|
|
They finally did it, they made the Dota2 compendium for SC2, fantastic! The Protoss (Tal'darim set, no?) set looks amazing.
I am not even a SC2 player, I am a Dota2 gamer that is playing some SC2 now and then and even I will purchase the WC to support Sc2.
SUPPORT STARCRAFT II ESPORTS
|
China6279 Posts
I'm kind of worrying about the readability of some of the new skins.
|
On July 16 2017 03:33 digmouse wrote: I'm kind of worrying about the readability of some of the new skins. Yea so many spikes jfc
|
repost from the other thread, but 25%... really? only 25%?
|
China6279 Posts
On July 16 2017 03:34 Endymion wrote: repost from the other thread, but 25%... really? only 25%? Not really a outlier, Valve also put 25% of The International compendium sales into prize pool.
|
It's a good start for sure but i would have hoped there is some content in there which gives you the motivation to buy it even if you don't care about skins at all. Some mini missions or quests, maybe an announcer, something which is related to the tournament the warchest is for (a nice presentation of all the players with some trivia, maybe a fantasy league, things like that) I think it's already a good product, but it definitely can be expanded upon.
|
sweet~ this seems cool :D
|
why not make the game fun again instead off putting the effort into more skins...
|
never heard of "war chest". You can see/use them in 1v1 ladder games?
|
On July 16 2017 03:34 Endymion wrote: repost from the other thread, but 25%... really? only 25%? You should check how well Dota2 does it with Compendium, this year it's gone from 1.6 mill which valve puts in, to over 20 million dollars.....
So if Blizzard puts in 500 k for Blizzcon that might be millions.. get how much more interesting SC2 starts to look if there is actual money in the scene compared to .. well.. WCS Valencia 25k ..?
Support this, is my advice, if you really like SC2.
|
United States1546 Posts
So if I want to contribute $5 to professional Starcraft players, I could buy all three of these for $25 or just donate $5 dollars directly to my favorite player. Guess I know why I'm Blizzard's worst customer.
|
People complaining about the price;
There are 15 dots per bundle, if we pretend there's exactly 1 skin per dot (there's sometimes more), you'd be getting 15 skins for one race over the season. Normally we paid $4.99 for one skin, but now you're paying $9.99 for 15. That's why they said "remarkably low" on the announcement video, you're getting way more for only double the price of one skin previously.
|
when did you get that twice icon? it's dope
|
On July 16 2017 03:43 mizenhauer wrote: So if I want to contribute $5 to professional Starcraft players, I could buy all three of these for $25 or just donate $5 dollars directly to my favorite player. Guess I know why I'm Blizzard's worst customer. Ignoring the math, well you also become something for your money besides supporting the esports scene. If you don't care for any of the skins then that's fine ofc. In general i think this is a very good concept though, the execution could still be better (see my other post) but it's a nice start
|
And because apparently they're scared of this bundle accidentally doing too well, there's a cap on the money actually going to players, with Blizzard putting everything else directly into its own pocket. I honestly don't know what to say. Another pathetic effort.
|
On July 16 2017 03:38 NspFancy wrote: why not make the game fun again instead off putting the effort into more skins...
Completely different teams, mate.
|
On July 16 2017 03:49 bduddy wrote: And because apparently they're scared of this bundle accidentally doing too well, there's a cap on the money actually going to players, with Blizzard putting everything else directly into its own pocket. I honestly don't know what to say. Another pathetic effort. They cap out the blizzcon money, everything else goes to the esports scene in general. I think that's fine
|
On July 16 2017 03:49 Avexyli wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 03:38 NspFancy wrote: why not make the game fun again instead off putting the effort into more skins... Completely different teams, mate. Why have more people working on cosmetics than actually working on the game itself. Oh wait, it's because making the game better doesn't make Blizzard money, but cosmetics do.
|
On July 16 2017 03:49 bduddy wrote: And because apparently they're scared of this bundle accidentally doing too well, there's a cap on the money actually going to players, with Blizzard putting everything else directly into its own pocket. I honestly don't know what to say. Another pathetic effort. I do not understand the cap either, that just makes no sense to me.
If people want to give, let them give, they're already getting 75% to improve the infrastructure and treatment of players anyway.
|
On July 16 2017 03:35 The_Red_Viper wrote: It's a good start for sure but i would have hoped there is some content in there which gives you the motivation to buy it even if you don't care about skins at all. Some mini missions or quests, maybe an announcer, something which is related to the tournament the warchest is for (a nice presentation of all the players with some trivia, maybe a fantasy league, things like that) I think it's already a good product, but it definitely can be expanded upon.
Agree 100% SC2 could really use a system similar to Heroes (before 2.0).
|
On July 16 2017 03:35 digmouse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 03:34 Endymion wrote: repost from the other thread, but 25%... really? only 25%? Not really a outlier, Valve also put 25% of The International compendium sales into prize pool. If it goes anything like the compendium sales its up to what, 20mil? or something for the prize pool this year. as much as im no longer a fan of sc2, that could be quite large.
also not a fan of the zerg ones, protoss and terran ones are nice tho
|
On July 16 2017 03:56 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 03:35 digmouse wrote:On July 16 2017 03:34 Endymion wrote: repost from the other thread, but 25%... really? only 25%? Not really a outlier, Valve also put 25% of The International compendium sales into prize pool. If it goes anything like the compendium sales its up to what, 20mil? or something for the prize pool this year. as much as im no longer a fan of sc2, that could be quite large. also not a fan of the zerg ones, protoss and terran ones are nice tho
there's a cap on the amount that can go to the scene i believe
|
On July 16 2017 03:38 NspFancy wrote: why not make the game fun again instead off putting the effort into more skins... subjective
|
On July 16 2017 03:38 NspFancy wrote: why not make the game fun again instead off putting the effort into more skins...
I already do find the game fun, so I am happy they are doing this
|
On July 16 2017 03:33 digmouse wrote: I'm kind of worrying about the readability of some of the new skins. yeah same. Not a fan tbh. But anything that can improve the viability of sc2 is welcome.
|
On July 16 2017 03:34 Endymion wrote: repost from the other thread, but 25%... really? only 25%?
200k only.
If you want to support esport you should sub to your favorite player twitch channel, not buy the warchest.
|
China6279 Posts
It will only need ~32k $25 full bundle sales to reach the $200k Blizzcon cap, unless they are anticipating the sales to be quite mild, I don't really understand their thought process here. The rest goes to "production for 2017/18 season", an actual breakdown of how the money will be used would be welcomed.
|
Yes, finaly they added the compendium... war chest to SC2
But one thing is a little bit unclear. 25% of the money are added to the blizzcon pricemoney, up to +200.000$ but what happen with the 25% after the 200.000$ cap is reached? they saying the extra money support WCS 2018 but in what way? increasing the overall pricemoney in 2018? does anyone know something about this? maybe didn´t get something(or wrong)
|
On July 16 2017 04:12 digmouse wrote: It will only need ~32k $25 full bundle sales to reach the $200k Blizzcon cap, unless they are anticipating the sales to be quite mild, I don't really understand their thought process here. The rest goes to "production for 2017/18 season", an actual breakdown of how the money will be used would be welcomed.
Only rational explanation is they're using it to decrease their investment in StarCraft esport. It's a logical move for a business pov but as a fan it's very disappointing.
|
On July 16 2017 03:42 PuroYO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 03:34 Endymion wrote: repost from the other thread, but 25%... really? only 25%? You should check how well Dota2 does it with Compendium, this year it's gone from 1.6 mill which valve puts in, to over 20 million dollars..... So if Blizzard puts in 500 k for Blizzcon that might be millions.. get how much more interesting SC2 starts to look if there is actual money in the scene compared to .. well.. WCS Valencia 25k ..? Support this, is my advice, if you really like SC2.
Totally agree. Good stuff!
|
On July 16 2017 04:14 imre wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 04:12 digmouse wrote: It will only need ~32k $25 full bundle sales to reach the $200k Blizzcon cap, unless they are anticipating the sales to be quite mild, I don't really understand their thought process here. The rest goes to "production for 2017/18 season", an actual breakdown of how the money will be used would be welcomed. Only rational explanation is they're using it to decrease their investment in StarCraft esport. It's a logical move for a business pov but as a fan it's very disappointing.
Except all the other major esports do this and after this type of thing was implemented the prize pools rose exponentially so no reason to be disappointed
|
~32k sold War chests is not that easy to achieve with the current state of the Starcraft comunity
|
China6279 Posts
On July 16 2017 04:17 nOgi109 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 04:14 imre wrote:On July 16 2017 04:12 digmouse wrote: It will only need ~32k $25 full bundle sales to reach the $200k Blizzcon cap, unless they are anticipating the sales to be quite mild, I don't really understand their thought process here. The rest goes to "production for 2017/18 season", an actual breakdown of how the money will be used would be welcomed. Only rational explanation is they're using it to decrease their investment in StarCraft esport. It's a logical move for a business pov but as a fan it's very disappointing. Except all the other major esports do this and after this type of thing was implemented the prize pools rose exponentially so no reason to be disappointed But with this cap it is like "we want fans to contribute to the esports scene but also kind of don't".
|
On July 16 2017 03:43 mizenhauer wrote: So if I want to contribute $5 to professional Starcraft players, I could buy all three of these for $25 or just donate $5 dollars directly to my favorite player. Guess I know why I'm Blizzard's worst customer. 25 * 0.25 = 6.25
*Internal screaming*
|
On July 16 2017 04:19 digmouse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 04:17 nOgi109 wrote:On July 16 2017 04:14 imre wrote:On July 16 2017 04:12 digmouse wrote: It will only need ~32k $25 full bundle sales to reach the $200k Blizzcon cap, unless they are anticipating the sales to be quite mild, I don't really understand their thought process here. The rest goes to "production for 2017/18 season", an actual breakdown of how the money will be used would be welcomed. Only rational explanation is they're using it to decrease their investment in StarCraft esport. It's a logical move for a business pov but as a fan it's very disappointing. Except all the other major esports do this and after this type of thing was implemented the prize pools rose exponentially so no reason to be disappointed But with this cap it is like "we want fans to contribute to the esports scene but also kind of don't".
Its not so much of a cap. They allocate the first 200k to the Blizzcon event the rest goes to next years events. Considering we're already half way through the year it makes sense. They could change the way it works after Blizzcon anyway
|
On July 16 2017 04:17 nOgi109 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 04:14 imre wrote:On July 16 2017 04:12 digmouse wrote: It will only need ~32k $25 full bundle sales to reach the $200k Blizzcon cap, unless they are anticipating the sales to be quite mild, I don't really understand their thought process here. The rest goes to "production for 2017/18 season", an actual breakdown of how the money will be used would be welcomed. Only rational explanation is they're using it to decrease their investment in StarCraft esport. It's a logical move for a business pov but as a fan it's very disappointing. Except all the other major esports do this and after this type of thing was implemented the prize pools rose exponentially so no reason to be disappointed
there is no cap on the compendium. there is a cap there, don't you see the difference ? you're not supporting the players past the 200K prizepool there, you're helping blizzard to invest less in WCS
On July 16 2017 04:23 nOgi109 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 04:19 digmouse wrote:On July 16 2017 04:17 nOgi109 wrote:On July 16 2017 04:14 imre wrote:On July 16 2017 04:12 digmouse wrote: It will only need ~32k $25 full bundle sales to reach the $200k Blizzcon cap, unless they are anticipating the sales to be quite mild, I don't really understand their thought process here. The rest goes to "production for 2017/18 season", an actual breakdown of how the money will be used would be welcomed. Only rational explanation is they're using it to decrease their investment in StarCraft esport. It's a logical move for a business pov but as a fan it's very disappointing. Except all the other major esports do this and after this type of thing was implemented the prize pools rose exponentially so no reason to be disappointed But with this cap it is like "we want fans to contribute to the esports scene but also kind of don't". Its not so much of a cap. They allocate the first 200k to the Blizzcon event the rest goes to next years events. Considering we're already half way through the year it makes sense. They could change the way it works after Blizzcon anyway
2018 contribution doesn't go to the prizepool. Might give too much money to the players you know.
|
On July 16 2017 03:51 Solar424 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 03:49 Avexyli wrote:On July 16 2017 03:38 NspFancy wrote: why not make the game fun again instead off putting the effort into more skins... Completely different teams, mate. Why have more people working on cosmetics than actually working on the game itself. Oh wait, it's because making the game better doesn't make Blizzard money, but cosmetics do.
What are you even talking about? You don't even know the exact sizes of each department involved for each feature. lol
|
On July 16 2017 03:51 Solar424 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 03:49 Avexyli wrote:On July 16 2017 03:38 NspFancy wrote: why not make the game fun again instead off putting the effort into more skins... Completely different teams, mate. Why have more people working on cosmetics than actually working on the game itself. Oh wait, it's because making the game better doesn't make Blizzard money, but cosmetics do. What else are the artists and programmers supposed to do while the design team brainstorms and experiments?
|
This. This is what's wrong with video games. Charging more for the price of fucking skins than for the actual game.
|
On July 16 2017 04:12 imre wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 03:34 Endymion wrote: repost from the other thread, but 25%... really? only 25%? 200k only. If you want to support esport you should sub to your favorite player twitch channel, not buy the warchest. That does not support eSport at all.
|
On July 16 2017 04:47 PuroYO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 04:12 imre wrote:On July 16 2017 03:34 Endymion wrote: repost from the other thread, but 25%... really? only 25%? 200k only. If you want to support esport you should sub to your favorite player twitch channel, not buy the warchest. That does not support eSport at all.
Helping a player to pay his rent/living cost supports esport in a very concrete way. Especially in a scene where only a few are making a decent living.
|
good content, sadly it comes at the wrong time...
|
On July 16 2017 04:49 imre wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 04:47 PuroYO wrote:On July 16 2017 04:12 imre wrote:On July 16 2017 03:34 Endymion wrote: repost from the other thread, but 25%... really? only 25%? 200k only. If you want to support esport you should sub to your favorite player twitch channel, not buy the warchest. That does not support eSport at all. Helping a player to pay his rent/living cost supports esport in a very concrete way. Especially in a scene where only a few are making a decent living.
One player =\= eSports.
Competitive scene and professionals = eSports.
Funding one player does not help eSports, it helps one player.
|
On July 16 2017 04:24 imre wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 04:17 nOgi109 wrote:On July 16 2017 04:14 imre wrote:On July 16 2017 04:12 digmouse wrote: It will only need ~32k $25 full bundle sales to reach the $200k Blizzcon cap, unless they are anticipating the sales to be quite mild, I don't really understand their thought process here. The rest goes to "production for 2017/18 season", an actual breakdown of how the money will be used would be welcomed. Only rational explanation is they're using it to decrease their investment in StarCraft esport. It's a logical move for a business pov but as a fan it's very disappointing. Except all the other major esports do this and after this type of thing was implemented the prize pools rose exponentially so no reason to be disappointed there is no cap on the compendium. there is a cap there, don't you see the difference ? you're not supporting the players past the 200K prizepool there, you're helping blizzard to invest less in WCS Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 04:23 nOgi109 wrote:On July 16 2017 04:19 digmouse wrote:On July 16 2017 04:17 nOgi109 wrote:On July 16 2017 04:14 imre wrote:On July 16 2017 04:12 digmouse wrote: It will only need ~32k $25 full bundle sales to reach the $200k Blizzcon cap, unless they are anticipating the sales to be quite mild, I don't really understand their thought process here. The rest goes to "production for 2017/18 season", an actual breakdown of how the money will be used would be welcomed. Only rational explanation is they're using it to decrease their investment in StarCraft esport. It's a logical move for a business pov but as a fan it's very disappointing. Except all the other major esports do this and after this type of thing was implemented the prize pools rose exponentially so no reason to be disappointed But with this cap it is like "we want fans to contribute to the esports scene but also kind of don't". Its not so much of a cap. They allocate the first 200k to the Blizzcon event the rest goes to next years events. Considering we're already half way through the year it makes sense. They could change the way it works after Blizzcon anyway 2018 contribution doesn't go to the prizepool. Might give too much money to the players you know.
They're still investing the exact same amount into the esport prizes. Its 200k plus the money they already put up. The rest goes towards 2018 operations. I never said it goes towards prize pools but we don't really know either way yet. Considering the size of the community this is probably the best way to keeping things funded. Blizz can't do all that production at a loss forever. More money in the scene is never a bad thing whether it goes to players or casters.
|
On July 16 2017 03:51 Solar424 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 03:49 Avexyli wrote:On July 16 2017 03:38 NspFancy wrote: why not make the game fun again instead off putting the effort into more skins... Completely different teams, mate. Why have more people working on cosmetics than actually working on the game itself. Oh wait, it's because making the game better doesn't make Blizzard money, but cosmetics do.
I'm sure all those 3d-model, texture and animation artist will get onto to balance changes as soon as they're done with the war chest!
|
I haven't played SC2 outside the campaigns in years, but I might be tempted to get this anyway.
|
Good old Blizzard and overpriced addons. Not that I expected any different. Admittedly those are some cool skins. Unfortunately much like Playstation Plus the extra's you get for buying that which you actually want just make the price even more absurd, but can easily be used as ''justification'' of said price.
|
Loving these skins a lot! I never liked the red-black Tal'Darim look, but in blue these look really sick.
Only thing I'm scared of is how hard it is to distinguish Dropperlords from normal Overlords in the preview pictures (I already have this problem with the "mutated" skin), hope its easier in the real game or they'll change it up a bit.
|
On July 16 2017 04:59 Kerdinand wrote: Loving these skins a lot! I never liked the red-black Tal'Darim look, but in blue these look really sick.
Only thing I'm scared of is how hard it is to distinguish Dropperlords from normal Overlords in the preview pictures (I already have this problem with the "mutated" skin), hope its easier in the real game or they'll change it up a bit. These ar things they need feedback on now that they have released it, give it, constructively, but do give it!
|
The great irony of all is you will never see any of the skins in any big tournaments, which is a shame they look really cool.
|
On July 16 2017 05:03 Zaros wrote: The great irony of all is you will never see any of the skins in any big tournaments, which is a shame they look really cool. well the winged zergling is now seen once and again, and I seem to remember INno playing with the new hellion skin. We also saw a lot of the colossi skins (the white and the taldarim ones). So I think we'll see those skins in professionnal play.
|
On July 16 2017 05:10 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 05:03 Zaros wrote: The great irony of all is you will never see any of the skins in any big tournaments, which is a shame they look really cool. well the winged zergling is now seen once and again, and I seem to remember INno playing with the new hellion skin. We also saw a lot of the colossi skins (the white and the taldarim ones). So I think we'll see those skins in professionnal play.
Skins are banned in all big tournaments unfortunately
|
Guys, nobody's addressing THE REAL ISSUE here. How does a 3-wheeled helion still transform into a hellbat with 2 legs and 2 arms?
|
So my question is will these skins be allowed in WCS tournaments? They've been weirdly against it so far
|
On July 16 2017 04:40 Garuga wrote: This. This is what's wrong with video games. Charging more for the price of fucking skins than for the actual game. its the pay whatever you can afford revenue model. if u have no cash at all you pay $30 to join the party. if u r in ur prime earning years and want to spend $400+ on Starcraft you can do that too.
so far i've spent ~$600 on SC2 stuff and much, much more on the 2 Blizzcons i've attended. So far the airline companies are making more money off of me than Blizzard.
On July 16 2017 05:17 SetGuitarsToKill wrote: So my question is will these skins be allowed in WCS tournaments? They've been weirdly against it so far why is it weird to be against it? let the top players make the call. if the top players want the skins off... keep 'em off.
|
Now that the skins literally add money to the scene it might be good to change that rule and allow skins
|
what about casual viewers' ability to recognize the units?
|
You know that you managed to create a successful business model when players that already payed 60+30+40$ for a game you update only every 4 months not only already buy overpriced announcers, skins and 30 minutes "new solo campaign", but get super hyped when you announce a new money grabbing skin package to sustain the dying esport scene you managed to kill by your own inaction and lack of investment.
Make people pay for events that are bringing you money. That's like if IKEA asked you to pay 10 bucks for a hotdog, so that the money gathered could help them design a new couch they'll make you pay for full price.
It's brilliant if you think about it, what a PR masterpiece.
|
On July 16 2017 04:40 Garuga wrote: This. This is what's wrong with video games. Charging more for the price of fucking skins than for the actual game. then don't buy them, it's really not that hard
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
Limited time only? Cmon Blizz!
|
I hope there will be an option to disable the skins. I'm not looking forward to seeing all different sorts of units, just because my opponent threw money at Blizzard...
|
So, once I purchase one of these do I have an unlimited time to unlock the skins afterwards or do I have to play within a time period to unlock them?
|
On July 16 2017 04:40 Garuga wrote: This. This is what's wrong with video games. Charging more for the price of fucking skins than for the actual game.
TIL that $24.99 > $40.00 in your world.
Also its $25 for like 70 items ingame so... You actually get more from this than you would in an Overwatch loot box, which is also random.
|
I rather give that money for SC:R LOL
|
On July 16 2017 05:16 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 05:10 [PkF] Wire wrote:On July 16 2017 05:03 Zaros wrote: The great irony of all is you will never see any of the skins in any big tournaments, which is a shame they look really cool. well the winged zergling is now seen once and again, and I seem to remember INno playing with the new hellion skin. We also saw a lot of the colossi skins (the white and the taldarim ones). So I think we'll see those skins in professionnal play. Skins are banned in all big tournaments unfortunately
I find that very fortunate. I also really hope they will introduce an option to turn off skins clientside.
|
The skins look nice but I am not very keen on the limited time unlock part. Grinding exp is easy but I really don't have that much time to spare in the upcoming months... TT
|
On July 16 2017 07:17 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 05:16 Zaros wrote:On July 16 2017 05:10 [PkF] Wire wrote:On July 16 2017 05:03 Zaros wrote: The great irony of all is you will never see any of the skins in any big tournaments, which is a shame they look really cool. well the winged zergling is now seen once and again, and I seem to remember INno playing with the new hellion skin. We also saw a lot of the colossi skins (the white and the taldarim ones). So I think we'll see those skins in professionnal play. Skins are banned in all big tournaments unfortunately I find that very fortunate. I also really hope they will introduce an option to turn off skins clientside. Yeah, I would like to see that option available to turn it on/off at my leisure.
I know I'm going to purchase this anyway, but other people shouldn't have to see it if they don't want to, as long as I can see it.
|
On July 16 2017 04:40 Garuga wrote: This. This is what's wrong with video games. Charging more for the price of fucking skins than for the actual game.
lol it's nothing new. And it's not even cheaper than the actual game
meanwhile csgo has skins sell for thousands when the game cost like 15 euros
|
This all thing is too late by 5 years. The hype is over long ago.
On July 16 2017 06:31 -Archangel- wrote: I rather give that money for SC:R LOL This.
Not gonna reinstall my SC2 for any near future. Blizzard better make more skins for SC:R where the interest is.
|
On July 16 2017 07:55 saltis wrote:This all thing is too late by 5 years. The hype is over long ago. Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 06:31 -Archangel- wrote: I rather give that money for SC:R LOL This. Not gonna reinstall my SC2 for any near future. Blizzard better make more skins for SC:R where the interest is.
Well if you don't play sc2 to begin with why would you be interested in skins
|
On July 16 2017 07:55 saltis wrote:This all thing is too late by 5 years. The hype is over long ago. Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 06:31 -Archangel- wrote: I rather give that money for SC:R LOL This. Not gonna reinstall my SC2 for any near future. Blizzard better make more skins for SC:R where the interest is.
No point developing skins for a game that everyone outside of Korea is going to bail on within a week because its way too hard.
|
"I hate SC2 haven't played since the last WoL patch so I'm not buying this piece o-" How does anyone here still have time for that kind of negative *** nonsense, my gosh.
My first thoughts on the chests: Awesome that they didn't flat out copy the convoluted absurdity of the Dota 2 compendium and kept it clean and (mostly) simple and still cool.
Sprays are odd to see in this as I've only seen them used a few times ever, and two of those were someone BMing a lower league player with them, so shrug. More emoticons is cool, but there doesn't seem to be any theme with them, not a big deal just a little odd. Now the skins, I love a lot of the Terran skins, Protoss looks cool, and Zerg is... well, I honestly don't care for the "more spikes" thing they went with, though some of the units are still neat. But, since I play Zerg and have a budget the size of... idk the size of what, it's small, anyhow, I don't know if I'll end up buying it. + Show Spoiler +Those Ravagers, Lurkers, and Infestors looks pretty sweet though so I might have to scavenge for the money.
It looks pretty darn good to me, I haven't seen any serious complaints (aside from skins not being super readable, which I don't think will be a huge issue), and people are generally kinda excited which is also cool. Of course since this is the first time (that I've seen) that a system like this is being implemented into a non-free-to-play (for LotV), non-mobile, traditional 1v1-based RTS, I hope the team is looking to adapt what works this year with some new things next year that fit the game and its players better. And not be late next time. It being so late sucks, but it's here.
It's cool. It's just cool, it really is. Wish I could make some structures or ability effects and stuff for next year's!
On July 16 2017 05:16 KR_4EVR wrote: Guys, nobody's addressing THE REAL ISSUE here. How does a 3-wheeled helion still transform into a hellbat with 2 legs and 2 arms? It's actually six wheeled, if you look close enough. The front two wheels separate/attach when it transforms. :O
|
The colours must still change depending on selection colour right? I'm imagining those skins would look amazing in orange or green
|
China6279 Posts
On July 16 2017 07:55 saltis wrote:This all thing is too late by 5 years. The hype is over long ago. Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 06:31 -Archangel- wrote: I rather give that money for SC:R LOL This. Not gonna reinstall my SC2 for any near future. Blizzard better make more skins for SC:R where the interest is. There won't be a lot of broad interest for SC:R.
|
On July 16 2017 10:14 Fango wrote: The colours must still change depending on selection colour right? I'm imagining those skins would look amazing in orange or green Probably. The Protoss colors are different between the picture of the overall progression map and the picture of just the Protoss units.
|
Looks like TB is not a fan of the system either:
I would agree with this. Fan fever seldom do a company any good... just look at the recent Paradox's DLC/price craziness... Company can go quite far to milk a loyal fanbase. Personally it would largely depends on how grindy it is to unlock the skins within the time limit. But I definitely would prefer no time limit whatsoever.
edit: Looks like TB would make a full comment later
|
China6279 Posts
Eh this isn't worse than Dota's "pay to avoid the grind" approach. If it is relatively quick to unlock the skins I think it is fine.
I'm more concerned at the fact you probably won't be able to use the skins in coop, considering coop players make up the bulk of active sc2 playerbase right now.
|
On July 16 2017 15:09 digmouse wrote: Eh this isn't worse than Dota's "pay to avoid the grind" approach. If it is relatively quick to unlock the skins I think it is fine.
I'm more concerned at the fact you probably won't be able to use the skins in coop, considering coop players make up the bulk of active sc2 playerbase right now. I does make sense that the skins can't work in co-op since some of them do come from co-op units, and it would be confusing to have that overlap. At least the emoticons, sprays, and decals can still be used there.
|
On July 16 2017 03:52 PuroYO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 03:49 bduddy wrote: And because apparently they're scared of this bundle accidentally doing too well, there's a cap on the money actually going to players, with Blizzard putting everything else directly into its own pocket. I honestly don't know what to say. Another pathetic effort. I do not understand the cap either, that just makes no sense to me. If people want to give, let them give, they're already getting 75% to improve the infrastructure and treatment of players anyway. The cap makes sense.
Funding the prize pool is flashy. Funding WCS in general is critical, which is where the money above the cap goes.
Look at Dota 2, their $21M prize pool is totally ridiculous. If it were, say, a $2M cap, with the remaining $19M going to running esports, that would be a far more healthy scene.
However, I would encourage Blizzard to be more transparent with the amount going above the cap.
|
On July 16 2017 05:16 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 05:10 [PkF] Wire wrote:On July 16 2017 05:03 Zaros wrote: The great irony of all is you will never see any of the skins in any big tournaments, which is a shame they look really cool. well the winged zergling is now seen once and again, and I seem to remember INno playing with the new hellion skin. We also saw a lot of the colossi skins (the white and the taldarim ones). So I think we'll see those skins in professionnal play. Skins are banned in all big tournaments unfortunately As they should be.
They reduce the readability of the game, and can even indirectly affect gameplay as upgrades may be less visible.
This is why there must be an option to turn off seeing skins.
|
On July 16 2017 16:21 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 05:16 Zaros wrote:On July 16 2017 05:10 [PkF] Wire wrote:On July 16 2017 05:03 Zaros wrote: The great irony of all is you will never see any of the skins in any big tournaments, which is a shame they look really cool. well the winged zergling is now seen once and again, and I seem to remember INno playing with the new hellion skin. We also saw a lot of the colossi skins (the white and the taldarim ones). So I think we'll see those skins in professionnal play. Skins are banned in all big tournaments unfortunately As they should be. They reduce the readability of the game, and can even indirectly affect gameplay as upgrades may be less visible. This is why there must be an option to turn off seeing skins. A feature to turn off the skin client side, i.e. player can see default skin of unit and observer can show off the skin of player's choice to the viewers would be nice. For viewers/commentator the readability should not be a huge issue
|
I just feel like they should have done this kind of new content long ago, way before LOTV release when SCII was starting to "decline"
|
On July 16 2017 16:46 Twine wrote: I just feel like they should have done this kind of new content long ago, way before LOTV release when SCII was starting to "decline" I think most of their manpower was tied up working on the expansion packs back then.
|
On July 16 2017 16:46 Twine wrote: I just feel like they should have done this kind of new content long ago, way before LOTV release when SCII was starting to "decline" You know, people asked for this for SC2 5 years ago when Valve made the Compendium for Dota2.
I agree, they should have done something YEARS AGO, not let it fall all the way down to "25 dollar reward for winning a WCS Circuit", it diminishes the value of the professionals by paying them pocket change, but heck, even I as a Dota player will purchase the WC, I don't even play that much SC2 but this I will support.
Not sure why the cap is there though, I'd love to see a million dollar tourney for SC2, that's something the news media would've written.
|
The skins look amazing, really nice designs
|
I would only buy terran and protoss skins.
|
The cap does not really make sense to me as Blizzard is already getting 75%. With that said, this is what I have been waiting for: a way for the casual players and spectators to support the e-sports scene directly. This is what Valve is doing and it's good to do it for sc2. Better late than never. I hope for even better content and something to link the prizes you buy to the actual tournament like Valve's compendium (leveling, predicting, challenges etc)
|
Is it bad that I'm gonna buy this just for the turtle and RIP emotes?
|
How about adding a feature so I dont have to look at this? Even better: spend the time that went into this in improving the actual game.
|
On July 16 2017 18:45 Pnissen wrote: How about adding a feature so I dont have to look at this? Even better: spend the time that went into this in improving the actual game. Yeah, everyone knows the skin-making team (or whatever you wanna call it) and the balance team are one and the same.
|
Would probably buy it if i didnt have to then play co op or whatever to unlock the rest of it. That seems dumb to me.
Also really don't like the Zerg. Spikes.. Others are nice though.
|
On July 16 2017 18:57 Durnuu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 18:45 Pnissen wrote: How about adding a feature so I dont have to look at this? Even better: spend the time that went into this in improving the actual game. Yeah, everyone knows the skin-making team (or whatever you wanna call it) and the balance team are one and the same.
Seems like the balance team could use some more manpower.
|
This is so cool, love everything about it. The value is insane with not even 60 cents per zerg skin, and I will finally have more motivation to play again .
For me that alone is already enough and 25% going to WCS is just a bonus for me.
GJ Blizzard!
|
I really like the skins, will get all options for sure.
What I would really like though, is a mod of the ingame UI/dashboard thingie to my liking, like WoW has with interface addons, but of course it would be a lot more restricted to still keep the visible map proportions etc.
|
Only thing I don't like is the cap of $200k. I think they miss the point there. In Dota---when I used to play---it was exciting to see how high the prize pool could go. Now it's just like a stopping point. Everything else, including time restrictions is what I remember from Dota's compendium.
|
On July 16 2017 19:38 GeminiSC wrote: Only thing I don't like is the cap of $200k. I think they miss the point there. In Dota---when I used to play---it was exciting to see how high the prize pool could go. Now it's just like a stopping point. Everything else, including time restrictions is what I remember from Dota's compendium. On the other hand 200k is a realistic goal to reach for the way smaller sc2 community.
Being able to say "We did it" is kinda cool and the rest gets invested into next year. Raising 250k with no goal would not feel as cool, then it would just be compared to Dota2 and seem like nothing.
|
Protoss and Terran skins look really slick. I'm not sold on the zerg ones unfortunately. Hope this gets good sales for Blizzard, any money going into e-sports is good money.
|
On July 16 2017 19:38 GeminiSC wrote: Only thing I don't like is the cap of $200k. I think they miss the point there. In Dota---when I used to play---it was exciting to see how high the prize pool could go. Now it's just like a stopping point. Everything else, including time restrictions is what I remember from Dota's compendium. Overall it's a good idea, and a great way to fund WCS.
The only things I don't like, which I hope are fixed, are: 1. No option to turn off seeing other people's skins on your end. 2. There being a end date to the unlock, which is both needless and unfair to people who don't unlock everything. 3. Lack of disclosure for the money above the $200K cap.
The money above the $200K cap goes to funding WCS in general which is probably more important than the money going into the prize pool. It would have been neat if they used a rounder number than $200K, such as $250K for a 50% increase in the prize pool.
|
On July 16 2017 19:38 xtorn wrote: I really like the skins, will get all options for sure.
What I would really like though, is a mod of the ingame UI/dashboard thingie to my liking, like WoW has with interface addons, but of course it would be a lot more restricted to still keep the visible map proportions etc. I would love to see some UI and bonus co-op skins/ui/stuff, there's a lot of room for sound effects or announcers too. As for UI modifying to the level that WoW addons have? I'm not so sure. Does Blizz allow them for WoW Arena tournaments, and would that be okay for StarCraft ladder? Observer UI regularly gets changed for good reason, but I don't know that changing the command card location, unit selection interface, alert displays, HP/MP bars, etc. would work/be good for player perspectives.
That said, I haven't seen any mockups for any of that, so it's possible something could work.
|
On July 16 2017 20:30 Latham wrote: Protoss and Terran skins look really slick. I'm not sold on the zerg ones unfortunately. Hope this gets good sales for Blizzard, any money going into e-sports is good money. The 4 winged muta is the best of all the skins man! Super happy as a zerg .
|
On July 16 2017 20:36 paralleluniverse wrote: The only things I don't like, which I hope are fixed, are: 1. No option to turn off seeing other people's skins on your end. 2. There being a end date to the unlock, which is both needless and unfair to people who don't unlock everything.
1. There is tons of research, marketing, psychology, so on behind not having the option to turn off skins. If this happens then a large chunk of the people buying skins would stop buying them. I could go on for days about this, and I believe there are other threads around here somewhere about this, but I don't believe in the option to turn off skins.
If you have a serious issue with a skin in-game then talk about it specifically and help the team making skins make them better next time or help them make a specific change to a problematic model with a patch. I don't see any issues with them so far, once everyone gets to see them on the battlefield in big armies I still don't think they'll be a real issue. It seems like another "ew new thing new things are bad" situation and people will adjust perfectly fine.
2. An end date for purchasing I am totally fine with, but I agree that the current end date for unlocking seems a bit tight. However, we don't know the full details on how hard it's going to be yet, do we?
|
On July 16 2017 21:06 blunderfulguy wrote: If you have a serious issue with a skin in-game then talk about it specifically and help the team making skins make them better next time or help them make a specific change to a problematic model with a patch. I don't see any issues with them so far, once everyone gets to see them on the battlefield in big armies I still don't think they'll be a real issue. It seems like another "ew new thing new things are bad" situation and people will adjust perfectly fine.
1) lings with wings needs to be redesigned. the only one serious problematic model for me. 2) I don't like "black adepts", doesn't matter which color you are using, they are always black.
|
|
if only it didn't take them 7 years for this technology!
|
On July 16 2017 19:49 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 19:38 GeminiSC wrote: Only thing I don't like is the cap of $200k. I think they miss the point there. In Dota---when I used to play---it was exciting to see how high the prize pool could go. Now it's just like a stopping point. Everything else, including time restrictions is what I remember from Dota's compendium. On the other hand 200k is a realistic goal to reach for the way smaller sc2 community. Being able to say "We did it" is kinda cool and the rest gets invested into next year. Raising 250k with no goal would not feel as cool, then it would just be compared to Dota2 and seem like nothing.
That could be the reason (only takes 32,000 people to get there), but I also think it could be better payout later for the players. If they did more of the stretch goal incentive it could benefit even more.
After sleeping on this, SC is about individual players getting the money, not teams. $700k is good, and depending what the other 75% goes to for WCS could make 2018 better.
On another note, I don't understand people not wanting to play to receive all the rewards. Blizzard said players can reach the goals through commanders, which is a more casual game experience, not as stressful. They want people to play the game too and not just watch.
|
On July 16 2017 21:06 blunderfulguy wrote: 2. An end date for purchasing I am totally fine with, but I agree that the current end date for unlocking seems a bit tight. However, we don't know the full details on how hard it's going to be yet, do we? you will be able to purchase the skins outright after the Warchest time period is over. it'd be pretty weird if you bought the Warchest. Didn't play enough. Then had to buy the skin outright a 2nd time to be able to own it.
this criticism stands out the most for me "3) For the love of God do not put a timelimit on the chest "closing" after somebody has already bought it. That's just nonsense. If they bought it they should have as much time as they need to get the items out of it."
|
It really needs to be made clear that Blizzard is taking 75% of the profits. It's the first 200k of the 25% is going towards Blizzcon then anything beyond the 200k goes onto WCS 2018.
Only 25% is going into esports it's just how they distribute it that changes.
|
The biggest issue I've got with everything is that while we have 25% going towards competitive SC2 (the other 75% is just Blizzard's skin sale profit), we have no idea what that means beyond the first $200k. Are they going to put the money towards future prize pools? Is that even going to be something visible, or something they'll just hide, and people will have to make assumptions about? They may just use the rest of the money on the production end, giving themselves a discount on event hosting (which is still money put towards the competitive scene, but could involve them spending less as a base!). The page just says "with any surplus contributing to StarCraft II event production," which is either the most vague or least desirable thing I can think of.
If that $200k cap weren't present, I would feel a lot better about buying into something like this.
|
Wow, overly negative
Saying skins have no value because they can't be traded I don't really understand. It's a product someone made, and which you can choose to pay a price for to use it ingame.
And I also don't really understand the whales part. There's no random drops, no 'rare items'. You can spend hundreds to thousands of dollars on Dota battlepass just to get those artificially rare items. Same with Hearthstone packs. Those are for whales. This is just a fixed price for fixed goods?
I guess I agree I'm not sure if the 'play to unlock' requirement is necessary. It's nice to have a feeling of progress but it shouldn't be mandatory I guess? Though they said they expect even casual players to be able to easily unlock them, so we need to see how much of a problem this really is. Also the stuff you get with just lvl1 Dota battlepass isn't all that mindblowing either if you don't play after that, you need to play (or pay) to make use and earn the good stuff.
I do also agree it could be way more interesting and he has some great ideas in the final paragraph. But I still like the war chest for what it is. For Starcraft it's quite a major step.
|
On July 16 2017 23:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 21:06 blunderfulguy wrote: 2. An end date for purchasing I am totally fine with, but I agree that the current end date for unlocking seems a bit tight. However, we don't know the full details on how hard it's going to be yet, do we? you will be able to purchase the skins outright after the Warchest time period is over. At full price, not the discounted chest price if I'm not mistaken.
|
On July 16 2017 23:35 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Wow, overly negative ya, it is a bit over the top. is TB angry with Blizzard or with the people defending the Warchest? i agree with TB's basic points though with exception of the WHALEs thing that you explain well.
TB's suggestion here sounds awesome.
Have a live worldwide leaderboard where the "armies" of said players vie for dominance through wins and losses, representing in-game races and countries. Have them battle over a sector in the game universe and watch the battle-lines shift on a day by day basis. Implement fantasy Starcraft betting (without real money) with a few fun in-game items on the line for the people who get the most predictions right. unfortunately, this requires development resources Blizz may be unwilling to commit to SC2 at this time.
TB adds.
There are so many things you could do with this and I really feel like Blizzard has taken one of the least creative options. Let's face reality: Blizzard's SC2 budget is limited... so the current warchest is what we get.
|
On July 16 2017 23:43 JimmyJRaynor wrote:ya, it is a bit over the top. is TB angry with Blizzard or with the people defending the Warchest? i agree with TB's basic points though with exception of the WHALEs thing that you explain well. TB's suggestion here sounds awesome. Show nested quote +Have a live worldwide leaderboard where the "armies" of said players vie for dominance through wins and losses, representing in-game races and countries. Have them battle over a sector in the game universe and watch the battle-lines shift on a day by day basis. Implement fantasy Starcraft betting (without real money) with a few fun in-game items on the line for the people who get the most predictions right. unfortunately, this requires development resources Blizz may be unwilling to commit to SC2 at this time. TB adds. Show nested quote +There are so many things you could do with this and I really feel like Blizzard has taken one of the least creative options. Let's face reality: Blizzard's SC2 budget is limited... so the current warchest is what we get. Nope.
Have a live worldwide leaderboard where the "armies" of said players vie for dominance through wins and losses, representing in-game races and countries. Have them battle over a sector in the game universe and watch the battle-lines shift on a day by day basis. LOL WTF does this even mean?
|
A lot of suggestions he put out there are basically personal fantasies, if I started making those kinds of suggestions as if I had a team the size of an army and infinite budget I would go on and on until WoW 7 comes out.
As for the value of the skins, well, if you must completely disregard the value of other similar products in the market (which is kinda stupid since that's how things like this work but anyhow) it takes someone or a group of people with expensive programs and expensive equipment and a lot of time to make them (concept/design, sculpt, texture, light, so forth) and all of that has to be paid for which is where the base cost comes in. They probably have a goal in mind to make up for that cost and an estimate on how many chests they are going to sell and can set their base value accordingly, and then they have probably adjusted it to better match skins/boxes/whatnot in SC2 and other games and bump it up so they can profit after putting aside a chunk for esports events and Blizzcon.
I would guess some of the rest of that 75% factors in here along with supplementing their other teams working on SC:R, SC2, War3 patching, balance or marketing or otherwise.
|
On July 17 2017 00:02 blunderfulguy wrote: A lot of suggestions he put out there are basically personal fantasies, if I started making those kinds of suggestions as if I had a team the size of an army and infinite budget I would go on and on until WoW 7 comes out.
As for the value of the skins, well, if you must completely disregard the value of other similar products in the market (which is kinda stupid since that's how things like this work but anyhow) it takes someone or a group of people with expensive programs and expensive equipment and a lot of time to make them (concept/design, sculpt, texture, light, so forth) and all of that has to be paid for which is where the base cost comes in. They probably have a goal in mind to make up for that cost and an estimate on how many chests they are going to sell and can set their base value accordingly, and then they have probably adjusted it to better match skins/boxes/whatnot in SC2 and other games and bump it up so they can profit after putting aside a chunk for esports events and Blizzcon.
I would guess some of the rest of that 75% factors in here along with supplementing their other teams working on SC:R, SC2, War3 patching, balance or marketing or otherwise. Also, some of the 75% goes to the game's team, stability of servers, the art for the rewards themselves. And yeah, they want to make something on it. More factors to include, then just to make a cash grab.
|
i don't care about skins at all and will never buy any, but if players want skins and will buy skins then it's right for the game as long as i can still play the base game for the price i paid
i don't understand getting asshurt about having to see someone's skin. do you complain when you see someone irl wearing a nice jacket? letting people express themselves with visual choices makes games fun
i understand in certain cases there are concerns about readability, but what can you do? sc2 is a game with high numbers of small unit models, and it's harder to skin a small model without warping how it looks
|
TB is always pro-consumer, and I thank him for it.
Buying something and then having to jump through hoops in order to use something I've purchased is silly.
|
Some good points, but I disagree with his "imaginary value" argument. Of course Blizzard sets the price and there is no real value in the skins.
But I decide what a skin is worth to me. Since I am willing to pay 2,50 per skin, obviously an offer that gives me skins for 60 cents is of great value to me. The fact that those skins are all the same theme and can reskin my whole army at the end just increases the value for me.
If I have to play some games to get them that cheap, that's a pro for me, but I can see how it can be a con for others. They will just have to wait and can instabuy the skins as usual for the normal price at a later time.
Edit: The whole paragraph about the Warchest being quite boring is correct though. It should be tied to esports, promoting players and teams and tournaments. You should also be fighting for something in the game, have a goal to work towards to. It's called warchest, but there is no war you can be a part of. Now it's just play X games to earn enough Exp, then get those rewards. That's too simple.
|
On July 17 2017 00:33 brickrd wrote:i understand in certain cases there are concerns about readability, but what can you do? You can add an option to turn off seeing other people's skins on your end.
|
Only like 3 years too late? And on top of that you need to earn it yourself. You are actually paying for the chance to get it since it won't be guaranteed unless you put in the hours. Should've done something different like the compendium for tournaments.
Meh.
|
Man it must suck to have a videogame so ingrained into your identity that you'll defend literally any mediocre, half-assed addition to it as manna from the heavens.
"Please sir, can I have some more?", the tattered remains of the SC2 scene grovels, begging for table scraps.
I dunno man some of us actually try to make this game better instead of just rolling over and accepting every decision Blizzard makes and sometimes that involves going against those decisions. If you're not willing to do that, get out of the fast lane and stop holding up everyone else. Jesus Christ if I can get paid monthly cheques by Blizzard and still manage to criticize them when they don't do something as well as they could, you lot have absolutely no excuse. Don't settle, demand better. If you don't you're really no better than a volunteer PR guy for a multinational corporation, which is not something you wanna put on your Tinder profile.
|
On July 16 2017 03:33 digmouse wrote: I'm kind of worrying about the readability of some of the new skins.
im ok with it, as long as they don't make raptor lings ever again things will be ok. most units are prity easy to distinguish from one another just based on size and shape, the only unit skins that I have found problematic so far are ones that make it realy hard to count the number of enemy units, for instance raptor lings wings make it difficult to tell how many zerglings there actually are when they move around because its so visually cluttered.
Also that talderim set looks amazing
|
On July 17 2017 04:10 ClanWars wrote: Man it must suck to have a videogame so ingrained into your identity that you'll defend literally any mediocre, half-assed addition to it as manna from the heavens.
"Please sir, can I have some more?", the tattered remains of the SC2 scene grovels, begging for table scraps.
I dunno man some of us actually try to make this game better instead of just rolling over and accepting every decision Blizzard makes and sometimes that involves going against those decisions. If you're not willing to do that, get out of the fast lane and stop holding up everyone else. Jesus Christ if I can get paid monthly cheques by Blizzard and still manage to criticize them when they don't do something as well as they could, you lot have absolutely no excuse. Don't settle, demand better. If you don't you're really no better than a volunteer PR guy for a multinational corporation, which is not something you wanna put on your Tinder profile. Screw off with this negative bullshit, there's enough of that in the world and even in this thread already and you're far better than to behave so childish. Or, at least I thought you were. For crying out loud, get a better outlook on life and other people in the world, dude. Punch up, not down, and don't torch everything around you while you do it.
And find a new line other than "please sir, can I have some mo-" we've heard it enough times by now and you must be sick of saying it every week, no?
|
On July 17 2017 04:10 ClanWars wrote: Man it must suck to have a videogame so ingrained into your identity that you'll defend literally any mediocre, half-assed addition to it as manna from the heavens.
"Please sir, can I have some more?", the tattered remains of the SC2 scene grovels, begging for table scraps.
I dunno man some of us actually try to make this game better instead of just rolling over and accepting every decision Blizzard makes and sometimes that involves going against those decisions. If you're not willing to do that, get out of the fast lane and stop holding up everyone else. Jesus Christ if I can get paid monthly cheques by Blizzard and still manage to criticize them when they don't do something as well as they could, you lot have absolutely no excuse. Don't settle, demand better. If you don't you're really no better than a volunteer PR guy for a multinational corporation, which is not something you wanna put on your Tinder profile. Well, it's difference of opinion on to how people want to spend their money. How much money does SC2 actually bring in compared to how much they pay players, staff working on the game, and pay for personalities to host/cast the events? I'm not 100% for how they separate their money with this, but I am still going to buy this. My money, I spend it where I will. Skins for me with the new art is worth it, and the potential ease to get everything is something that would have me play more, even through commanders. I don't generally buy announcer packs, because for me their not worth that. But how I spend my money is up to me and to consumers who want it. If people don't want it, they won't buy it and Blizzard can change or not change depending on the outcome.
|
On July 17 2017 04:19 blunderfulguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2017 04:10 ClanWars wrote: Man it must suck to have a videogame so ingrained into your identity that you'll defend literally any mediocre, half-assed addition to it as manna from the heavens.
"Please sir, can I have some more?", the tattered remains of the SC2 scene grovels, begging for table scraps.
I dunno man some of us actually try to make this game better instead of just rolling over and accepting every decision Blizzard makes and sometimes that involves going against those decisions. If you're not willing to do that, get out of the fast lane and stop holding up everyone else. Jesus Christ if I can get paid monthly cheques by Blizzard and still manage to criticize them when they don't do something as well as they could, you lot have absolutely no excuse. Don't settle, demand better. If you don't you're really no better than a volunteer PR guy for a multinational corporation, which is not something you wanna put on your Tinder profile. Screw off with this negative bullshit, there's enough of that in the world and even in this thread already and you're far better than to behave so childish. Or, at least I thought you were. For crying out loud, get a better outlook on life and other people in the world, dude. Punch up, not down, and don't torch everything around you while you do it. And find a new line other than "please sir, can I have some mo-" we've heard it enough times by now and you must be sick of saying it every week, no?
I think you're being a bit dramatic about how negative he's been. I mean, TB has always had a flair for the dramatic but don't return the favor when criticizing him.
|
On July 17 2017 04:28 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2017 04:19 blunderfulguy wrote:On July 17 2017 04:10 ClanWars wrote: Man it must suck to have a videogame so ingrained into your identity that you'll defend literally any mediocre, half-assed addition to it as manna from the heavens.
"Please sir, can I have some more?", the tattered remains of the SC2 scene grovels, begging for table scraps.
I dunno man some of us actually try to make this game better instead of just rolling over and accepting every decision Blizzard makes and sometimes that involves going against those decisions. If you're not willing to do that, get out of the fast lane and stop holding up everyone else. Jesus Christ if I can get paid monthly cheques by Blizzard and still manage to criticize them when they don't do something as well as they could, you lot have absolutely no excuse. Don't settle, demand better. If you don't you're really no better than a volunteer PR guy for a multinational corporation, which is not something you wanna put on your Tinder profile. Screw off with this negative bullshit, there's enough of that in the world and even in this thread already and you're far better than to behave so childish. Or, at least I thought you were. For crying out loud, get a better outlook on life and other people in the world, dude. Punch up, not down, and don't torch everything around you while you do it. And find a new line other than "please sir, can I have some mo-" we've heard it enough times by now and you must be sick of saying it every week, no? I think you're being a bit dramatic about how negative he's been. I mean, TB has always had a flair for the dramatic but don't return the favor when criticizing him. Is this the dramatic flair that you're referencing? http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/483824-re-totalbiscuit?page=3#59 http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/closed-threads/32696-automated-ban-list-latest-spawnvertigo?page=1788#35741
Actually I think I've had enough. I'm done with TL and its cadre of poisonous posters who suffer from collective Dunning-Kruger effect. You can't even explain your teams own business model without getting shit on because a bunch of crybabies got offended for no reason. Even Reddit didnt get offended at that blog and they get offended at everything under the sun.
Asking the mods to delete my account, there's no benefit to being here anyway. If people wanna circlejerk about how much they think they know and make themselves feel better by shitting on the increasingly shrinking number of community personalities/casters/players that bother to continue to post on TL that's their business, but I'm not going to subject myself to it anymore.
5 years of this shit is to just too damn much. Enough.
Oh and Boxerfred? Go fuck yourself. If you didnt want a negative response you shouldn't have shitposted in the thread in the first place. You want me to "stop being a prick to people?", then try treating me how you want to be treated. Congratulations on further piling on drama to the point where I can't be fucked to deal with it anymore. I hope you're satisfied at your accomplishment.
|
Pretty much agree with what TB argues in the long tweet. The quality of the skins seem to be there but the marketing and implementation is just meh. I am not a moba/dota 2 fan and could care less that valve has done something similar.
|
I'm surprised this thread isn't brimming with positivity.
I thought it was pretty fun news, although I'm missing console skins.
|
On July 17 2017 04:10 ClanWars wrote: I dunno man some of us actually try to make this game better instead of just rolling over and accepting every decision Blizzard makes and sometimes that involves going against those decisions. If you're not willing to do that, get out of the fast lane and stop holding up everyone else. how many people in the thread are accepting every decision Blizzard makes? is any one in the thread fully satisfied and on board with this War Chest? i don't think any one is.
EDIT: i found 1 guy : Musicus
Ok, should i now rip him to shreds on as personal a level as possible. will that help? Let's all make fun of him. That'll really improve the discussion about the Warchest.
|
Hmm... not really interested to be honest, the art is cool I guess lol.
|
Terran got tissue box and crying emoticons. While Protoss get cheese emoticon. What does Blizzard trying to tell us. :thinking:
|
On July 17 2017 11:17 Felissie wrote: Terran got tissue box and crying emoticons. While Protoss get cheese emoticon. What does Blizzard trying to tell us. :thinking: They tried to promote sells by following general memes. That's all...
|
On July 17 2017 04:19 blunderfulguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2017 04:10 ClanWars wrote: Man it must suck to have a videogame so ingrained into your identity that you'll defend literally any mediocre, half-assed addition to it as manna from the heavens.
"Please sir, can I have some more?", the tattered remains of the SC2 scene grovels, begging for table scraps.
I dunno man some of us actually try to make this game better instead of just rolling over and accepting every decision Blizzard makes and sometimes that involves going against those decisions. If you're not willing to do that, get out of the fast lane and stop holding up everyone else. Jesus Christ if I can get paid monthly cheques by Blizzard and still manage to criticize them when they don't do something as well as they could, you lot have absolutely no excuse. Don't settle, demand better. If you don't you're really no better than a volunteer PR guy for a multinational corporation, which is not something you wanna put on your Tinder profile. Screw off with this negative bullshit, there's enough of that in the world and even in this thread already and you're far better than to behave so childish. Or, at least I thought you were. For crying out loud, get a better outlook on life and other people in the world, dude. Punch up, not down, and don't torch everything around you while you do it. And find a new line other than "please sir, can I have some mo-" we've heard it enough times by now and you must be sick of saying it every week, no?
What a wonderfully constructive, informative post. How many years have you been working with Blizzard on a professional level, or perhaps managing your own team or putting on tournaments for this scene?
You know the drones have gone too far when you are literally dismissing posts by someone who has access to more insider information and statistics than probably anyone on TL (who isn't staff anyway) as "negative bullshit". Oh no, how dare someone point out that something could be better! And even worse, also providing several lengthy options as to how they could be made better! The horror, it's unthinkable!
Critics drive discussion and thinking, while apologists are the only ones "punching down" and promoting stagnation when they silence any dissent regardless of its merit.
|
I love the idea and the value but like other people are saying i wish more of the cost went to the players.
Maybe next year the will change it from 25% to something more.
|
On July 16 2017 20:54 blunderfulguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 19:38 xtorn wrote: I really like the skins, will get all options for sure.
What I would really like though, is a mod of the ingame UI/dashboard thingie to my liking, like WoW has with interface addons, but of course it would be a lot more restricted to still keep the visible map proportions etc. I would love to see some UI and bonus co-op skins/ui/ stuff, there's a lot of room for sound effects or announcers too. As for UI modifying to the level that WoW addons have? I'm not so sure. Does Blizz allow them for WoW Arena tournaments, and would that be okay for StarCraft ladder? Observer UI regularly gets changed for good reason, but I don't know that changing the command card location, unit selection interface, alert displays, HP/MP bars, etc. would work/be good for player perspectives. That said, I haven't seen any mockups for any of that, so it's possible something could work. yeah i think Blizz doesnt allow custom UI in WoW arena tourneys.
I wasnt really clear in my post, i meant restricted customization for the ingame dashboard UI that doesn't modify the allowed "battlefield" perspective, for instance: the console at the bottom is all you can customize and you could rearrange the elements to your liking, what if I like my minimap on the other corner or different UI colors or whatever. And, just as WoW, they would disable the custom UI in tourneys.
|
Wait, I don't understand. Sorry, this might be a stupid question but after buying those you have to unlock them by playin co-op and stuff ? Like if I buy it and don't really play much outside of like ~5 1v1 ladder games per month, will I be able to use those skins or will they stay locked ?
|
On July 17 2017 16:49 LoneYoShi wrote: Wait, I don't understand. Sorry, this might be a stupid question but after buying those you have to unlock them by playin co-op and stuff ? Like if I buy it and don't really play much outside of like ~5 1v1 ladder games per month, will I be able to use those skins or will they stay locked ?
I think you'll be able to use one single (unit?) skin
Rest should be unlocked until you played more.
|
On July 17 2017 16:49 LoneYoShi wrote: Wait, I don't understand. Sorry, this might be a stupid question but after buying those you have to unlock them by playin co-op and stuff ? Like if I buy it and don't really play much outside of like ~5 1v1 ladder games per month, will I be able to use those skins or will they stay locked ? Yes you have to play co-op or matchmaking to unlock the skins. If 5 games per month is enough is hard to say right now. Could be that you need to play 5 games per week instead. But not much more than that, it's supposed to be very easy and casual friendly to unlock everything.
|
On July 17 2017 14:59 207aicila wrote: Critics drive discussion and thinking, while apologists are the only ones "punching down" and promoting stagnation when they silence any dissent regardless of its merit. its a back-and-forth mud slinging between 2 guys who are discussing each other rather the topic.
i'd say the # of people fully satisfied with the Warchest are in the minority.
what is hilarious is people with the majority opinion that the Warchest is less than great ... claiming those in the minority are somehow bad for SC2. Holy Lex Luger.
i don't think the Warchest is that great. A small group thinks the Warchest is great? super.. they can buy it. if indeed very few like the Warchest then very few will buy it. With low sales levels Blizzard will be forced to go back to the drawing board and come up with something better or just drop the whole thing entirely.
|
On July 17 2017 18:51 sCuMBaG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2017 16:49 LoneYoShi wrote: Wait, I don't understand. Sorry, this might be a stupid question but after buying those you have to unlock them by playin co-op and stuff ? Like if I buy it and don't really play much outside of like ~5 1v1 ladder games per month, will I be able to use those skins or will they stay locked ? I think you'll be able to use one single (unit?) skin Rest should be unlocked until you played more.
On July 17 2017 19:08 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2017 16:49 LoneYoShi wrote: Wait, I don't understand. Sorry, this might be a stupid question but after buying those you have to unlock them by playin co-op and stuff ? Like if I buy it and don't really play much outside of like ~5 1v1 ladder games per month, will I be able to use those skins or will they stay locked ? Yes you have to play co-op or matchmaking to unlock the skins. If 5 games per month is enough is hard to say right now. Could be that you need to play 5 games per week instead. But not much more than that, it's supposed to be very easy and casual friendly to unlock everything.
Thanks for the answers guys ! It's a shame, I didn't buy skins so far because I thought it was quite expensive and I'm not playing much anymore. I thought the warchest would have been a great way to get lots of skins at a cheaper price while at the same time supporting the e-sports scene that I spent so much time watching a few years back, but I won't pay for something that I won't be able to unlock! Unless this actually motivates me to pick the game up again...
|
On July 16 2017 23:35 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Saying skins have no value because they can't be traded I don't really understand. It's a product someone made, and which you can choose to pay a price for to use it ingame. After your purchased the warchest the economical value of the included items becomes zero, because that is what you can sell or trade them for.
After you purchased the compendium the economical value of the included items becomes what you trade or sell them for, because, well, you actually can.
|
I feel like this is too little, too late and not nearly what I expected. It could have been done SO MUCH better, even now.
Also, the cap is something I truly detest here.
|
I like some skins, I don't like the cap, I'll buy anyway. Maybe next time they'll be no cap.
|
Nothing against people that want their units to look different, but please give us an option to disable mods, skins, whatever on the client side for 1v1. The game is already to difficult to read IMO.
|
I remember when Destiny started a thread about how paid cosmetic items are needed in SC2 to prevent the 'dead game' prophecy, and I don't know if this War Chest will help keep people interested in SC2, but I was against this entire thing from the beginning.
Skins are great for that single hero you use during an entire match, but so many people are asking for a 'disable skins' option, which totally defeats the purpose of skins. So why even have it when you can't show it off?
Don't get me wrong, I hope the War Chest helps SC2's scene, but I'm against the entire thing.
I love SC2 because it is so fucking hard to play. I love SC2 because the pros make it look so easy, but I know it isn't such. I love SC2 because it challenges me to be better, and not find a scapegoat to blame my losses.
I think there are many that love SC2 for the same reasons. I think this War Chest is an atrocity to this game I love so much, but as much as I hate the War Chest, I see how it can help.
|
On July 18 2017 13:14 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: I remember when Destiny started a thread about how paid cosmetic items are needed in SC2 to prevent the 'dead game' prophecy, and I don't know if this War Chest will help keep people interested in SC2, but I was against this entire thing from the beginning.
Skins are great for that single hero you use during an entire match, but so many people are asking for a 'disable skins' option, which totally defeats the purpose of skins. So why even have it when you can't show it off?
Don't get me wrong, I hope the War Chest helps SC2's scene, but I'm against the entire thing.
I love SC2 because it is so fucking hard to play. I love SC2 because the pros make it look so easy, but I know it isn't such. I love SC2 because it challenges me to be better, and not find a scapegoat to blame my losses.
I think there are many that love SC2 for the same reasons. I think this War Chest is an atrocity to this game I love so much, but as much as I hate the War Chest, I see how it can help.
Well, I for my part am not entirely against skins in games, but it depends on the particular game and the transaction model of it. But SC2 does not really need skins, it's a game with many different units played at a high pace, so in most cases you can't even appreciate the looks of the units, because you ideally just glimpse at them every few seconds and then do something different. However, if people really want that option to pay additional money for customization of their playing experience, go ahead, I won't stand in your way, BUT leave players alone who've played this game for years and don't want to see all that. Not being able to 'show off' those purchases you made to other players is a really flawed logic, because you really should enjoy them by yourself, you bought them to spice up YOUR gaming experience, not your opponents'. I certainly have no intention of buying that thing, either, since I'd rather see them improving the game instead of just squeezing some additional buck out of the hardcore player base. Well, maybe they should put an option to turn skins off behind a paywall, too...
|
Okay, I didn't know about the time limit on unlocking. That means I'm not getting it then. That's a ridiculous practice. If you pay for something you should be getting it, no matter how long it takes you to get around to playing with it.
|
Although I'm a pretty hardcore RTS fan since age 7, I have never bought any of the in-game goodies that Blizzard has started selling a couple months ago. I just thought they were overpriced for what they granted. Now they offer me a possibility to get them at a cheaper price AND give me the opportunity to support Esport scene which I so want to see continue to work and grow. Activision Blizzard is not owned by a single individual but by many investors, and I'm pretty sure people in there looking at the results have probably been thinking for a while: ''the SC2 Esport scene has been operating at a loss for way too long, we should cut it off entirely or reduce the production investments even more''. If war chest shows positive results, then perhaps it will give people who think like me at Blizzard the tools to keep supporting the development of RTS as compared to other genre that are much much more lucrative atm: ‘’hey, we’ve got a fan base who’s ready to pay a little extra when it comes to supporting the scene, how about that?’’ Although I reckon the warchest could use many improvements, it’s still a step in the right direction; encouraging this is positive reinforcement and should – I hope – push them in developing/improving the formula further more in the future.
As for the necessity to play a minimum amount to get what you paid for: to some people (including me during school year) that will be a strategy to motivate themselves to play the game/end a long break from playing it (so many people are just on-and-off with it, we all know that). I view it a bit like a gym monthly membership: some people realize that paying for the potential to train will give them a bit of an incentive to actually finally get some training at least. And if they don’t use their monthly membership they paid for, well they get nothing out of it. Does that make it a ‘’wrong economic model’’? I don’t think so. For those with very high ladder anxiety and stuff, well they can just play coop missions with friends/random people. For the others, well they don’t have to buy, nobody forces them to.
All these things are the reason why I will buy at least the terran skins on the first day it comes out, if not the entire thing to encourage them to push the formula forward.
|
On July 18 2017 17:42 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2017 13:14 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: I remember when Destiny started a thread about how paid cosmetic items are needed in SC2 to prevent the 'dead game' prophecy, and I don't know if this War Chest will help keep people interested in SC2, but I was against this entire thing from the beginning.
Skins are great for that single hero you use during an entire match, but so many people are asking for a 'disable skins' option, which totally defeats the purpose of skins. So why even have it when you can't show it off?
Don't get me wrong, I hope the War Chest helps SC2's scene, but I'm against the entire thing.
I love SC2 because it is so fucking hard to play. I love SC2 because the pros make it look so easy, but I know it isn't such. I love SC2 because it challenges me to be better, and not find a scapegoat to blame my losses.
I think there are many that love SC2 for the same reasons. I think this War Chest is an atrocity to this game I love so much, but as much as I hate the War Chest, I see how it can help.
Well, maybe they should put an option to turn skins off behind a paywall, too... I know I'd love that - and pay for that - but some people won't buy skins if they can't show them.
|
On July 18 2017 21:05 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2017 17:42 Creager wrote:On July 18 2017 13:14 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: I remember when Destiny started a thread about how paid cosmetic items are needed in SC2 to prevent the 'dead game' prophecy, and I don't know if this War Chest will help keep people interested in SC2, but I was against this entire thing from the beginning.
Skins are great for that single hero you use during an entire match, but so many people are asking for a 'disable skins' option, which totally defeats the purpose of skins. So why even have it when you can't show it off?
Don't get me wrong, I hope the War Chest helps SC2's scene, but I'm against the entire thing.
I love SC2 because it is so fucking hard to play. I love SC2 because the pros make it look so easy, but I know it isn't such. I love SC2 because it challenges me to be better, and not find a scapegoat to blame my losses.
I think there are many that love SC2 for the same reasons. I think this War Chest is an atrocity to this game I love so much, but as much as I hate the War Chest, I see how it can help.
Well, maybe they should put an option to turn skins off behind a paywall, too... I know I'd love that - and pay for that - but some people won't buy skins if they can't show them.
But nobody has to know we don't see their skins, we just keep it a secret :D
|
Cool, but what about readability?
|
On July 18 2017 22:11 Keyboard Warrior wrote: Cool, but what about readability?
The only thing I've heard being discusses in terms of readability (issues) was the roach for Zerg, if it really is an issue it will be changed, that's a given.
|
i wonder how long it will take blizzard to introduce random drops at the end of a game of sc2
|
Seems they pushed the WC back by 14 hours.. Now the 20th, not 19th.
|
|
Warchest - coming July 19, except for most of the playerbase
|
On July 17 2017 23:12 clusen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2017 23:35 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Saying skins have no value because they can't be traded I don't really understand. It's a product someone made, and which you can choose to pay a price for to use it ingame. After your purchased the warchest the economical value of the included items becomes zero, because that is what you can sell or trade them for. After you purchased the compendium the economical value of the included items becomes what you trade or sell them for, because, well, you actually can. At the same time, you'd have to invest significantly to get anything of value in the compendium, or be super lucky.
Otherwise, the value of the cosmetics in SC2, would be how much it would cost a newcomer to get all the stuff in the warchests after launch. If they charge a dollar or two per item in the entire army, it would cost a pretty penny to get what I got for 10 dollars.
On July 18 2017 13:14 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote: I remember when Destiny started a thread about how paid cosmetic items are needed in SC2 to prevent the 'dead game' prophecy, and I don't know if this War Chest will help keep people interested in SC2, but I was against this entire thing from the beginning.
Skins are great for that single hero you use during an entire match, but so many people are asking for a 'disable skins' option, which totally defeats the purpose of skins. So why even have it when you can't show it off?
Don't get me wrong, I hope the War Chest helps SC2's scene, but I'm against the entire thing.
I love SC2 because it is so fucking hard to play. I love SC2 because the pros make it look so easy, but I know it isn't such. I love SC2 because it challenges me to be better, and not find a scapegoat to blame my losses.
I think there are many that love SC2 for the same reasons. I think this War Chest is an atrocity to this game I love so much, but as much as I hate the War Chest, I see how it can help.
I think Destiny's point was that having microtransactions gives Blizzard incentive to keep updating the game. One thing I always criticized Blizzard for, is that during the surge of the F2P Mobas, one awesome thing they had was there was always something new, something cool on the horizon as they kept patching the game.
This wasnt the case for SC2. They would hold back features and cool shit to put on the back of the box of the expansion back, every 2 years.
If they have microtransactions, they have more reason to keep updating the game and investing into it, instead of going the ways of WC3 and basically say "OK, we're basically done. We're moving the developers onto the next project.".
And whoever asks for a "disable skins" button has no clue what the hell they're talking about. There's a reason why no game offers that feature.
|
On July 18 2017 20:46 Trizztein wrote: As for the necessity to play a minimum amount to get what you paid for: to some people (including me during school year) that will be a strategy to motivate themselves to play the game/end a long break from playing it (so many people are just on-and-off with it, we all know that). I view it a bit like a gym monthly membership: some people realize that paying for the potential to train will give them a bit of an incentive to actually finally get some training at least. And if they don’t use their monthly membership they paid for, well they get nothing out of it. Does that make it a ‘’wrong economic model’’? I don’t think so. For those with very high ladder anxiety and stuff, well they can just play coop missions with friends/random people. For the others, well they don’t have to buy, nobody forces them to.
I really like the gym membership comparison here, I wasn't sure how exactly I felt about the unlocks until now. Some people will probably try to argue "well if you need that nonsense motivating you then you shouldn't be playing" like what people used to do with achievements/trophies/etc. but I think that and arguments like that are invalid for the most part, especially for gaming. It's a little investment that brings a little extra challenge which offers a cool reward if you step up a bit, not a chance for a cool reward either, something straight up, very similarly to investing in a new pair of running shoes or putting the money down for a gym membership. And even if they don't get the unlocks they still get a few emoticons, worker skins, and supported the game and its esports scene.
|
On July 18 2017 18:37 Thax wrote: Okay, I didn't know about the time limit on unlocking. That means I'm not getting it then. That's a ridiculous practice. If you pay for something you should be getting it, no matter how long it takes you to get around to playing with it.
You can just buy the skins themselves after WCS.
They're not war chest exclusive - You get them early get contributing to WCS and playing the game.
If you don't want to get them early/support the game/play the game, just buy them separately when they're released.
Honestly this is all on the warchest website, I don't know why everyone's getting all upset.
|
I don't see why you'd announce the War Chest for July 19th and then not schedule it so it's actually out on July 19th for most people. But what do I know?
|
For all we know they might've read the discussion about readability in terms of Roaches and changed it based on that, which would mean more work for the artists, however, I don't know.
I would prefer if they actually LET US KNOW, though, like Valve does when they are late on something.
|
On July 19 2017 19:44 PuroYO wrote: For all we know they might've read the discussion about readability in terms of Roaches and changed it based on that, which would mean more work for the artists, however, I don't know.
I would prefer if they actually LET US KNOW, though, like Valve does when they are late on something. If you look at the zerg skin picture you can see that there are two roaches.
I assume one is without and one with tunneling claws. To me it looks like the difference will be easier to spot than without skins, so the readability in terms of roaches seems to have been improved instead of lowered with the new skins.
|
On July 19 2017 19:44 PuroYO wrote: For all we know they might've read the discussion about readability in terms of Roaches and changed it based on that, which would mean more work for the artists, however, I don't know.
I would prefer if they actually LET US KNOW, though, like Valve does when they are late on something.
There already is a skin for burrowed roaches - You can see it on the warchest website.
|
I don't like the cap as an idea. In reality it is not relevant, because this war chest can't add more than 200k to the price pool. The community is too small. I will be surprised if it reaches 100k. That will be massive success.
|
On July 19 2017 20:06 Pr0wler wrote: I don't like the cap as an idea. In reality it is not relevant, because this war chest can't add more than 200k to the price pool. The community is too small. I will be surprised if it reaches 100k. That will be massive success.
Community? I am not even in the SC2 community, I am a Dota2 gamer and even I will purchase the WC.
You can't judge everything by the community, there are plenty of people outside of the community who potentially also will purchase the WC, I know 2 people that I've played with the past week who is getting the WC, neither of them play more than maybe 10 games a week, some co-op, but they want to support SC2 like they support Dota2 with compendium.
So, that's 3 WC sales to non-community members, let's hope there are more IF your statement about community size is remotely valid.
|
Anyone know what time they are launching?
|
On July 19 2017 23:03 wUndertUnge wrote: Anyone know what time they are launching? 9 hours from now. So not the 19th for SEA/Asia, not the 19th for EU and pretty late on the 19th for East Cost. I'm curious what possibly spoke against doing it 10 hours earlier.
|
|
On July 19 2017 20:25 PuroYO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 20:06 Pr0wler wrote: I don't like the cap as an idea. In reality it is not relevant, because this war chest can't add more than 200k to the price pool. The community is too small. I will be surprised if it reaches 100k. That will be massive success. Community? I am not even in the SC2 community, I am a Dota2 gamer and even I will purchase the WC. You can't judge everything by the community, there are plenty of people outside of the community who potentially also will purchase the WC, I know 2 people that I've played with the past week who is getting the WC, neither of them play more than maybe 10 games a week, some co-op, but they want to support SC2 like they support Dota2 with compendium. So, that's 3 WC sales to non-community members, let's hope there are more IF your statement about community size is remotely valid. I don't think that many people will do that. It's completely illogical. Why would I spend money on something I don't use ? Why would I care about SC2, when I don't even play or watch it.
|
On July 19 2017 23:08 Pr0wler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 20:25 PuroYO wrote:On July 19 2017 20:06 Pr0wler wrote: I don't like the cap as an idea. In reality it is not relevant, because this war chest can't add more than 200k to the price pool. The community is too small. I will be surprised if it reaches 100k. That will be massive success. Community? I am not even in the SC2 community, I am a Dota2 gamer and even I will purchase the WC. You can't judge everything by the community, there are plenty of people outside of the community who potentially also will purchase the WC, I know 2 people that I've played with the past week who is getting the WC, neither of them play more than maybe 10 games a week, some co-op, but they want to support SC2 like they support Dota2 with compendium. So, that's 3 WC sales to non-community members, let's hope there are more IF your statement about community size is remotely valid. I don't think that many people will do that. It's completely illogical. Why would I spend money on something I don't use ? Why would I care about SC2, when I don't even play or watch it.
For real...I don't play Dota2, and so wouldn't buy the compendium. It's surprising to me that the other poster would buy the WarChest and doesn't play SC2
|
On July 19 2017 23:08 Pr0wler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 20:25 PuroYO wrote:On July 19 2017 20:06 Pr0wler wrote: I don't like the cap as an idea. In reality it is not relevant, because this war chest can't add more than 200k to the price pool. The community is too small. I will be surprised if it reaches 100k. That will be massive success. Community? I am not even in the SC2 community, I am a Dota2 gamer and even I will purchase the WC. You can't judge everything by the community, there are plenty of people outside of the community who potentially also will purchase the WC, I know 2 people that I've played with the past week who is getting the WC, neither of them play more than maybe 10 games a week, some co-op, but they want to support SC2 like they support Dota2 with compendium. So, that's 3 WC sales to non-community members, let's hope there are more IF your statement about community size is remotely valid. I don't think that many people will do that. It's completely illogical. Why would I spend money on something I don't use ? Why would I care about SC2, when I don't even play or watch it. I don't think anyone is talking about people who could care less about SC2, we're all talking about people who play and watch at least occasionally. And even then there are people who actually do this for things they rarely or never play/watch. With Dota 2, with Magic, with fighting games, with other Blizz games, with all kinds of hobbies. Just because you personally don't do this doesn't mean nobody does, it's all personal preference about how people spend their money and how people choose to support the things they are passionate about.
The "SC2 community", in my book, isn't made up of only people who play and watch 50 hours of SC2 each week and only play SC2 and BW, it's anyone who's interested in the game regardless of how much they do or don't play, watch, chat in forums, so on. Even though they aren't "hardcore" they're still all over the place subbing to players on Twitch, buying t-shirts, or picking up a co-op commander or announcer (or war chest?) that they think is cool just like the hardcore fans do.
|
Well my friend does no longer watch or really play sc2, maybe co-op once a month. Although he did not even have it installed for months now.
But he is excited to buy the warchest and then unlock the skins by playing co-op with me.
|
8716 Posts
I can't figure out how to buy it. Did they change the date?
|
On July 20 2017 02:20 NonY wrote: I can't figure out how to buy it. Did they change the date? Yeah it was delayed by 15 hours or so, check out the timer here
https://warchest.starcraft2.com/en-us/
|
8716 Posts
Yeah what is that timer? It's an erroneous countdown to July 19? I don't get what's going on.
|
On July 20 2017 02:22 NonY wrote:Yeah what is that timer? It's an erroneous countdown to July 19? I don't get what's going on. It counts down to 4pm PDT or something I think. They said the midnight release timer was a mistake.
|
On July 19 2017 23:08 Pr0wler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 20:25 PuroYO wrote:On July 19 2017 20:06 Pr0wler wrote: I don't like the cap as an idea. In reality it is not relevant, because this war chest can't add more than 200k to the price pool. The community is too small. I will be surprised if it reaches 100k. That will be massive success. Community? I am not even in the SC2 community, I am a Dota2 gamer and even I will purchase the WC. You can't judge everything by the community, there are plenty of people outside of the community who potentially also will purchase the WC, I know 2 people that I've played with the past week who is getting the WC, neither of them play more than maybe 10 games a week, some co-op, but they want to support SC2 like they support Dota2 with compendium. So, that's 3 WC sales to non-community members, let's hope there are more IF your statement about community size is remotely valid. I don't think that many people will do that. It's completely illogical. Why would I spend money on something I don't use ? Why would I care about SC2, when I don't even play or watch it.
Where did I state that people who does not play the game would purchase the WC?
I statedh that people OUTSIDE OF THE COMMUNITY would purchase it, for instance people who are not a part of the follow-every-progame-and-know-all-people-and-updates-while-communicating-on-reddit/TL-with-others crowd, what you see here on TL is not the entirety of the player base, know that.
|
On July 20 2017 02:58 PuroYO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 19 2017 23:08 Pr0wler wrote:On July 19 2017 20:25 PuroYO wrote:On July 19 2017 20:06 Pr0wler wrote: I don't like the cap as an idea. In reality it is not relevant, because this war chest can't add more than 200k to the price pool. The community is too small. I will be surprised if it reaches 100k. That will be massive success. Community? I am not even in the SC2 community, I am a Dota2 gamer and even I will purchase the WC. You can't judge everything by the community, there are plenty of people outside of the community who potentially also will purchase the WC, I know 2 people that I've played with the past week who is getting the WC, neither of them play more than maybe 10 games a week, some co-op, but they want to support SC2 like they support Dota2 with compendium. So, that's 3 WC sales to non-community members, let's hope there are more IF your statement about community size is remotely valid. I don't think that many people will do that. It's completely illogical. Why would I spend money on something I don't use ? Why would I care about SC2, when I don't even play or watch it. Where did I state that people who does not play the game would purchase the WC? I statedh that people OUTSIDE OF THE COMMUNITY would purchase it, for instance people who are not a part of the follow-every-progame-and-know-all-people-and-updates-while-communicating-on-reddit/TL-with-others crowd, what you see here on TL is not the entirety of the player base, know that. By community I meant everyone that plays the game or watches it. If I have to change my statement by your standards - The playerbase and the viewbase are small. Both statements are true and 100k will be EXTREMELY big success for SC2 so the 200k cap is irrelevant.
|
|
I can't read the comic though, what about you guys?
|
300,000 XP to get the marine. ouch.
|
I thought I got them when I paid. Didn't know I have to go full carpal tunnel just to get the first 4.
|
On July 20 2017 10:38 royalroadweed wrote: I thought I got them when I paid. Didn't know I have to go full carpal tunnel just to get the first 4.
Do people not read ANYTHING about a product that has been talked about for over a week, and then go to purchase?
Ignorance is bliss I guess.
It's like the Dota2 compendium, you have to unlock and it's cool, also, it's not that difficult lol.
|
Did anyone notice that the unit portraits are also different for the skinned units? Preeeeeeeety cool!
|
On July 20 2017 12:06 wUndertUnge wrote: Did anyone notice that the unit portraits are also different for the skinned units? Preeeeeeeety cool! They're like that for the previously purchase-able skins as well! Also the sound effects have a slight filter to them (at least the previous ones did).
|
I wish we could rotate the skin previews in the war chest, they just rotate and you only really get to see the front for maybe 2 seconds and then you have to wait another 2, just stop the rotating and let us rotate the models instead.
|
The question of mine is whether buildings are going to change their appearance/color too... when Protoss will get their all-Forged skins, their grey army will look silly next to their golden buildings.
|
China6279 Posts
Anyone know the pace of unlocks by now?
|
On July 20 2017 16:54 digmouse wrote: Anyone know the pace of unlocks by now? If you play all 3 races, you could unlock all the phase 1 skins in 5 days by playing 3 games per day (one with each race), since your first win with every race gives you a 100k bonus.
|
China6279 Posts
On July 20 2017 17:51 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 16:54 digmouse wrote: Anyone know the pace of unlocks by now? If you play all 3 races, you could unlock all the phase 1 skins in 5 days by playing 3 games per day (one with each race), since your first win with every race gives you a 100k bonus. That doesn't sound bad tbh.
|
i think the darker Zealot warchest skin is not working. the Zealot warchest skin looks as lightly coloured as the default skin
|
On July 20 2017 17:57 digmouse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 17:51 Musicus wrote:On July 20 2017 16:54 digmouse wrote: Anyone know the pace of unlocks by now? If you play all 3 races, you could unlock all the phase 1 skins in 5 days by playing 3 games per day (one with each race), since your first win with every race gives you a 100k bonus. That doesn't sound bad tbh. Yeah and a normal 13 minute ladder game just gave me 60k without the bonus, so even without playing 3 races you will get 300k in 4 games and can unlock one skin (300k exp) every day easily.
|
China6279 Posts
On July 20 2017 18:09 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 17:57 digmouse wrote:On July 20 2017 17:51 Musicus wrote:On July 20 2017 16:54 digmouse wrote: Anyone know the pace of unlocks by now? If you play all 3 races, you could unlock all the phase 1 skins in 5 days by playing 3 games per day (one with each race), since your first win with every race gives you a 100k bonus. That doesn't sound bad tbh. Yeah and a normal 13 minute ladder game just gave me 60k without the bonus, so even without playing 3 races you will get 300k in 4 games and can unlock one skin (300k exp) every day easily. Does playing vs AI work? I don't have the skills to play on ladder any more and don't feel like playing lower COOP difficulties with slow game speed since I never played COOP before.
|
On July 20 2017 18:14 digmouse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 18:09 Musicus wrote:On July 20 2017 17:57 digmouse wrote:On July 20 2017 17:51 Musicus wrote:On July 20 2017 16:54 digmouse wrote: Anyone know the pace of unlocks by now? If you play all 3 races, you could unlock all the phase 1 skins in 5 days by playing 3 games per day (one with each race), since your first win with every race gives you a 100k bonus. That doesn't sound bad tbh. Yeah and a normal 13 minute ladder game just gave me 60k without the bonus, so even without playing 3 races you will get 300k in 4 games and can unlock one skin (300k exp) every day easily. Does playing vs AI work? I don't have the skills to play on ladder any more and don't feel like playing lower COOP difficulties with slow game speed since I never played COOP before.
Yes, it does work.
|
On July 20 2017 18:14 digmouse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 18:09 Musicus wrote:On July 20 2017 17:57 digmouse wrote:On July 20 2017 17:51 Musicus wrote:On July 20 2017 16:54 digmouse wrote: Anyone know the pace of unlocks by now? If you play all 3 races, you could unlock all the phase 1 skins in 5 days by playing 3 games per day (one with each race), since your first win with every race gives you a 100k bonus. That doesn't sound bad tbh. Yeah and a normal 13 minute ladder game just gave me 60k without the bonus, so even without playing 3 races you will get 300k in 4 games and can unlock one skin (300k exp) every day easily. Does playing vs AI work? I don't have the skills to play on ladder any more and don't feel like playing lower COOP difficulties with slow game speed since I never played COOP before. Yeah you can basically just 4 gate, 12 pool and reaper rush vs an easy AI .
|
I did play 3 games vs (very easy) AI today. each race one game. I got about 410,000 exp in total but I can't unlock any skin.
|
I completely understand that Blizzard needs to keep making money. They "screwed" themselves up when they dropped the lan because now they can't charge for the online multiplayer even though they have people working on that all the time and they're doing an awesome job. I will buy at least the zerg part, and if I can afford it all the rest. If they continue to support the WCS and they show me that some money goes into the sc 2 esport scene I will try to do what I can. I want them to succeed , because I really love this game and I don't watch any other games. I have a job that I have to keep.
|
On July 20 2017 20:13 Dingodile wrote: I did play 3 games vs (very easy) AI today. each race one game. I got about 410,000 exp in total but I can't unlock any skin. That's weird, just played a game vs the AI to test it and I gained exp and unlocked the zergling skin. I even got another 100k exp bonus, even though I already played zerg on ladder.
|
On July 20 2017 21:34 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 20:13 Dingodile wrote: I did play 3 games vs (very easy) AI today. each race one game. I got about 410,000 exp in total but I can't unlock any skin. That's weird, just played a game vs the AI to test it and I gained exp and unlocked the zergling skin. I even got another 100k exp bonus, even though I already played zerg on ladder. unlocked automatically a zergling skin or you choosed it? If automatically, maybe I overlooked it.
|
On July 20 2017 22:23 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 21:34 Musicus wrote:On July 20 2017 20:13 Dingodile wrote: I did play 3 games vs (very easy) AI today. each race one game. I got about 410,000 exp in total but I can't unlock any skin. That's weird, just played a game vs the AI to test it and I gained exp and unlocked the zergling skin. I even got another 100k exp bonus, even though I already played zerg on ladder. unlocked automatically a zergling skin or you choosed it? If automatically, maybe I overlooked it. It's automatic.
|
On July 20 2017 22:24 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 22:23 Dingodile wrote:On July 20 2017 21:34 Musicus wrote:On July 20 2017 20:13 Dingodile wrote: I did play 3 games vs (very easy) AI today. each race one game. I got about 410,000 exp in total but I can't unlock any skin. That's weird, just played a game vs the AI to test it and I gained exp and unlocked the zergling skin. I even got another 100k exp bonus, even though I already played zerg on ladder. unlocked automatically a zergling skin or you choosed it? If automatically, maybe I overlooked it. It's automatic. Then I am sure I overlooked it. I was looking to unlock any Protoss/Terrans skin all the time.
|
Wish the warchest $ would update by the minute, would be interesting to see how its going.
|
On July 20 2017 22:29 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 22:24 Elentos wrote:On July 20 2017 22:23 Dingodile wrote:On July 20 2017 21:34 Musicus wrote:On July 20 2017 20:13 Dingodile wrote: I did play 3 games vs (very easy) AI today. each race one game. I got about 410,000 exp in total but I can't unlock any skin. That's weird, just played a game vs the AI to test it and I gained exp and unlocked the zergling skin. I even got another 100k exp bonus, even though I already played zerg on ladder. unlocked automatically a zergling skin or you choosed it? If automatically, maybe I overlooked it. It's automatic. Then I am sure I overlooked it. I was looking to unlock any Protoss/Terrans skin all the time. Well all 3 skins will unlock at the same time, regardless of which race you play, assuming you bought all 3. Just check if you can equip the skin.
|
i think... if u really like playing SC2 chances are you will "feel" like the skins are worth it.
|
United States1546 Posts
On July 20 2017 23:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i think... if u really like playing SC2 chances are you will "feel" like the skins are worth it.
I play Starcaft every day and like it enough that I'd continue playing if my zerglings were white squares. I think it's silly to measure how much someone likes something by how much money they'd spend on it. I would never spent a cent on skins because to me the way a unit looks is irrelevant. I just care how it functions from a gameplay pov.
|
On July 20 2017 23:59 mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2017 23:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i think... if u really like playing SC2 chances are you will "feel" like the skins are worth it. I play Starcaft every day and like it enough that I'd continue playing if my zerglings were white squares. I think it's silly to measure how much someone likes something by how much money they'd spend on it. I would never spent a cent on skins because to me the way a unit looks is irrelevant. I just care how it functions from a gameplay pov. not sure what this has to do with my post.. but .. umm ok.
|
I wait until Swarm Hosts are nerfed until I invest any more money in SC2.
Why? Because if Swarm Hosts are left in their current state I doubt I will be playing this game in 3 months. Which would mean it would be pointless to buy any skins.
|
On July 20 2017 23:15 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i think... if u really like playing SC2 chances are you will "feel" like the skins are worth it.
You're polarizing the player base by creating in- and out-groups when saying things like that. Why do I like SC2 less than others just because I don't care about cosmetical items, sprays and all these things they've added recently, which naturally means I won't spend as much money on the game as you guys do?
|
me? i'm making an "IF ... THEN" statement about who might perceive enjoyment from buying skins.
2 of my RL friends play SC2 lots. 1 spent the bare minimum $140... the other buys every Commander, Voice Pack, and Skin. makes no difference to me.
|
|
I'm diggin the Protoss and Zerg skins, Terran looks like they got kind of screwed outside the Battle Cruiser.
Also diggin how the money will be used for Esports, kind of sucks however that there are games out there like Heroes of the Storm that are free and you can pay for stuff, but with SC2, 3 full priced expansions later and they don't even give you the option of playing say....50 - 100 ladder games with each race to unlock things.
Isn't the goal to get people playing/watching SC2 more to boost it's popularity in the Esports world? Or is it to get a 1 time donation?
Still going to buy it though, SC2 is life and I know HOTS doesn't have campaigns so meh, just feels like once again Blizzard charging you for stuff that you should be able to grind for.
|
On July 21 2017 01:35 jpg06051992 wrote: I'm diggin the Protoss and Zerg skins, Terran looks like they got kind of screwed outside the Battle Cruiser.
my main race as Terran. i'm happy with the Terran skins. but its really subjective. i can see why people might not like the Terran skins. i feel it gives the Terran a slightly different theme. The lore behind the new skins is awesome
|
If Corruptors and Brood Lords are correctly listed as separate units in the skin section, then so should HTs and Archons. In fact, Archons can be formed from DTs, so this listing makes no sense.
Furthermore: 1. Instead of randomizing DT models which has now become archaic, can we get the 2 models as separate selectable skins. 2. Can Blizzard please improve the default HT model. It's one of the most ugly unit models in the game. The cloak flaps in a very unnatural way, extends too far out when the HT is moving, it looks thinner than paper, and the 3 traces the HT makes when it moves is too distinct and would look better if it blended more.
|
On July 21 2017 02:26 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2017 01:35 jpg06051992 wrote: I'm diggin the Protoss and Zerg skins, Terran looks like they got kind of screwed outside the Battle Cruiser.
my main race as Terran. i'm happy with the Terran skins. but its really subjective. i can see why people might not like the Terran skins. i feel it gives the Terran a slightly different theme. The lore behind the new skins is awesome
Yea I mean they are still cool, it's minor but I actually really like the way the marines look, it's like a nice subtle change.
Protoss definitely got the coolest ones lol wow so much swag
|
Russian Federation104 Posts
I think we really need to have an opportunity to turn the skins off, especially considering we have quite an ammount of skins already.
|
On July 21 2017 02:39 paralleluniverse wrote:If Corruptors and Brood Lords are correctly listed as separate units in the skin section, then so should HTs and Archons. In fact, Archons can be formed from DTs, so this listing makes no sense. Furthermore: 1. Instead of randomizing DT models which has now become archaic, can we get the 2 models as separate selectable skins. 2. Can Blizzard please improve the default HT model. It's one of the most ugly unit models in the game. The cloak flaps in a very unnatural way, extends too far out when the HT is moving, it looks thinner than paper, and the 3 traces the HT makes when it moves is too distinct and would look better if it blended more. I would honestly not mind too much if all our skins were randomizable... If I own 3 different skins for a Colossi, I'm only going to be able to display 1 at a time. I don't really plan to go into collections and modify skins that often.
If not the DT way (which is fair, cuz its messy), at least have an option to randomize each skin per game. So one game it might be purifier colossi, one game it might be all taldarim colossi.
|
On July 21 2017 03:01 0mg_t1red wrote: I think we really need to have an opportunity to turn the skins off, especially considering we have quite an ammount of skins already. i'd like to see the fans vote on what skin theme they want players to have during mirror matches... while the players themselves just see the standard skins in the game they're playing.
Dominion Special Forces Versus Raynor's Raiders
|
On July 21 2017 04:16 Brutaxilos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2017 02:39 paralleluniverse wrote:If Corruptors and Brood Lords are correctly listed as separate units in the skin section, then so should HTs and Archons. In fact, Archons can be formed from DTs, so this listing makes no sense. Furthermore: 1. Instead of randomizing DT models which has now become archaic, can we get the 2 models as separate selectable skins. 2. Can Blizzard please improve the default HT model. It's one of the most ugly unit models in the game. The cloak flaps in a very unnatural way, extends too far out when the HT is moving, it looks thinner than paper, and the 3 traces the HT makes when it moves is too distinct and would look better if it blended more. I would honestly not mind too much if all our skins were randomizable... If I own 3 different skins for a Colossi, I'm only going to be able to display 1 at a time. I don't really plan to go into collections and modify skins that often. If not the DT way (which is fair, cuz its messy), at least have an option to randomize each skin per game. So one game it might be purifier colossi, one game it might be all taldarim colossi. Randomizing skins for all units would be totally whacked.
The only reason it is a bit less disruptive for DTs is because they're permanently cloaked.
It makes sense to remove the randomization for DTs, and just let people choose between the 2 skins.
Your second suggestion of random skins that remain the same for the entire game is fine though.
|
Hey guys I've been experimenting with some ways to shorten the time you have to invest to unlock the warchest (I'll be deep in my studies during phase 3 but still want to unlock the stuff within the defined period). I thought the first win of the day per race (no matter the format you're playing) granted you 100K bonus xp (as stated here https://goo.gl/8sG9pb), so I tried to just put 3 insane AI on my team vs 1 opponent very easy AI on a custom map (and do something else during the 5 minutes it takes the game to end); works fine with the races I don't normally play but with Terran doesn't give me any XP (cuz I'm lvl 50 already maybe?). What do you guys figure?? Have you guys found anything faster?
|
I just kind of wish they hadn't used so much gray in these skins. The banshee and the phoenix look like they have slightly darker tones and they look amazing compared to the others.
|
8716 Posts
I wish I could set opponent skins. Maybe I'll get used to them but there are nuances to learn like what an overlord with ventral sacs looks like. I just had a game against the mutant skin and thought it didn't have ventral sacs and was just scouting, and then lings started coming out. Once leviathan brood is out I'll have to study the differences. I thought the special forces marauder was a hellbat at first. The fancy roaches make me think they have tunneling claws. Maybe playing a ton of games will overcome the issues and all skins will feel comfortable and immediately recognizable, but just playing a few games here and there with skins is confusing. Also the different wire frames for my own units confuse me, but I think that'll be overcome quickly since it's something I see every game.
|
Why would I buy skins if other people can't see them? Kinda defeats the purpose imo. Look upon me equestria for I am rarity
|
8716 Posts
On July 22 2017 09:05 riotjune wrote: Why would I buy skins if other people can't see them? Kinda defeats the purpose imo. Look upon me equestria for I am rarity I know that is one value of the skins to some people but I'm suggesting that the skins still exist and you can set them for both your own army and your opponent's. The purpose of the skins would be for customization, not for expressing yourself to your opponents. Streamers would still be showing their skins to others and observers would still see each player's chosen skins. Or you could opt to see your opponent's chosen skins like normal. The only people who wouldn't see your self-expression would be the people who don't care to so there's really no loss. This also adds value to skins because there'd be a purpose for a one-race player to collect skins for all three races.
|
I'll also add that I'd love for people to be able to add skins to their pool of "active skins" and once they're in the game it would randomly select one skin for each unit from that pool.
The way that HT and Archons skins are set up is weird, but if they make more HT- and DT-specific Archon skins (special HT skin transforms into special Archon, for example), then it might make sense? I've always felt for the multiple DT models it gave more character to each DT, every one felt like a little, unique hero slaying things on the battlefield. It seems like a big personal preference though, maybe in the future letting players pick "1 up to X" DT or Ghost skins could happen.
For UI/UX/client features stuff: I really hope that we can get another update to the game to let people do things like browse the latest StarCraft news/Blizz articles and read the comics in the client itself instead of being shot into your browser. If the War Chest was higher up like in the main top bar (or let you hover over the keyhole and click to open/go to its page) instead of under Main Screen/Campaign/then click on War Chest, I think that'd be nice for not just people who have it but also for Blizz to get people's eyes on it easier. There is the "Learn More" button, but I noticed myself and a friend of mine both assumed it behaved the same as other News Buttons and would shoot us out of the game, so maybe it's more of a consistency issue with a small number of players, curious how many others did this.
|
On July 22 2017 09:21 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2017 09:05 riotjune wrote: Why would I buy skins if other people can't see them? Kinda defeats the purpose imo. Look upon me equestria for I am rarity I know that is one value of the skins to some people but I'm suggesting that the skins still exist and you can set them for both your own army and your opponent's. The purpose of the skins would be for customization, not for expressing yourself to your opponents. Streamers would still be showing their skins to others and observers would still see each player's chosen skins. Or you could opt to see your opponent's chosen skins like normal. The only people who wouldn't see your self-expression would be the people who don't care to so there's really no loss. This also adds value to skins because there'd be a purpose for a one-race player to collect skins for all three races. I think having the option in Custom Games could work, but... it's sort of like being able to choose how you see somebody else's clothes or hairstyle (a very very odd comparison lol, but it's the best I came up with). It's just weird to choose what you see from your opponent's army, it's their army after all. It would take too much away from other players for me to be okay with, so I don't think it's a good option for ladder play. If it were Custom-only, or an "opt in" deal for War Chest owners only, something like that would be better.
Here, maybe this helps express how I feel about it better: Self-expression, in this way for many people, is very dependent on not only how you see yourself, your team color and the style you play and which units you love to use and which skins you pick for those units, but also how those around you see you, how others see you play and how they see your army on the battlefield. All of that, to me, should be kept for each individual player.
|
Customization? If I could make opponent's dt/ob blurs into SHINY blurs = INSTABUY
|
Over 100 000 USD added to the prize pool!
War Chest is working, I just wish they made it feel a little more special, not a hidden tab behind the collection tab, also, there is no marketing in-game about it, lost opportunities.
Oh yeah, they should update the what's new tab with WC info or have it on the front page so it's the first thing people see and a prize pool counter in-game or at least a link to it, make more people interested in it, even those who might not care about pro sc2 could be interested.
|
8716 Posts
On July 22 2017 09:50 blunderfulguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2017 09:21 NonY wrote:On July 22 2017 09:05 riotjune wrote: Why would I buy skins if other people can't see them? Kinda defeats the purpose imo. Look upon me equestria for I am rarity I know that is one value of the skins to some people but I'm suggesting that the skins still exist and you can set them for both your own army and your opponent's. The purpose of the skins would be for customization, not for expressing yourself to your opponents. Streamers would still be showing their skins to others and observers would still see each player's chosen skins. Or you could opt to see your opponent's chosen skins like normal. The only people who wouldn't see your self-expression would be the people who don't care to so there's really no loss. This also adds value to skins because there'd be a purpose for a one-race player to collect skins for all three races. I think having the option in Custom Games could work, but... it's sort of like being able to choose how you see somebody else's clothes or hairstyle (a very very odd comparison lol, but it's the best I came up with). It's just weird to choose what you see from your opponent's army, it's their army after all. It would take too much away from other players for me to be okay with, so I don't think it's a good option for ladder play. If it were Custom-only, or an "opt in" deal for War Chest owners only, something like that would be better. Here, maybe this helps express how I feel about it better: Self-expression, in this way for many people, is very dependent on not only how you see yourself, your team color and the style you play and which units you love to use and which skins you pick for those units, but also how those around you see you, how others see you play and how they see your army on the battlefield. All of that, to me, should be kept for each individual player. But this was already the norm and continues to be how the game works for army colors. For example, I see my army as green and my opponent as red. They see their army as green and mine as red. The observer sees us as red and blue.
Anyway, self-expression is still possible without an audience. You are your own audience; you do it for yourself. And having control of your enemy's appearance provides you with even more choices to exercise your preferences.
Whether or not you make all this a social experience, whether other people see your choices and you see their choices, could very well just be an option. Or rather I think that should be the default and there should be an option to be asocial.
|
On July 22 2017 09:34 blunderfulguy wrote: I'll also add that I'd love for people to be able to add skins to their pool of "active skins" and once they're in the game it would randomly select one skin for each unit from that pool.
The way that HT and Archons skins are set up is weird, but if they make more HT- and DT-specific Archon skins (special HT skin transforms into special Archon, for example), then it might make sense? I've always felt for the multiple DT models it gave more character to each DT, every one felt like a little, unique hero slaying things on the battlefield. It seems like a big personal preference though, maybe in the future letting players pick "1 up to X" DT or Ghost skins could happen.
For UI/UX/client features stuff: I really hope that we can get another update to the game to let people do things like browse the latest StarCraft news/Blizz articles and read the comics in the client itself instead of being shot into your browser. If the War Chest was higher up like in the main top bar (or let you hover over the keyhole and click to open/go to its page) instead of under Main Screen/Campaign/then click on War Chest, I think that'd be nice for not just people who have it but also for Blizz to get people's eyes on it easier. There is the "Learn More" button, but I noticed myself and a friend of mine both assumed it behaved the same as other News Buttons and would shoot us out of the game, so maybe it's more of a consistency issue with a small number of players, curious how many others did this.
I agree 100%. I made a post on reddit and got shat on for that idea. There's really no point in buying new skins if you already like all the skins you own.
If they want to make it truly feel like a "collection" there really needs to be some way where all the skins you like can still be displayable (if it gets randomized every match that is okay 100%). An alternative is to just have all the skins work like DT models, but I can see this getting very cluttered and hard to implement.
|
On July 22 2017 08:50 NonY wrote: I wish I could set opponent skins. Maybe I'll get used to them but there are nuances to learn like what an overlord with ventral sacs looks like. I just had a game against the mutant skin and thought it didn't have ventral sacs and was just scouting, and then lings started coming out. Once leviathan brood is out I'll have to study the differences. I thought the special forces marauder was a hellbat at first. The fancy roaches make me think they have tunneling claws. Maybe playing a ton of games will overcome the issues and all skins will feel comfortable and immediately recognizable, but just playing a few games here and there with skins is confusing. Also the different wire frames for my own units confuse me, but I think that'll be overcome quickly since it's something I see every game. Totally agree, we need an option to turn off seeing other people's skins.
Don't pros have special feedback channels to Blizzard? Make them fix this!
|
On July 22 2017 15:52 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2017 08:50 NonY wrote: I wish I could set opponent skins. Maybe I'll get used to them but there are nuances to learn like what an overlord with ventral sacs looks like. I just had a game against the mutant skin and thought it didn't have ventral sacs and was just scouting, and then lings started coming out. Once leviathan brood is out I'll have to study the differences. I thought the special forces marauder was a hellbat at first. The fancy roaches make me think they have tunneling claws. Maybe playing a ton of games will overcome the issues and all skins will feel comfortable and immediately recognizable, but just playing a few games here and there with skins is confusing. Also the different wire frames for my own units confuse me, but I think that'll be overcome quickly since it's something I see every game. Totally agree, we need an option to turn off seeing other people's skins. Don't pros have special feedback channels to Blizzard? Make them fix this!
They could name it "tournament mode" to underline the aspect of sportsmanship or something. At this point all I can say that having all those skins in the game is making me not want to play anymore.
|
Honestly part of the problem with the custom skins is that there are so many custom skins that make a unit look like something else. Like the tal'darim colossus looks like a colossus that is hallucinated, the marauders look like hellbats, etc, or how the wing-lings look like there are more zerglings than there actually are.
|
On July 22 2017 08:50 NonY wrote: I wish I could set opponent skins. Maybe I'll get used to them but there are nuances to learn like what an overlord with ventral sacs looks like. I just had a game against the mutant skin and thought it didn't have ventral sacs and was just scouting, and then lings started coming out. Once leviathan brood is out I'll have to study the differences. I thought the special forces marauder was a hellbat at first. The fancy roaches make me think they have tunneling claws. Maybe playing a ton of games will overcome the issues and all skins will feel comfortable and immediately recognizable, but just playing a few games here and there with skins is confusing. Also the different wire frames for my own units confuse me, but I think that'll be overcome quickly since it's something I see every game. That, please. I wholeheartedly agree with everything you pointed out in this thread.
|
|
On July 22 2017 09:05 riotjune wrote: Why would I buy skins if other people can't see them? Kinda defeats the purpose imo. Look upon me equestria for I am rarity Why I should buy skins when I see them (from opponent) almost every game? Kinda defeats the purpose too.
|
On July 22 2017 15:52 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2017 08:50 NonY wrote: I wish I could set opponent skins. Maybe I'll get used to them but there are nuances to learn like what an overlord with ventral sacs looks like. I just had a game against the mutant skin and thought it didn't have ventral sacs and was just scouting, and then lings started coming out. Once leviathan brood is out I'll have to study the differences. I thought the special forces marauder was a hellbat at first. The fancy roaches make me think they have tunneling claws. Maybe playing a ton of games will overcome the issues and all skins will feel comfortable and immediately recognizable, but just playing a few games here and there with skins is confusing. Also the different wire frames for my own units confuse me, but I think that'll be overcome quickly since it's something I see every game. Totally agree, we need an option to turn off seeing other people's skins. Don't pros have special feedback channels to Blizzard? Make them fix this!
No, removing the ability to see skins would negate the whole purpose of the WC.
PS: They really should have a dynamic counter, not a static one which is updated once per week.
|
On July 22 2017 18:46 PuroYO wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2017 15:52 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 22 2017 08:50 NonY wrote: I wish I could set opponent skins. Maybe I'll get used to them but there are nuances to learn like what an overlord with ventral sacs looks like. I just had a game against the mutant skin and thought it didn't have ventral sacs and was just scouting, and then lings started coming out. Once leviathan brood is out I'll have to study the differences. I thought the special forces marauder was a hellbat at first. The fancy roaches make me think they have tunneling claws. Maybe playing a ton of games will overcome the issues and all skins will feel comfortable and immediately recognizable, but just playing a few games here and there with skins is confusing. Also the different wire frames for my own units confuse me, but I think that'll be overcome quickly since it's something I see every game. Totally agree, we need an option to turn off seeing other people's skins. Don't pros have special feedback channels to Blizzard? Make them fix this! No, removing the ability to see skins would negate the whole purpose of the WC. PS: They really should have a dynamic counter, not a static one which is updated once per week. This "prizepool counter" stops at 700k, at this rate it stops in 3 days. War chest Phase 2 and 3 not even needed.
|
On July 22 2017 19:25 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2017 18:46 PuroYO wrote:On July 22 2017 15:52 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 22 2017 08:50 NonY wrote: I wish I could set opponent skins. Maybe I'll get used to them but there are nuances to learn like what an overlord with ventral sacs looks like. I just had a game against the mutant skin and thought it didn't have ventral sacs and was just scouting, and then lings started coming out. Once leviathan brood is out I'll have to study the differences. I thought the special forces marauder was a hellbat at first. The fancy roaches make me think they have tunneling claws. Maybe playing a ton of games will overcome the issues and all skins will feel comfortable and immediately recognizable, but just playing a few games here and there with skins is confusing. Also the different wire frames for my own units confuse me, but I think that'll be overcome quickly since it's something I see every game. Totally agree, we need an option to turn off seeing other people's skins. Don't pros have special feedback channels to Blizzard? Make them fix this! No, removing the ability to see skins would negate the whole purpose of the WC. PS: They really should have a dynamic counter, not a static one which is updated once per week. This "prizepool counter" stops at 700k, at this rate it stops in 3 days. War chest Phase 2 and 3 not even needed.
Y..yes.
I still think they should have a counter in-game, and it be dynamic.
PS: I dislike the time gated on unlockables from the War Chest, I want to unlock it all now, not wait for separate stages separated by weeks.
|
Can they at least totally remove tunneling claws / ventral sacs visual change so it will be fair for everyone?
|
On July 22 2017 18:27 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2017 09:05 riotjune wrote: Why would I buy skins if other people can't see them? Kinda defeats the purpose imo. Look upon me equestria for I am rarity Why I should buy skins when I see them (from opponent) almost every game? Kinda defeats the purpose too. Exactly. Save your money guys
|
I love custom skins and I intend to use them on ladder, but I really don't mind if other people want to disable them. There should be an option to do this.
|
I really didn't expect the warchest to do so well. Adding 100K to blizzcon prize pool in a few days
We're looking at a nearly $280K 1st place prize, if they reach $700K goal? Seeing how it's always been 40% of the total pool
If any of the top 8 win, other than soO or gumi, they would become the highest earning StarCraft pro
|
$200,000 represents 32,000 3-race Warchests sold. i wonder if $200,000 added to the BlizzCon prize pool is Blizzard's "tipping point" on a decision to back WCS2018 at the same levels as 2017.
Say Blizz sold 4,000 Warchests... it gives Blizzard an excellent PR-style "reason" for lowering support of WCS 2018.
|
On July 23 2017 05:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: $200,000 represents 32,000 3-race Warchests sold. i wonder if $200,000 added to the BlizzCon prize pool is Blizzard's "tipping point" on a decision to back WCS in 2018 at the same levels as 2017.
Say Blizz sold 4,000 Warchests... it gives Blizzard an excellent PR-style "reason" for lowering support of WCS 2018. Prizepool is already at 609k. This means they sold 17,400 Warchest within 3 days.
|
8716 Posts
On July 23 2017 05:51 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2017 05:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: $200,000 represents 32,000 3-race Warchests sold. i wonder if $200,000 added to the BlizzCon prize pool is Blizzard's "tipping point" on a decision to back WCS in 2018 at the same levels as 2017.
Say Blizz sold 4,000 Warchests... it gives Blizzard an excellent PR-style "reason" for lowering support of WCS 2018. Prizepool is already at 609k. This means they sold 17,400 Warchest within 3 days. You did your calculation with the bundle of 3 war chests. You can't calculate exactly how many because you don't know how many people bought the bundle (and therefore paid less per chest). But it should be somewhere around a bit less than triple your number.
|
On July 23 2017 08:10 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2017 05:51 Dingodile wrote:On July 23 2017 05:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: $200,000 represents 32,000 3-race Warchests sold. i wonder if $200,000 added to the BlizzCon prize pool is Blizzard's "tipping point" on a decision to back WCS in 2018 at the same levels as 2017.
Say Blizz sold 4,000 Warchests... it gives Blizzard an excellent PR-style "reason" for lowering support of WCS 2018. Prizepool is already at 609k. This means they sold 17,400 Warchest within 3 days. You did your calculation with the bundle of 3 war chests. You can't calculate exactly how many because you don't know how many people bought the bundle (and therefore paid less per chest). But it should be somewhere around a bit less than triple your number. I know, if everyone bought only for one race, they sold 43,600 warchest. Also between 17,400 and 43,600 within 3 days.
|
being able to customize both your units and your opponents' is definitely the thing that makes most sense to me. It's just about personalization after all, so it should work exactly like colors imo (as Nony explained : you see yourself as pink and me as blue, but I see myself as orange and you as green for instance).
|
8716 Posts
On July 23 2017 17:15 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2017 08:10 NonY wrote:On July 23 2017 05:51 Dingodile wrote:On July 23 2017 05:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: $200,000 represents 32,000 3-race Warchests sold. i wonder if $200,000 added to the BlizzCon prize pool is Blizzard's "tipping point" on a decision to back WCS in 2018 at the same levels as 2017.
Say Blizz sold 4,000 Warchests... it gives Blizzard an excellent PR-style "reason" for lowering support of WCS 2018. Prizepool is already at 609k. This means they sold 17,400 Warchest within 3 days. You did your calculation with the bundle of 3 war chests. You can't calculate exactly how many because you don't know how many people bought the bundle (and therefore paid less per chest). But it should be somewhere around a bit less than triple your number. I know, if everyone bought only for one race, they sold 43,600 warchest. Also between 17,400 and 43,600 within 3 days. It can't possibly be as low as 17,400. That'd mean the prize pool is receiving over six dollars per war chest when the most it can receive per chest is $2.50. The least they can get is $2.08 per chest, if everyone bought the bundle of three. So the +$109k prize pool indicates somewhere between 43,600 and 52,400 sold.
|
On July 24 2017 02:59 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2017 17:15 Dingodile wrote:On July 23 2017 08:10 NonY wrote:On July 23 2017 05:51 Dingodile wrote:On July 23 2017 05:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: $200,000 represents 32,000 3-race Warchests sold. i wonder if $200,000 added to the BlizzCon prize pool is Blizzard's "tipping point" on a decision to back WCS in 2018 at the same levels as 2017.
Say Blizz sold 4,000 Warchests... it gives Blizzard an excellent PR-style "reason" for lowering support of WCS 2018. Prizepool is already at 609k. This means they sold 17,400 Warchest within 3 days. You did your calculation with the bundle of 3 war chests. You can't calculate exactly how many because you don't know how many people bought the bundle (and therefore paid less per chest). But it should be somewhere around a bit less than triple your number. I know, if everyone bought only for one race, they sold 43,600 warchest. Also between 17,400 and 43,600 within 3 days. It can't possibly be as low as 17,400. That'd mean they're getting over six dollars per war chest when the most they can get is $2.50. The least they can get is $2.08 per chest, if everyone bought the bundle of three. The whole thing costs 24,99$ and a quarter goes into the Blizzcon pool. That sounds like 6 per chest to me.
|
8716 Posts
On July 24 2017 03:01 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2017 02:59 NonY wrote:On July 23 2017 17:15 Dingodile wrote:On July 23 2017 08:10 NonY wrote:On July 23 2017 05:51 Dingodile wrote:On July 23 2017 05:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: $200,000 represents 32,000 3-race Warchests sold. i wonder if $200,000 added to the BlizzCon prize pool is Blizzard's "tipping point" on a decision to back WCS in 2018 at the same levels as 2017.
Say Blizz sold 4,000 Warchests... it gives Blizzard an excellent PR-style "reason" for lowering support of WCS 2018. Prizepool is already at 609k. This means they sold 17,400 Warchest within 3 days. You did your calculation with the bundle of 3 war chests. You can't calculate exactly how many because you don't know how many people bought the bundle (and therefore paid less per chest). But it should be somewhere around a bit less than triple your number. I know, if everyone bought only for one race, they sold 43,600 warchest. Also between 17,400 and 43,600 within 3 days. It can't possibly be as low as 17,400. That'd mean they're getting over six dollars per war chest when the most they can get is $2.50. The least they can get is $2.08 per chest, if everyone bought the bundle of three. The whole thing costs 24,99$ and a quarter goes into the Blizzcon pool. That sounds like 6 per chest to me. That's for a bundle of three war chests... That was my whole point in commenting. He did the calculation with the bundle, so accounting for the bundle and accounting for the discount of the bundle, we can get the range, but we can't know exactly how many are sold. But in calculating the range he still forgot to account for the bundle.
|
On July 24 2017 03:02 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2017 03:01 Elentos wrote:On July 24 2017 02:59 NonY wrote:On July 23 2017 17:15 Dingodile wrote:On July 23 2017 08:10 NonY wrote:On July 23 2017 05:51 Dingodile wrote:On July 23 2017 05:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: $200,000 represents 32,000 3-race Warchests sold. i wonder if $200,000 added to the BlizzCon prize pool is Blizzard's "tipping point" on a decision to back WCS in 2018 at the same levels as 2017.
Say Blizz sold 4,000 Warchests... it gives Blizzard an excellent PR-style "reason" for lowering support of WCS 2018. Prizepool is already at 609k. This means they sold 17,400 Warchest within 3 days. You did your calculation with the bundle of 3 war chests. You can't calculate exactly how many because you don't know how many people bought the bundle (and therefore paid less per chest). But it should be somewhere around a bit less than triple your number. I know, if everyone bought only for one race, they sold 43,600 warchest. Also between 17,400 and 43,600 within 3 days. It can't possibly be as low as 17,400. That'd mean they're getting over six dollars per war chest when the most they can get is $2.50. The least they can get is $2.08 per chest, if everyone bought the bundle of three. The whole thing costs 24,99$ and a quarter goes into the Blizzcon pool. That sounds like 6 per chest to me. That's for a bundle of three war chests... That was my whole point in commenting. He did the calculation with the bundle, so accounting for the bundle and accounting for the discount of the bundle, we can get the range, but we can't know exactly how many are sold. But in calculating the range he still forgot to account for the bundle. Basically you are calculating the number of warchests sold, by counting the sale of a whole bundle as 3 warchests sold, while Dingodile was counting the number of possible buyers.
|
8716 Posts
On July 24 2017 03:12 Musicus wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2017 03:02 NonY wrote:On July 24 2017 03:01 Elentos wrote:On July 24 2017 02:59 NonY wrote:On July 23 2017 17:15 Dingodile wrote:On July 23 2017 08:10 NonY wrote:On July 23 2017 05:51 Dingodile wrote:On July 23 2017 05:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: $200,000 represents 32,000 3-race Warchests sold. i wonder if $200,000 added to the BlizzCon prize pool is Blizzard's "tipping point" on a decision to back WCS in 2018 at the same levels as 2017.
Say Blizz sold 4,000 Warchests... it gives Blizzard an excellent PR-style "reason" for lowering support of WCS 2018. Prizepool is already at 609k. This means they sold 17,400 Warchest within 3 days. You did your calculation with the bundle of 3 war chests. You can't calculate exactly how many because you don't know how many people bought the bundle (and therefore paid less per chest). But it should be somewhere around a bit less than triple your number. I know, if everyone bought only for one race, they sold 43,600 warchest. Also between 17,400 and 43,600 within 3 days. It can't possibly be as low as 17,400. That'd mean they're getting over six dollars per war chest when the most they can get is $2.50. The least they can get is $2.08 per chest, if everyone bought the bundle of three. The whole thing costs 24,99$ and a quarter goes into the Blizzcon pool. That sounds like 6 per chest to me. That's for a bundle of three war chests... That was my whole point in commenting. He did the calculation with the bundle, so accounting for the bundle and accounting for the discount of the bundle, we can get the range, but we can't know exactly how many are sold. But in calculating the range he still forgot to account for the bundle. Dingodile was counting the number of possible buyers. I don't know where you're getting that from. Just scroll up you can read the conversation yourself. It was never about number of buyers. Where did anyone say anything about possible buyers? :o
|
On July 23 2017 05:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: $200,000 represents 32,000 3-race Warchests sold. i wonder if $200,000 added to the BlizzCon prize pool is Blizzard's "tipping point" on a decision to back WCS2018 at the same levels as 2017.
Say Blizz sold 4,000 Warchests... it gives Blizzard an excellent PR-style "reason" for lowering support of WCS 2018. I'm pretty sure Blizzard commited to funding 2018 to the same amount when they announced 2017 anyway.
|
On July 24 2017 03:19 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2017 03:12 Musicus wrote:On July 24 2017 03:02 NonY wrote:On July 24 2017 03:01 Elentos wrote:On July 24 2017 02:59 NonY wrote:On July 23 2017 17:15 Dingodile wrote:On July 23 2017 08:10 NonY wrote:On July 23 2017 05:51 Dingodile wrote:On July 23 2017 05:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: $200,000 represents 32,000 3-race Warchests sold. i wonder if $200,000 added to the BlizzCon prize pool is Blizzard's "tipping point" on a decision to back WCS in 2018 at the same levels as 2017.
Say Blizz sold 4,000 Warchests... it gives Blizzard an excellent PR-style "reason" for lowering support of WCS 2018. Prizepool is already at 609k. This means they sold 17,400 Warchest within 3 days. You did your calculation with the bundle of 3 war chests. You can't calculate exactly how many because you don't know how many people bought the bundle (and therefore paid less per chest). But it should be somewhere around a bit less than triple your number. I know, if everyone bought only for one race, they sold 43,600 warchest. Also between 17,400 and 43,600 within 3 days. It can't possibly be as low as 17,400. That'd mean they're getting over six dollars per war chest when the most they can get is $2.50. The least they can get is $2.08 per chest, if everyone bought the bundle of three. The whole thing costs 24,99$ and a quarter goes into the Blizzcon pool. That sounds like 6 per chest to me. That's for a bundle of three war chests... That was my whole point in commenting. He did the calculation with the bundle, so accounting for the bundle and accounting for the discount of the bundle, we can get the range, but we can't know exactly how many are sold. But in calculating the range he still forgot to account for the bundle. Dingodile was counting the number of possible buyers. I don't know where you're getting that from. Just scroll up you can read the conversation yourself. It was never about number of buyers. Where did anyone say anything about possible buyers? :o Your words: You did your calculation with the bundle of 3 war chests. You can't calculate exactly how many because you don't know how many people bought the bundle (and therefore paid less per chest). But it should be somewhere around a bit less than triple your number. English is not my first language. I did calculate about buyers after your post. My math shows that there are between 17,400 and 43,600 buyers.
|
On July 23 2017 05:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: $200,000 represents 32,000 3-race Warchests sold. i wonder if $200,000 added to the BlizzCon prize pool is Blizzard's "tipping point" on a decision to back WCS2018 at the same levels as 2017.
Say Blizz sold 4,000 Warchests... it gives Blizzard an excellent PR-style "reason" for lowering support of WCS 2018. I don't think that's their goal. Even pessimistically, worst case scenario they just use the money to dampen the burden of WCS. They announced WCS 2018 is pretty much going to be the same as 2017. Hopefully better since they have War Chest income, but maybe not.
|
|
On July 25 2017 11:11 PolarisSpark wrote:i.redd.it$687k now! This is actually a lot more successful than I anticipated. I'm going to guess that Warchests in total is going to add around $300K to WCS in total ($200K for Blizzcon, $100K for 2018). Insanely good news for Starcraft's Proscene. I'd guess that Blizzard will probably release 2-3 Warchests next year, which will probably in total add about a million to 2018's prize pool. Great news!
|
Hitting the cap so quickly, while good (I guess? It was low anyway) kind of takes some of the hype away from the buildup to Blizzcan warchest has going I think.
|
On July 25 2017 21:58 Ansibled wrote: Hitting the cap so quickly, while good (I guess? It was low anyway) kind of takes some of the hype away from the buildup to Blizzcan warchest has going I think. With the speed of reaching the cap, I'm hoping Blizzard changes their minds and adds it to the prize pool.
|
On July 25 2017 22:12 XSpektor wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2017 21:58 Ansibled wrote: Hitting the cap so quickly, while good (I guess? It was low anyway) kind of takes some of the hype away from the buildup to Blizzcan warchest has going I think. With the speed of reaching the cap, I'm hoping Blizzard changes their minds and adds it to the prize pool. It's still going to WCS, just not Blizzcon. It'll go towards 2018 WCS and other perks for players (like flights and hotels).
|
I guess this was a huge success, great news!
On July 24 2017 03:19 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2017 03:12 Musicus wrote:On July 24 2017 03:02 NonY wrote:On July 24 2017 03:01 Elentos wrote:On July 24 2017 02:59 NonY wrote:On July 23 2017 17:15 Dingodile wrote:On July 23 2017 08:10 NonY wrote:On July 23 2017 05:51 Dingodile wrote:On July 23 2017 05:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: $200,000 represents 32,000 3-race Warchests sold. i wonder if $200,000 added to the BlizzCon prize pool is Blizzard's "tipping point" on a decision to back WCS in 2018 at the same levels as 2017.
Say Blizz sold 4,000 Warchests... it gives Blizzard an excellent PR-style "reason" for lowering support of WCS 2018. Prizepool is already at 609k. This means they sold 17,400 Warchest within 3 days. You did your calculation with the bundle of 3 war chests. You can't calculate exactly how many because you don't know how many people bought the bundle (and therefore paid less per chest). But it should be somewhere around a bit less than triple your number. I know, if everyone bought only for one race, they sold 43,600 warchest. Also between 17,400 and 43,600 within 3 days. It can't possibly be as low as 17,400. That'd mean they're getting over six dollars per war chest when the most they can get is $2.50. The least they can get is $2.08 per chest, if everyone bought the bundle of three. The whole thing costs 24,99$ and a quarter goes into the Blizzcon pool. That sounds like 6 per chest to me. That's for a bundle of three war chests... That was my whole point in commenting. He did the calculation with the bundle, so accounting for the bundle and accounting for the discount of the bundle, we can get the range, but we can't know exactly how many are sold. But in calculating the range he still forgot to account for the bundle. Dingodile was counting the number of possible buyers. I don't know where you're getting that from. Just scroll up you can read the conversation yourself. It was never about number of buyers. Where did anyone say anything about possible buyers? :o Nobody was talking about possible buyers, but that's what Dingodile calculated (by mistake). That's why you two had a misunderstanding and ended up with different numbers, just trying to clear things up .
|
On July 25 2017 21:58 Ansibled wrote: Hitting the cap so quickly, while good (I guess? It was low anyway) kind of takes some of the hype away from the buildup to Blizzcan warchest has going I think. Yeah, there aren't any stretch goals or like, anything big for whales to spend on, so I'd imagine growth is going to be super super slow. I know people draw comparions to the Dota compendium, but this is more appropriately compared to the original TI3 compendium, which was a fraction of TI4's.
|
i hope hitting this $200,000 goal makes this a "big success" in Blizzard's eyes. Its hard to say because ATVI constantly sandbags their projections so that they can continually claim they are "over performing".
|
Honestly I still think a $700K blizzcon is insane anyway. $280K first place is ridiculous. Yh I know dota has a $22 million pool etc, but I'd rather warchest money go into more tournaments that just making blizzcon more top heavy.
I guess people like the world finals having the most money for hype reasons.
|
The best would be to put the extra money in to challenger next year imo.
|
On July 27 2017 00:15 Musicus wrote: The best would be to put the extra money in to challenger next year imo. i like that idea as well. spread out the cash. i prefer it when Blizzard hands out money ( to TB, BTTV, etc ) for a competitive event and steps away.
if TB, BTTV, whomever does a bad job Blizzard can just stop giving them cash. OTOH, if they do a great job... give them more responsibility ad more money in the futurer. Eventually, i'd like to see an organization like TB, BTTV take over WCS altogether.
footnote : i view TB as the brand of an org because its more than 1 guy doing all the stuff he does.
|
On July 26 2017 23:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i hope hitting this $200,000 goal makes this a "big success" in Blizzard's eyes. Its hard to say because ATVI constantly sandbags their projections so that they can continually claim they are "over performing". It's not sandbagging when Blizz revenues increase 50% Y/Y, Q1 Report. 25% increase Y/Y for in game sales.
I think they will view it as a success. I imagine 800k is the number they needed to make it worth their while, padding the financial stats and contributing to the overall success of Blizzard. Perhaps the next Warchest will be different as they'll have data to support a higher cap.
|
I just hope they do a counter for the extra money too and specify where it will go. It should be the norm with croudfunding stuff. Did we ever get to know what the WCS portraits made the players?
|
On July 27 2017 00:50 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: I just hope they do a counter for the extra money too and specify where it will go. It should be the norm with croudfunding stuff. Did we ever get to know what the WCS portraits made the players? I at least have no idea how much the players made from the portraits.
I really hope they will be transparaent about the extra money.
|
On July 27 2017 00:29 Ctone23 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 23:46 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i hope hitting this $200,000 goal makes this a "big success" in Blizzard's eyes. Its hard to say because ATVI constantly sandbags their projections so that they can continually claim they are "over performing". It's not sandbagging when Blizz revenues increase 50% Y/T, Q1 Report. 25% increase Y/Y for in game sales. I think they will view it as a success. I imagine 800k is the number they needed to make it worth their while, padding the financial stats and contributing to the overall success of Blizzard. Perhaps the next Warchest will be different as they'll have data to support a higher cap. i think ATVI has underperformed in 1 quarter in its history. they're sandbagging and ATVI has different and higher expectations they'll never tell us about.
its nice to see a great game maker bringing in great money though.
|
Great result! Now please provide us with a new counter for the 2018 money and a plan of where it goes to. Make this work Blizzard. Keep a good thing going.
|
Could someone explain to me, if I buy the War Chest, how much time does it take to unlock everything? I haven't played in a couple of years (never played co-op for example).
|
its too bad they didn't keep the counter going beyond the $700,000 goal. For now, all we know is the Warchest brought in more than $800,000 USD.
On July 29 2017 07:41 Freezard wrote: Could someone explain to me, if I buy the War Chest, how much time does it take to unlock everything? I haven't played in a couple of years (never played co-op for example).
there are 15 skins to unlock. they give u the 3 skins unlocked. you unlock 3 skins in parallel after accumulating 300,000 XP.
so 1.5 million XP accrued allows you to unlock everything.
On Ladder: your first victory with a race on a single day gives a 100,000 XP bonus and the win itself gives you ~30,000 XP. Switch races and play again and your first win gets u another 100,000 bonus XP. 1 win each race gets your 300,000 XP plus the XP for the win itself.
if you play every day for an hour at the most and switch races after your first win with the previous race you'll unlock everything in less than a week. I unlocked everything in a single 5 hour play session while employing no tricks to obtain extra XP. I was just laddering away.
On Co-Op: no clue
I laddered for 5 hours straight 1 night and unlocked everything.
|
Anyone have any idea when the new Warchest stuff will come out today?
|
On August 17 2017 02:20 Brutaxilos wrote: Anyone have any idea when the new Warchest stuff will come out today? It's out now.
|
i'm not sleeping until the Tank and Thor are unlocked.
|
So Blizzard is not even updating the WCS Montréal and GLS S3 winners on the warchest? They don't have much to do about the war chest anyway, yet, they manage to let down
Did anyone see reasons why? Or are there discussions about this elsewhere?
|
On September 25 2017 21:26 AbouSV wrote:So Blizzard is not even updating the WCS Montréal and GLS S3 winners on the warchest? They don't have much to do about the war chest anyway, yet, they manage to let down Did anyone see reasons why? Or are there discussions about this elsewhere? Just double-checked - both winners are present when I look at my War Chest.
|
why the alarak picture is not even fit the full size...
|
On September 26 2017 06:42 seph` wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2017 21:26 AbouSV wrote:So Blizzard is not even updating the WCS Montréal and GLS S3 winners on the warchest? They don't have much to do about the war chest anyway, yet, they manage to let down Did anyone see reasons why? Or are there discussions about this elsewhere? Just double-checked - both winners are present when I look at my War Chest.
Damn, I live in the past then x) Gotta report as a bug then, thanks.
|
my casual friends like to play WoL 2v2s and i like to play with them. the War Chest Skins don't show up when i'm playing WoL. its been like this for months. Blizzard even acknowledged this is an issue and you have not fixed it.
its small little issues like this that Blizzard is missing the mark on... that have taken Blizzard from a 10/10 company to a 9.5/10 company.
|
On September 26 2017 21:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote: my casual friends like to play WoL 2v2s and i like to play with them. the War Chest Skins don't show up when i'm playing WoL. its been like this for months. Blizzard even acknowledged this is an issue and you have not fixed it.
its small little issues like this that Blizzard is missing the mark on... that have taken Blizzard from a 10/10 company to a 9.5/10 company.
Still not having an option to disable skins is the real issue here
|
On September 26 2017 21:21 JimmyJRaynor wrote: its small little issues like this that Blizzard is missing the mark on... that have taken Blizzard from a 10/10 company to a 9.5/10 company.
Who are 10/10 companies for you ? For me only Rockstar Games (GTA games) can compete with Blizzard. The rest are not even 3/10.
|
that's a tough one. i do not follow Rockstar games closely enough to assign them a 10/10. i think they are very good though... just don't know enough. interesting that Rockstar and Blizz make so few games. As Blizzard has ramped up production from "1 game at a time" to "servicing 6 games simultaneously" their quality has declined slightly. i'll bet you Blizzard's WoW production team is still creating 10/10 experiences though.
|
can i still unlock skins from the chest once the offer is expired ?
|
On September 27 2017 00:25 JimmyJRaynor wrote: that's a tough one. i do not follow Rockstar games closely enough to assign them a 10/10. i think they are very good though... just don't know enough. interesting that Rockstar and Blizz make so few games. As Blizzard has ramped up production from "1 game at a time" to "servicing 6 games simultaneously" their quality has declined slightly. i'll bet you Blizzard's WoW production team is still creating 10/10 experiences though. Yet you didn't give any other 10/10 company, which was the question.
|
Blizzard is 9.5/10. Nintendo was 10/10 before 2003. Don't know enough about Nintendo post 2003 to comment. AKI and Human Entertainment were 10/10. i think neither company exists now.
i think now to find a new 10/10 company i'd need to find a studio that just makes 1 game at a time. There are prolly 10/10 companies out there.. i just don't know about them.
|
cdproject
on topic:
i dont think thats what sc2 needs but whatever - they are gonna milk that shit
|
Still haven't decided whether or not to buy them. I feel so cheap... I'll easily spend ~$30 Canadian on a couple beers and barely even enjoy them...
|
If you wanna buy them, don't wait too too long, otherwise you won't have time to unlock everything.
|
|
|
|