:On July 09 2015 03:25 BisuDagger wrote:On July 09 2015 03:01 sAsImre wrote: I guess if ppl enjoy watching pro games being decided by one mistake they'll enjoy lotv. the comeback potential isn't exactly huge in hots but it is non existant in lotv.
And downfall must be happy to see his exact concept being used by Canata. Hyper-development and making everything goes faster isn't actually good for the game. Your statement is such a blatant lie. There is comeback potential in LoTV. I'd say even if you are in the beta and make your statement it's just plain wrong. Just to be clear, you are saying in no game what so ever where you fall behind there is no chance of winning. I guess I've never been behind in any game of LoTV I've played. But by all means preach another myth that people will just spread around these forums. edit: sAsImre, your words carry a heavier weight then an average poster. When people hear a caster quote stuff like "non existent comeback potential" and those same people haven't played LoTV then it causes pitch forks to rise over something that isn't proven. Please present data that actually backs up a statement such as yours. The thing is that if you lose a base you're fucked so hard because you're mined out so fast. Like if you lose your 4th you're probably dead if you can't deal a blow back immediately since your econ will be gone in 2 minutes. Tbh I should've said almost non existant, since you can always bounce back in the next minute if you have an army. Losing a fight while being on scrappy eco will be gg 99% of time except if huge maps are the norm. And by huge it means deadwing cross pos minimum and losing the fight in your opponent side. Lotv is basically end game economy at minute 10, and don't tell me that in these situations there is much comeback potential when you either lose a base or a fight and you've got no income/bank. On the other hand it creates really tenses moment, as a caster it'll be a cool thing if we can avoid the whole "I cannot engage my opponent army and he cannot either" scenario. And yes I'm really really bitter and sad about lotv right now but the one thing I'd like to be changed is macro mechanics. Keep them but tune them down and suddenly you slowed down the game a bit while keeping the need to expand rather quickly since you'll still mined out when you'll reach the late game but you'll allow the mid game to exist, and a bit the early game despite the 12 worker start. btw you can call me imre, sAs is just my first clan haha Thanks for getting back to me imre. I get defensive lately because I really want people to be thorough about their stance on issues. The feedback in your post is really good. One point I really like is the "end game economy at 10 minutes'". If I had to pick at something, the fast paced economy really prevents early game units from being able to shine. Battles between teir 1 units is a rare thing and a decision to go for let's say a 4 zealot warp prism drop in the first 6 minutes of the game doesn't mean quite the same thing.
I've lots of respect for you man, you're doing a lot for the community so the answer was a pleasure. If we could've this kind of early game harass and the end game scrappy eco it'd be an amazing game to watch and would truly test players decision making abilities to their full extent. Flash vs Curious g2 was a really exciting game regarding that, a timing at the beginning of the mid game transitioning into a "normal" macro game and they finally got to the end game when they kept denying bases and workers on both sides for a period.
Tuning down the macro mechanics would be really good since it would curb down the exponential growth of economics which makes everything not a greedy build quite a commitment into aggression. I think the best example is current TvZ builds where you get banshees and hellbats, but after a 3rd cc since a later timing will most of the time be largely compensated by 3mules + scv production.
And you're right I should stop shitposting in general. Except for lr.
|
the easiest way to make the game easier to control is to enable the use of more different skills while units are grouped together in one control group
at the same time, this would make the game more fun for casuals, who right now cant, for example, force-field and psi storm at the same time
|
Bisutopia19042 Posts
On July 09 2015 23:40 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 22:52 BisuDagger wrote:On July 09 2015 21:00 sAsImre wrote:On July 09 2015 03:25 BisuDagger wrote:On July 09 2015 03:01 sAsImre wrote: I guess if ppl enjoy watching pro games being decided by one mistake they'll enjoy lotv. the comeback potential isn't exactly huge in hots but it is non existant in lotv.
And downfall must be happy to see his exact concept being used by Canata. Hyper-development and making everything goes faster isn't actually good for the game. Your statement is such a blatant lie. There is comeback potential in LoTV. I'd say even if you are in the beta and make your statement it's just plain wrong. Just to be clear, you are saying in no game what so ever where you fall behind there is no chance of winning. I guess I've never been behind in any game of LoTV I've played. But by all means preach another myth that people will just spread around these forums. edit: sAsImre, your words carry a heavier weight then an average poster. When people hear a caster quote stuff like "non existent comeback potential" and those same people haven't played LoTV then it causes pitch forks to rise over something that isn't proven. Please present data that actually backs up a statement such as yours. The thing is that if you lose a base you're fucked so hard because you're mined out so fast. Like if you lose your 4th you're probably dead if you can't deal a blow back immediately since your econ will be gone in 2 minutes. Tbh I should've said almost non existant, since you can always bounce back in the next minute if you have an army. Losing a fight while being on scrappy eco will be gg 99% of time except if huge maps are the norm. And by huge it means deadwing cross pos minimum and losing the fight in your opponent side. Lotv is basically end game economy at minute 10, and don't tell me that in these situations there is much comeback potential when you either lose a base or a fight and you've got no income/bank. On the other hand it creates really tenses moment, as a caster it'll be a cool thing if we can avoid the whole "I cannot engage my opponent army and he cannot either" scenario. And yes I'm really really bitter and sad about lotv right now but the one thing I'd like to be changed is macro mechanics. Keep them but tune them down and suddenly you slowed down the game a bit while keeping the need to expand rather quickly since you'll still mined out when you'll reach the late game but you'll allow the mid game to exist, and a bit the early game despite the 12 worker start. btw you can call me imre, sAs is just my first clan haha Thanks for getting back to me imre. I get defensive lately because I really want people to be thorough about their stance on issues. The feedback in your post is really good. One point I really like is the "end game economy at 10 minutes'". If I had to pick at something, the fast paced economy really prevents early game units from being able to shine. Battles between teir 1 units is a rare thing and a decision to go for let's say a 4 zealot warp prism drop in the first 6 minutes of the game doesn't mean quite the same thing. I've lots of respect for you man, you're doing a lot for the community so the answer was a pleasure. If we could've this kind of early game harass and the end game scrappy eco it'd be an amazing game to watch and would truly test players decision making abilities to their full extent. Flash vs Curious g2 was a really exciting game regarding that, a timing at the beginning of the mid game transitioning into a "normal" macro game and they finally got to the end game when they kept denying bases and workers on both sides for a period. Tuning down the macro mechanics would be really good since it would curb down the exponential growth of economics which makes everything not a greedy build quite a commitment into aggression. I think the best example is current TvZ builds where you get banshees and hellbats, but after a 3rd cc since a later timing will most of the time be largely compensated by 3mules + scv production. And you're right I should stop shitposting in general. Except for lr. I think mules are the dark horse of the Terran arsenal. If you over use them, bases dry out so quickly it's scary. Once your SCV count is solid, it has become more efficient to supply drop then mule out your bases rapidly. I'm wondering if better players then me will also pick up on this.
|
On July 09 2015 23:48 summerloud wrote: the easiest way to make the game easier to control is to enable the use of more different skills while units are grouped together in one control group
That is an incredible idea that should receive significant attention.
On July 09 2015 17:18 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote: Complexity arising out of simplicity is always the best way to go.... Complexity for the sake of complexity doesn't work.
That is very well said. Frankly, I think SC2 is difficult enough to play.
A lot of this thread is just a less intellectual discussion of what TheDwf brought up. He articulated quite well that making the game faster and more difficult to play actually makes it far worse. If you think otherwise, I invite you to check out his thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/482697-razzia-of-the-blizzsters
TheDwf wrote: The theoretical skill ceiling in SC2 is infinite and out of reach, and thus does not matter at all; you could indeed always try to micro each of your individual units, but the absolutely massive diminishing returns make it worthless in practice (not to mention you have other, more important things to do). What matters is thus the practical skill ceiling, i.e. how far you can push human limits to achieve the most within a given time frame. Contracting time does raise the skill floor (the threshold of difficulty) but it decreases the practical skill ceiling too (the potential room for mistake-free play).
Therefore, it contracts the skill gap itself: on average, the authentic skill difference between players produces less and less difference in actual results, which means that players become increasingly closer to each other and have less and less ways to differentiate themselves. The terminal phase of this movement is the very disparition of skill.
Another example (which TheDwf also brought up) was introducing a strict time limit on moves in Chess. Think about playing chess where you only have 5 seconds to make your move. The game would move so fast and be so difficult that even Grandmasters would make terrible mistakes. Blizzard has increased the pace and made the game faster by not only putting an expansions on a timer, but by increasing the amount of unit abilities that need to be managed without increasing the time you have to manage them.
Do we really want to watch sloppy play from even the best players? Do we really want to play a game where each of us individually can't counter certain strategies because you don't have the APM to manage all the abilities? I don't.
|
On July 09 2015 18:43 TurboMaN wrote: OMG Canata jumped on the Casual train. Must have something to do with his job as a commentator.
Imo LotV needs to fall back to the BW origins in terms of a) no deathballs b) no hard counters
You could even win fights with weaker units in BW if you micro better than your opponent. In SC2 you will lose almost always if you opponent has a hard counter, no matter how good you micro.
Brood War has death balls and hard counters. It just has other stuff, too. If you mean to tell me that a death ball style isn't possible to play as Terran or as Protoss, then you are wrong. It's there, just like many other styles are there. And it's a fun style to use and to play against. And if you're going to tell me that firebats don't hard counter zerglings, or that devourers don't hard counter corsairs...
|
Bisutopia19042 Posts
On July 10 2015 01:54 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 23:48 summerloud wrote: the easiest way to make the game easier to control is to enable the use of more different skills while units are grouped together in one control group
That is an incredible idea that should receive significant attention. I certainly have thought about that too. Reducing rapid tabbing to get to abilities or hot keys certainly would make using abilities even easier. Only issue could be spells that bind to the same hotkey if there are any. Otherwise I would be all for this. This is most definitely lowers the skill floor.
|
On July 09 2015 18:43 TurboMaN wrote: OMG Canata jumped on the Casual train. Must have something to do with his job as a commentator.
Imo LotV needs to fall back to the BW origins in terms of a) no deathballs b) no hard counters
You could even win fights with weaker units in BW if you micro better than your opponent. In SC2 you will lose almost always if you opponent has a hard counter, no matter how good you micro. First of all, BW had both of these, and in fact, the deathballs were the greatest thing to watch. I loved big Dragoon, Zealot, Arbiter deathballs fight againt Siege Tank, Vulture, Goliath deathballs. It was fun to watch.
The problem in SC2, in my opinion, is not the deathballs but the fact that deathballs evaporate so fast. If a P deathball attacked a T deathball in BW the fight could take quite a long time with huge siege lines, zealot bombs, mine drags, stasis, etc. In SC2 its 2 seconds of laser light show and then its all gone.
|
1236 Posts
ITT: People who for some reason believe that "hard = more like BW = good" without actually listening to what Canata said, all the while also forgetting that Canata was a professional BW player for more than 8 years, and one of the more notable Terrans at that. Pretty sure if LotV were to take after BW in a good way, Canata would approve.
I don't know what's more laughable, the above, or that guy who said the community changes its mind too much, as if Blizzard actually implemented what we asked for at any point. Please.... -_-
|
On July 10 2015 17:41 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 18:43 TurboMaN wrote: OMG Canata jumped on the Casual train. Must have something to do with his job as a commentator.
Imo LotV needs to fall back to the BW origins in terms of a) no deathballs b) no hard counters
You could even win fights with weaker units in BW if you micro better than your opponent. In SC2 you will lose almost always if you opponent has a hard counter, no matter how good you micro. First of all, BW had both of these, and in fact, the deathballs were the greatest thing to watch. I loved big Dragoon, Zealot, Arbiter deathballs fight againt Siege Tank, Vulture, Goliath deathballs. It was fun to watch. The problem in SC2, in my opinion, is not the deathballs but the fact that deathballs evaporate so fast. If a P deathball attacked a T deathball in BW the fight could take quite a long time with huge siege lines, zealot bombs, mine drags, stasis, etc. In SC2 its 2 seconds of laser light show and then its all gone.
Laser show and Stim + occasional EMP*, say it all.
I think that is a problem of PvT mostly because of how Bio and Protoss unit work, because it is not the case in PvZ / ZvT, where strategic matters more. However PvT is about who has the biggest d*** because either you either Stimroll me/ Doom drop or I burn you down with my lasers. There is relatively less impact of unit control in fights unless we are talking about HT vs Ghost Fights (compared to other matchups where control plays a more impactful role like ZvT)
In LotV, Zerg matchups are going to be more diverse and based on micro and positioning because of Ravager and Lurker, so that is going to be improved. But Protoss still needs more work, real impact of micro / more active early game and IMAO MSC needs to be reworked a ton. Recall needs to be more available to promote multiskirmshes, even at high cost, not promoting it as a Deathball ass-saver as it is now since MSC is a "heroic" unit.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 08 2015 15:27 G5 wrote: imo the LOTV developers are making the game with eSport spectators in mind more so than any of their other games. As someone who hasn't played Starcraft (or any game) what so ever and still enjoys watching Starcraft, I can appreciate what they are doing. From a players perspective... well... let's just say I'm happy I'm not playing. I can see Canata's point. Makes perfect sense. I don't think about the casual gamer much I suppose and never really thought about it like that. What?
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/G5
Did you mean 'doesn't' as in 'doesn't currently play' rather than 'hasn't' as in 'hasn't ever' ?
|
Bisutopia19042 Posts
On July 10 2015 19:45 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2015 15:27 G5 wrote: imo the LOTV developers are making the game with eSport spectators in mind more so than any of their other games. As someone who hasn't played Starcraft (or any game) what so ever and still enjoys watching Starcraft, I can appreciate what they are doing. From a players perspective... well... let's just say I'm happy I'm not playing. I can see Canata's point. Makes perfect sense. I don't think about the casual gamer much I suppose and never really thought about it like that. What? http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/G5Did you mean 'doesn't' as in 'doesn't currently play' rather than 'hasn't' as in 'hasn't ever' ? I re-read that several times myself when I saw the post. I believe he meant, "for people who haven't played starcraft he can appreciate what blizzard is doing for them". But yeah regardless, it was a confusing sentence lol.
|
Any idea, after being proposed by the community, cannot be put in the game.
If you don't want Blizzard to not put good ideas in the game, don't propose them. Once you do you will have scooped them and they will, in their eyes, be unable to use them. People have said before that SC2 is not 'easy to master, hard to learn', but now Blizzard is taking it one step further? We already had many crazy confusing units that fight against the player's will to control them, but with the pace up it is now too hard even for good players to enjoy dealing with?
Ooh, how nice it was to control zealots at low latency. No abilities, no delay, no units with a mind of their own clumping in a ball.
As someone who has been beaten by G5 several times, maybe he meant 'For someone'.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On July 08 2015 13:43 -NegativeZero- wrote: kind of ironic that this is a common attitude nowadays given so many people's initial complaints that sc2 was too dumbed down compared to bw...
Those don't really contradict each other. You can easily make and extremely fast and taxing, but ultimately dumbed down and shallow game.
Blizzard already had to admit incompetence and do a 180 turn with Diablo 3, now it's Starcraft time?
|
On July 09 2015 21:13 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 19:02 boxerfred wrote:On July 09 2015 01:10 BisuDagger wrote: The new, fast paced economy actually has me playing Starcraft again. I rather enjoy the heavy focus on macro. I have no argument here, but if you asked me, "Am I having fun with new LoTV economy?" then the answer is YES. Actually I'm fine with the new econonmy but the combination of "macro is really challenging" and "room for 0 mistakes in fights and micro" is just plain stupid. I feel like the most important thing about sc2 is how unforgiving it is. The more I play LotV, the less I feel like the "new economy" impacts the early-midgame strategies a lot. The time my main starts falling to half minerals is like 9:00, which with HotS-time is like 12:30. But with the accelerated start, I think at 12:30 you should be easily able to have a 4th base anyways, so you never really fall below 3-4base saturation in the midgame. The real deal is imo that you are just cut off resources at some much earlier point in the lategame as previously. As the rough strategy is still the same - rush and saturate 3bases and eventually a 4th - what happens is that your first 3bases run out in quick succession early and the game drags on on a 1-2basish economy, because you still cannot hold more than 4-5bases. And then it starts feeling weird because you have all that production built up that you can no longer afford, but not building it up in the midgame for when you have 3bases running is just not really possible. It's a bit like the conclusion of the FRB-mod from Barrin back in the days, without a defensive mechanism like high ground it is very hard to actually spread out. Especially against the mobile styles like Zerg and Bio. Very interesting. It echoes a lot of my fears about expanding. It's also imo why DH and HMH aren't the revolutions everyone makes them to be. Expanding needs to be made more possible if such models are to be worth it.
On July 09 2015 21:52 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 21:47 Big J wrote:On July 09 2015 21:33 sAsImre wrote:On July 09 2015 21:13 Big J wrote:On July 09 2015 19:02 boxerfred wrote:On July 09 2015 01:10 BisuDagger wrote: The new, fast paced economy actually has me playing Starcraft again. I rather enjoy the heavy focus on macro. I have no argument here, but if you asked me, "Am I having fun with new LoTV economy?" then the answer is YES. Actually I'm fine with the new econonmy but the combination of "macro is really challenging" and "room for 0 mistakes in fights and micro" is just plain stupid. I feel like the most important thing about sc2 is how unforgiving it is. The more I play LotV, the less I feel like the "new economy" impacts the early-midgame strategies a lot. The time my main starts falling to half minerals is like 9:00, which with HotS-time is like 12:30. But with the accelerated start, I think at 12:30 you should be easily able to have a 4th base anyways, so you never really fall below 3-4base saturation in the midgame. The real deal is imo that you are just cut off resources at some much earlier point in the lategame as previously. As the rough strategy is still the same - rush and saturate 3bases and eventually a 4th - what happens is that your first 3bases run out in quick succession early and the game drags on on a 1-2basish economy, because you still cannot hold more than 4-5bases. And then it starts feeling weird because you have all that production built up that you can no longer afford, but not building it up in the midgame for when you have 3bases running is just not really possible. It's a bit like the conclusion of the FRB-mod from Barrin back in the days, without a defensive mechanism like high ground it is very hard to actually spread out. Especially against the mobile styles like Zerg and Bio. You're just playing this rare endgame scenarii where you get everything except money most of the games compared to a game out of dozens in hots/wol. Yeah, it's kind of like that. You get into this sort of game very often in LotV as it often starts around 10-12mins (14-17 HotS mins). But besides that, I don't feel that much difference between economies of HotS and LotV in macro games. The other main difference is that your income speeds up way quicker than your tech does. You still need to build a twilight and blink ie, but you'll get way more money which means that massing core units quickly should be way more efficient vs tech builds generally speaking. That's the main reason that explains Protoss current state, they rely on tech and upgrades to be efficient and both have been kinda "nerfed" with the lotv economy expanding way more quickly than the hots one. Is there any proof that your economy speeds up way quicker compared to tech? Theoretically it should be the same as HotS, the only thing affecting that are a slight difference in resources at the 12 supply mark and the main building which now provide more supply (so you can skimp on pylons). I get that this is the general "feeling", but it could just be that Protoss feels pressured to expand way before important tech is up (this is due to resource starvation, not the quicker start), and so feels pressured to build more core units to defend the extra bases, delaying tech. And when I say expand, I mean the 3rd base, the natural is kind of free these last few years :D.
|
I'm just a platinum player (so really bad) and I agree with him.
At first I was mad hype when I got LotV beta, but I much prefer HotS' pace.
|
United Kingdom12011 Posts
On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh...
There's good micro and bad micro. Good micro is something like you see Protoss do in SC1 with Dragoons, Zealots, Storm and Reavers and what not. Bad micro is the C&C3/RA3 mantra of ADD MORE SKILLS!
An RTS is not a moba. Active skills are not good for RTS games IMO.
|
Warcraft 4 last chance for RTS!!
|
On July 11 2015 00:04 Kimb3r wrote: Warcraft 4 last chance for RTS!!
RTS will never die! Give me your money and I'm gonna make you an RTS game that's going to rock the gaming industry and esports.
|
While we're talking about MOBAs, there's one thing canata said I disagree with:
하스스톤도, 히어로즈 오브 더 스톰도 간단하고 쉬운 조작을 바탕으로 깊이 있는 전략과 전술로 팬들을 끌어들었다.
Heartstone and Heroes of the Storm have been gathering many fans due to the deep tactics and strategies based on easy controls.
LOL, Heroes of the Storm is the fastest blizzard fail I've seen. Out of Top10 most played in Korean PCBang, not even lasting one month. Despite a huge marketing campaign and even nationwide free PCBang event for HoTS.
Dustin Browder + David Kim = Designers of Fail!!!
|
On July 11 2015 00:32 Big J wrote:RTS will never die! Give me your money and I'm gonna make you an RTS game that's going to rock the gaming industry and esports. And so will 50000 other TL members who all think the same way.
|
On July 11 2015 01:10 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2015 00:32 Big J wrote:On July 11 2015 00:04 Kimb3r wrote: Warcraft 4 last chance for RTS!! RTS will never die! Give me your money and I'm gonna make you an RTS game that's going to rock the gaming industry and esports. And so will 50000 other TL members who all think the same way. But I really, really like money.
|
Bisutopia19042 Posts
On July 11 2015 01:18 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2015 01:10 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 11 2015 00:32 Big J wrote:On July 11 2015 00:04 Kimb3r wrote: Warcraft 4 last chance for RTS!! RTS will never die! Give me your money and I'm gonna make you an RTS game that's going to rock the gaming industry and esports. And so will 50000 other TL members who all think the same way. But I really, really like money. Help me develop my oculus rift RTS that facebook can buy from us for a billion dollars.
|
On July 11 2015 01:34 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2015 01:18 Big J wrote:On July 11 2015 01:10 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 11 2015 00:32 Big J wrote:On July 11 2015 00:04 Kimb3r wrote: Warcraft 4 last chance for RTS!! RTS will never die! Give me your money and I'm gonna make you an RTS game that's going to rock the gaming industry and esports. And so will 50000 other TL members who all think the same way. But I really, really like money. Help me develop my oculus rift RTS that facebook can buy from us for a billion dollars. Do I have to do something myself? Because I'm not that good at actually doing something. But I'm pretty good at letting others do work that I was supposed to do!
|
On July 08 2015 13:43 -NegativeZero- wrote: kind of ironic that this is a common attitude nowadays given so many people's initial complaints that sc2 was too dumbed down compared to bw... damn if you do, damned if you don't
|
Bisutopia19042 Posts
On July 11 2015 01:42 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2015 01:34 BisuDagger wrote:On July 11 2015 01:18 Big J wrote:On July 11 2015 01:10 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 11 2015 00:32 Big J wrote:On July 11 2015 00:04 Kimb3r wrote: Warcraft 4 last chance for RTS!! RTS will never die! Give me your money and I'm gonna make you an RTS game that's going to rock the gaming industry and esports. And so will 50000 other TL members who all think the same way. But I really, really like money. Help me develop my oculus rift RTS that facebook can buy from us for a billion dollars. Do I have to do something myself? Because I'm not that good at actually doing something. But I'm pretty good at letting others do work that I was supposed to do! You are perfect for middle management.
|
On July 11 2015 00:51 jotmang-nojem wrote:While we're talking about MOBAs, there's one thing canata said I disagree with: Show nested quote + 하스스톤도, 히어로즈 오브 더 스톰도 간단하고 쉬운 조작을 바탕으로 깊이 있는 전략과 전술로 팬들을 끌어들었다.
Heartstone and Heroes of the Storm have been gathering many fans due to the deep tactics and strategies based on easy controls.
LOL, Heroes of the Storm is the fastest blizzard fail I've seen. Out of Top10 most played in Korean PCBang, not even lasting one month. Despite a huge marketing campaign and even nationwide free PCBang event for HoTS. Dustin Browder + David Kim = Designers of Fail!!!
While I disagree on Heroes being a fail at all, I admit that DK and Bowder should be fired as soon as possible. They fuck up what they touch with the "ideas we found very cool" and "players will adapt to".
|
On July 10 2015 23:46 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh... There's good micro and bad micro. Good micro is something like you see Protoss do in SC1 with Dragoons, Zealots, Storm and Reavers and what not. Bad micro is the C&C3/RA3 mantra of ADD MORE SKILLS! An RTS is not a moba. Active skills are not good for RTS games IMO.
I don't think that there's anything inherently bad about active skills. They just have to be interesting and fun, have high skill ceiling, etc.
|
On July 11 2015 02:33 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2015 23:46 Qikz wrote:On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh... There's good micro and bad micro. Good micro is something like you see Protoss do in SC1 with Dragoons, Zealots, Storm and Reavers and what not. Bad micro is the C&C3/RA3 mantra of ADD MORE SKILLS! An RTS is not a moba. Active skills are not good for RTS games IMO. I don't think that there's anything inherently bad about active skills. They just have to be interesting and fun, have high skill ceiling, etc.
Active skills need to be reserved for a few designated spellcasters. The rest of the units need to have very few of them.
|
On July 11 2015 02:43 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2015 02:33 vOdToasT wrote:On July 10 2015 23:46 Qikz wrote:On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh... There's good micro and bad micro. Good micro is something like you see Protoss do in SC1 with Dragoons, Zealots, Storm and Reavers and what not. Bad micro is the C&C3/RA3 mantra of ADD MORE SKILLS! An RTS is not a moba. Active skills are not good for RTS games IMO. I don't think that there's anything inherently bad about active skills. They just have to be interesting and fun, have high skill ceiling, etc. Active skills need to be reserved for a few designated spellcasters. The rest of the units need to have very few of them. That really depends on the nature of the active skills. Skills like Siege Mode, Cloaking and Stimpacks are fine in my opinion. They are not quite active skills and more like additional behavior / alternate forms of the unit. But active skills that are "actually active", with that I mean skills where you have to think whether you should use them or not and if yes then on what target, these should be limited to 2 - 3 spellcasters per race.
|
The typical "bad active skill" for me is the void ray ability.
|
Lotv is actually fun and it knows what it's trying to be a very difficult, yet entertaining game that rewards those who out multi task their opponent and for once, rewards those who are simply richer than their opponents. I like that
The casual gamer would rather learn this game than HOTS, because not only is it more interactive, but the increased amount of unit abilities and the early games increase in speed and tactics makes it infinitely more FUN (Yes, I'm sure you haven't heard that word in awhile.)
I know fun and starcraft don't get along, but I've been watching this game and playing it, albeit not very much, for about 5 years. it's my main source of entertainment online and I know what it needs.
It needs to be an enjoyable experience that doesn't feel like a second job. Lotv is on it's way to actually achieving that. Wol was terrible, HOTS made me stop playing and finally LOTV is giving me hope. I'm super fucking excited for this game, and you should be too.
|
On July 11 2015 07:24 paxconsciente wrote: and I know what it needs.
... everyone claims to know what the game needs. what sets you apart from everyone else here in this forum except your ignorant overconfidance?
|
redbull archon mode hyyyyype!
|
On July 11 2015 08:15 404AlphaSquad wrote:... everyone claims to know what the game needs. what sets you apart from everyone else here in this forum except your ignorant overconfidance?
Just because you can't macro past your 7 gate doesn't mean lotv is a bad game, and yes I know what it needs, I've made this game a pretty big part of my gaming life and have watched almost every major for 6 years. I would appreciate if you didn't hassle me with such shite posts, we might actually get somewhere as a community.
Oh, and "over CONFIDENCE," and if you're looking for a more respectful post in response to this garbage you might as well label me a narcissist now and not keep your hopes up, Good day.
EDIT: I decided to edit in the part where I don't understand why you're attacking me at all, just because I'm better than you as a person doesn't mean I'm looking to set myself apart from anyone, moron.This is a gaming community where smart (or at least I thought) people come together and discuss their thoughts, not everything is a competition. sheeeeeeeeeeesh
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Lotv is just too hard to play right now. They didn't raise the execution barrier a little bit - it's way higher. Forget about what the opponent is doing. I can barely control my units and macro now the economy is also accelerated.
Of course, I'm a terrible player but still HotS is a lot more enjoyable for me.
|
On July 10 2015 23:01 phfantunes wrote: I'm just a platinum player (so really bad) and I agree with him.
At first I was mad hype when I got LotV beta, but I much prefer HotS' pace.
Exactly Canata worded it perfectly, the raised skill requirement takes away from strategy at every level of play.
|
There is zero strategy remaining. It's rushing out expands not to run out of money or trying to hit a giant timing. I personally kinda like the pace, but I have to agree it doesn't feel like playing a strategy game.
|
nobody knows what they are doing, much like when hots first came out... it will take some time to get some standard templates for strong strategies
|
Beta has been out for a while. I didn't make this comment when I first got beta. After all these patches, the markedly raised skill barrier in LotV is still very obvious.
|
On July 11 2015 02:48 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2015 02:43 andrewlt wrote:On July 11 2015 02:33 vOdToasT wrote:On July 10 2015 23:46 Qikz wrote:On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh... There's good micro and bad micro. Good micro is something like you see Protoss do in SC1 with Dragoons, Zealots, Storm and Reavers and what not. Bad micro is the C&C3/RA3 mantra of ADD MORE SKILLS! An RTS is not a moba. Active skills are not good for RTS games IMO. I don't think that there's anything inherently bad about active skills. They just have to be interesting and fun, have high skill ceiling, etc. Active skills need to be reserved for a few designated spellcasters. The rest of the units need to have very few of them. That really depends on the nature of the active skills. Skills like Siege Mode, Cloaking and Stimpacks are fine in my opinion. They are not quite active skills and more like additional behavior / alternate forms of the unit. But active skills that are "actually active", with that I mean skills where you have to think whether you should use them or not and if yes then on what target, these should be limited to 2 - 3 spellcasters per race.
I'm always wary of cooldown spells. What's great about the skills you mentioned is that they are a strategic choice that changes the unit, but isn't a "free bonus damage attack every 15 seconds" or whatever.
|
On July 15 2015 22:19 sparklyresidue wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2015 02:48 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 11 2015 02:43 andrewlt wrote:On July 11 2015 02:33 vOdToasT wrote:On July 10 2015 23:46 Qikz wrote:On July 08 2015 18:39 Superouman wrote: Before : "There is not enough micro! Give us more things to micro!"
After : There are too many things to micro! Give us less things to micro!"
Sigh... There's good micro and bad micro. Good micro is something like you see Protoss do in SC1 with Dragoons, Zealots, Storm and Reavers and what not. Bad micro is the C&C3/RA3 mantra of ADD MORE SKILLS! An RTS is not a moba. Active skills are not good for RTS games IMO. I don't think that there's anything inherently bad about active skills. They just have to be interesting and fun, have high skill ceiling, etc. Active skills need to be reserved for a few designated spellcasters. The rest of the units need to have very few of them. That really depends on the nature of the active skills. Skills like Siege Mode, Cloaking and Stimpacks are fine in my opinion. They are not quite active skills and more like additional behavior / alternate forms of the unit. But active skills that are "actually active", with that I mean skills where you have to think whether you should use them or not and if yes then on what target, these should be limited to 2 - 3 spellcasters per race. I'm always wary of cooldown spells. What's great about the skills you mentioned is that they are a strategic choice that changes the unit, but isn't a "free bonus damage attack every 15 seconds" or whatever. I think those sorts of skills should require less/different management. If you have a cooldown spell that is really that spammy that it is just being played as bonus damage, than why not just make it bonus damage on every X-th attack? Add some small animation on the unit to see if the unit is currently "loaded" with the bonus damage and then people can micro to hit just right with the bonus.
+ Show Spoiler +One could design cool kiting and damage point variations with that (actually an example when damage point can be very interesting on a unit). For example a unit that does triple damage on every 3rd attack but long damage point may be best used to run around a lot and only hit those 3rd attacks, but let the other 2pass to not fall into the trap of damage point in small scale micro situations.
|
I think they are really trying hard to listen to the community, but they just don't get it.
Also, this community is also not that easy to read, there are so many opinions and directions everyone wants LotV go.
|
I guess I'm on the more casual side of the player pool (relatively speaking, on this forum) so I don't have strong opinions about game design in terms of individuals units or on how to best modify the economy in the game.
Purely on the basis of gameplay feel though, after a lot of games since early beta I think LotV is too mechanically demanding right now. It is insanely more difficult to play, to just do things with your units and macro than HotS. This isn't a question of balance. This might not even be a huge factor to me as a spectator of the pro scene.
The biggest problem with an increased skill barrier is that the accessibility of the game is further reduced. This is not going to help make starcraft more popular and we all know we badly need new players.
|
On July 09 2015 09:18 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2015 09:05 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 09 2015 06:41 ElMeanYo wrote: I don't really agree with Canata here. If units become more difficult to use, it doesn't affect lower level players vs each other as they both have bad unit control. They will find someone on the ladder who is just as bad and incapable of using units to their ability, and they will both have a fun game. It only becomes pronounced when they are playing someone who is much better.
The important point Blizz has to master is that the 3 races require relatively the same levels of effort to succeed at the various skill levels, from newb to pro, otherwise a race can seem overpowered at a given level. I disagree. This might be true if it wasnt humans playing against each other but artificial intelligences. A human will not have fun if he/she realizes that he/she is bad at a game. Not being able to use your units is frustrating. Watching your units die by the dozens without doing much because you are not good enough to control them does not suddenly become better just because your enemy has the same problem every now and then. At some point the game makes you feel like garbage for not being good enough, and at that point it is no longer fun no matter how much worse your opponent is. I'm terrible at brood war. The game is incredibly frustrating. Those damn protoss never do what I want. (Looking at you dragoons!) I don't storm well, execute drop play, keep scouting workers alive, recall effectively. Still, I love the hell out of the game.
And I respect your opinion. But that mentality is clearly in the minority among gamers, even competitive gamers.
I don't play BW. I love the game but I can't play it because the skill barrier eliminates my ability to enjoy the game. When SC1 / BW first came out it didn't have much competition and frankly the fact that it was a genre defining title also helped its popularity.
I want to see LotV succeed beyond the scope of the current SC2 scene. Also, I don't think making it easier mechanically makes it any less competitive. The skill barrier in HotS right now arguably exceeds any other popular competitive game in the market and we're left with a tiny scene (relative to those other titles).
|
I disagree with canata.
SC2 needs more micro, as a spectator it is super boring watching attack move armies that melt everything like collosus.
Casual players aren't interested in 1v1. They are into 2v2, 3v3, fastest, big game hunters etc..
|
On July 16 2015 08:12 Highways wrote: I disagree with canata.
SC2 needs more micro, as a spectator it is super boring watching attack move armies that melt everything like collosus.
Casual players aren't interested in 1v1. They are into 2v2, 3v3, fastest, big game hunters etc..
The thing is SC2 does have a lot of micro but some of it just isn't that interesting to watch partially due to all of the activated abilities. I do agree there needs to be more micro but as many people keep saying it shouldn't necessarily be done through more activated abilities. I know this will sound dumb but Blizzard needs to give players the ability to do more 'cheeky' maneuvers that can actually pay off. Properly executed drop micro is always fun to watch, marine splitting and bane focus firing is very interesting, blink micro in certain situations can be really impressive. Dropping a PDD or landing fungals aren't really that exciting from a spectator POV.
Blizzard is in a weird spot because you're right, the average player isn't interested in playing 1v1 but people are interested in watching it. So they have to make 1v1 more exciting to watch while also attracting the casual to actually play the game. Maybe Archon Mode will be the magic bullet as TB put it.
|
Without added incentives like dailies, there is no way archon mode becomes popular after the game is released.
|
Whatever they do I think it's embarrassing that after like five years ZvZ is still just roach vs roach. Seriously, roaches are the most boring, generic unit ever conceived.
|
On July 16 2015 08:12 Highways wrote: I disagree with canata.
SC2 needs more micro, as a spectator it is super boring watching attack move armies that melt everything like collosus.
Casual players aren't interested in 1v1. They are into 2v2, 3v3, fastest, big game hunters etc..
Let's step back for a second and think about this logically.
I agree that colossus is a problem unit. We can address it and other problem units without dramatically raising the skill barrier like what's currently being set in LotV beta. We can solve these issues without resorting to making the game materially more frustrating to play.
Also, team games would not have different units or different economy than 1v1. These formats wouldn't be any more fun (mechanically) to play than 1v1. Therefore these players can't be considered "casual" like the way you would refer to casual participation in other competitive games.
At a more general level, I don't think Canata is against the idea of micro where I also agree with you, can make the game more exciting to spectate. One or two difficult to micro units won't impact the skill barrier by themselves. It's a combination of everything - the faster start, the shallower mineral patches, a slew of new micro heavy units, etc.
|
I think it's worth mentioning that what makes LotV feel more difficult to many players is that the pace of games is all over the place. Macroing and microing mechanics take up most of the focus, and there isn't much room for strategic choices or fluid builds. What used to feel limitless can now feel constricted, and deciding how to make best use of the fluctuating income rate now takes up a majority of the decision making. So, I'd say the Economy and Difficulty discussions stem from the same seed.
I like that Blizzard and the invitees have some time to discuss what is working and what isn't. It's great to know that a lot of things are being tried internally. I commend Blizzard for keeping in mind that what's popular isn't always right.
As for the economy, I think it's fair to say that most of us are happy it got more exciting. From most of the feedback I've seen, 12 workers still does feel a little extreme for an opening.. although it's been fun to see in effect, it's causing cheese to become irrelevant instead of slightly nerfed. That makes all early games look mostly the same. I'm hoping they have some tricks up their sleeves that might help.
I've been in the minority that recommended 9 workers (and a 150 mineral start) to shake up some early strategy, but I also pushed for 6-patches-per-base mostly on my own.. even got a thread locked here for trying to discuss it. The reason I, and many others, have been asking for some reconsideration here is that it looks a lot like the intentions might not match the outcome as much as it could.
The pace of the game has always been very important in StarCraft. All I hope for is that when all is said and done, this game spreads out the battlefield, promotes faster expanding without forcing it, and provides a freedom to make decisions all game long.. without confusing the previous formula too much. Best of luck to Blizz in making this game as great as we know it can be.. may the Khala be their guide!
|
I'm a casual player, because I only play a few times per month. I used to be kind of decent, but that was 2 years ago. When I got the beta, I naturally was pretty excited at first. Now, after quite some games, I have to say that I have to agree with Canata. I'm not super-fast, but not overly slow either (between 150 and 200 APM), and it's ridiculously hard to keep track of everything. Personally, I dislike being forced to play fast and I also think that making the game harder to play doesn't really add to its inherent complexity. It just gets unnecessarily difficult to keep up with everything.
|
On July 09 2015 23:48 summerloud wrote: the easiest way to make the game easier to control is to enable the use of more different skills while units are grouped together in one control group
at the same time, this would make the game more fun for casuals, who right now cant, for example, force-field and psi storm at the same time
This is an excellent idea that I have also thought about. The battles for casuals like myself is nothing but A-move. There are so much active abilities that I can't tab through the control groups and use the abilities.
Having a faster econ plus all the active abilities have made the game much harder to play.
|
I haven't tried LotV but I do feel extra units to micro is a good thing BUT the problem with SC2 has been that is a bit too fast paced and the bigger problem is that the effective health pools are much smaller. What I mean is that the dps is absurd, a whole army or a whole base can be melted down within seconds. I think a slower paced game with smaller dps will make this game much better.
|
On July 08 2015 16:21 mrjpark wrote: Casual gamers aren't the market for 1v1 ranked ladder is the thing. Blizzard is not -- and should not -- design 1v1 ladder around the casual gamer. The 1v1 ladder is for the competitive folk. For casual gamers, there's archon mode and the arcade (which I hope gets revamped).
This pretty much.
|
We’ve also talked a lot about various popular Protoss topics such as Force Fields, Warp Gates, and Gateway unit strength, but this post has already gone on too long—so we’ll leave that for next week’s update.
In our next update, we’ll be discussing the Protoss in Legacy of the Void more in-depth, so stay tuned!
hyyyyyype!!!!!1111one
|
Sorry for the dirty Bump. But this is an issue I really can't take it anymore in LOTV, do you guys feel the same about the game pace? It is just way too fast and stupid...
|
I agree. This comment Canata made pretty much sums up how the game should not be made.
|
It doesn't matter anymore. Release is in less than two months. Biggest thing they're going to do now is cutting macro mechanics(if they want to), then balance it for release.
|
I don't feel this way about the game, but I can see how alot of people would. Certainly auto inject helped my play but the 2 larvae makes it not worth it for Zerg in general; I prefer it the way it is now... Zerg has flexibility with a strong queen. If they gave a 4 larvae queen auto inject that would be ideal from my standpoint.
|
On September 23 2015 23:08 WrathSCII wrote: Sorry for the dirty Bump. But this is an IsSuE I really can't take it anymore in LOTV
Yeah. Same for me.
I M a Top Gold/Low Plat Terran and a Top gold Zerg. I play SC2 since 3 years so I know pretty well HOTS, Less WoL. Already I played about 50 games on the LOTV beta as terran and I can't get used to the pace of the game ! I like the Start game warm-up on HOTS, to spam a little bit, to chill out and to FoCuS on your strat on this map, against this race. Definitly something I Miss it on LOTV. I have the feeling that you can't think about your game plan cause you don't have the time. Usually I Focus to expand quickly and I lose myself in my build order then Adepts are there on my frontdoor ! =GG I don't think it is about balance/unbalance of the game, I know Blizz will balance all this mess, simply I don't like the beat of the game. I preordered LOTV because I must to have it, but I will not open the Box and I will sell it 350 $ on Ebay in 10 years
|
Sorry but I wanted to add something...
Usually I Focus to expand quickly and I lose myself in my build order then Adepts are there on my frontdoor ! =GG
Adepts or ravagers ! no racism here
|
|
|
|
|