I can't help but feel Blizzard is totally out of touch with the community. Sure I don't surf on Battle.net all that often, but often a lot of the complaints mimic those of Teamliquid.
I can also see why when Blizzard has meetings with the Prime team and other pro-gamers, such as the recent Browder & Sen interview, that almost no changes result from them.
EDIT: Issues on Maps I am adding this in because I don't think I came across correctly when I was talking about communication (its hard to get a grasp of the feeling you are presenting to another person sometimes, its not meant to be an angry post, but more of a comical one).
The problem I am mainly pointing out is Blizzards ability to ignore other peoples suggestions until they eventually "cave in" from a lot of pressure (e.g "Do you really want chat channels?").
So yes, Blizzard does a lot of interviews, talks to the community a lot, organise meetings with pro-gamers, the way they go about this process by side-stepping or denying questions, often results in not achieving a lot.
So in this case, Blizzard caves in to a lot of pressure for new maps. But ultimately Blizzard chooses which GSL map to be put in, and the modifications they want done to it. When the suggestion to not change certain aspects was given, this was not actually taken into account.
LSPrime, congratulations on having your map Tal’Darim Altar get into the Blizzard ladder pool, that is excellent! Can you tell us about how that came to be? Did Blizzard contact you to discuss the map? Or did you sign on to play one day and say, “WHAT–THAT’S MY MAP?!”
LSP: Two months ago I got a message from David Kim that they were going to put Tal’Darim Altar in the ladder, but they wanted to make some changes which I debated. We debated how many resources to have at the 2 multi (foreigners say third base), but by the game’s conventions the resources should be 8 minerals and 2 gas (I was angry they wanted to sacrifice balance for the convention).
David Kim suggested adding destructible rocks but I didn’t agree with him, because the rocks are temporary ["the rocks are temporary" is the direct translation but it doesn't seem to be the true meaning.]
Eventually the base had 8 minerals and 2 gas as Blizzard wanted and they decided if they see a problem they will change it. And from the North American server I heard Protoss is too strong on Tal’Darim, but I’m not sure if Blizzard will change it.
Now Blizzard did do a poll on destructible rocks. (I think this was a good move by Blizzard, I believe they should do this more)
The point remains that Blizzard still maintained their authoritarian stance, even after massive amounts of pressure to add new maps or even GSL maps. When they finally decided to add one GSL map, it still had to be "their" way. Which isn't really good form given Blizzards history with maps, compared to an experienced map-maker.
So whether it is a pro-gamer, a pro map-maker, or a group. It doesn't matter whether they are wrong or right, the problem I see is not that they are not listening, its the process in which they listen.
Hence you can still have bad communication and be out of touch with the community, even if you actively talking to them.
Issues on Gameplay To take a quote (translation) from the most recent Browder / Sen interview.
Sen & Interviewers: a lots of pros chinese dont think the game is closed to balanced. Comparing rush in BW and sc2, rushing in sc2 are much powerful and have follow up to them, unlike BW they are heavily punished. (dustin troll the chinese trans at this part, i skip) is it intentionally in design?
Dustin Browder: no, we just make the game and the pros decided how they will play the game. i dont believe rush are that strong, i dont really agree with the question so i will talk to the balance designed team about that problem (he answered this like trying to dodge the question, press skill lol)
Sen & Interviewers: but the rush are stronger than BW
Dustin Browder: we dont make the game based on BW: new engine, new system, 2 games are not the same.
Its not like theres a communication issue, I feel that is more of a pride issue. It's hard to believe a lot these issues aren't known by Blizzard, but it feels more like they are blinded by their own pride, and therefore these issues don't exist, to them.
As shown in the recent interviews with Browder, instead of acknowledging problems, these problems are seemingly "refuted" by pointing at numbers or giving an irrelevant (and disappointing) example which shows a quite distinct lack of knowledge of the game.
I feel that an appropriate response would have been to tell the dev team to have a look into it, rather than saying its because of good pathing, and then segwaying into "go back to Brood War", as this is Sen we are talking about here.
Youtube video should automatically fast-forward to 10:30.
Here is the clip. You can listen to it. 10:30 all the way to the end. Feel free to give your own interpretation.
I will say that Browder is definitely incorrect one point. There are plenty of games with great pathing, without unit clumping. For example Company of Heroes. And hey, wasn't it achieved in the dynamic pathing mod?
However the point I'm trying to get across is the side-stepping by segwaying into a go back to BW statement. Obviously Sen as an SC2 pro-gamer cannot do that.
Apart from balance, the situation where one unit counters another unit is quite serious. This makes it very hard to stage a comeback in games. In Starcraft 1, players could make comebacks through the use of various strategies or through some other means. However, it is very difficult to do make combacks in Starcraft 2. What do you think about this issue? (Interview here http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=217398)
Dustin Browder:
Let's look at another situation, where we have banshees against marines. In a straight up fight, the marines will definitely win the fight. Yet, if the banshee has cloak, the situation would be different. Let's look at yet another situation, marauders against stalkers. If both sides a-move, clearly the marauder will win. However, if the stalker has blink, and uses blink well, the situation might turn out different as well.
Dustin Browder:
This situation where one unit counters another unit is not as serious as it was in Starcraft 1. Let's say we have a templar fighting a zergling, and the templar always loses. That's a situation where we really see one unit countering another unit. As of now, the balance between unit-counters and micro is better than in Starcraft 1.
I'm sure Browder and the rest of the design team are very smart, but I can't help but feel that they are stuck in their own little world.
For example I just don't understand Blizzards fascination with "meat shield units".
I mean honestly, every meat shield unit in SC2 is almost universally hated. Thor, Marauder, Roach, Immortal.
Blizzard unit design philosophy 101
Every race must have a dragoon!
A zerg dragoon!
A dragoon with stim!
Oh wait now protoss isn't as unique, we must make this meat-shield unit, more of a meat-shield!
Issues on Unit Design Heres a quote from their most recent interview on Heart of the Swarm.
David Kim:
As far as learning through the multiplayer, we learned that not everything works exactly as planned - the different roles for the units didn't work as well as we had planned. We planned to have the immortal be more of a meat shield, and have the hardened shield be one of the core mechanics; however, the burst damage ended up being the more important part of the unit.
David Kim: For example, the Overseer is not a cool unit, it's basically a glorfied scout at this point. We're looking at either taking out or replacing these units that aren't as cool. The other thing that we need to watch out is how these units interact in combination.
According to Blizzard the Overseer and Immortal are a high priority for redesign.
However the community thinks otherwise (by a huge margin).
how do you balance the game: we use pro feedbacks, forums, and stat
Balance process: we have to make sure the balance problem is real, then the balance design team will suggest a fix, if the suggestion solve the problem (should be through test sever), we will apply it to the game
Stat are garther accross bnet and tournament around the world. Currently winrate of all match up are close to 50% so we are satisfied. There is no obvious problem but we are ready to deal with anything pop up. The only recent change is to the 4 gate nerf in PvP to create more play styles. Early indication show that it was a successful patch.
Sen asked: close spawn on maps are zerg imba, is ther solution? we will fix it in the "next season"(?) with half of the current ladder map will be replaced.
Zerg too passive due to design? there is no way for us to know how pros playing the game. there are cases pros fixed things b4 the patch came out. There will be no big change coming out, at least not until HoTS came out. If we find a race is broken, we will most likely to fix it in HoTS. The chance of it being fixed in wings is really small.
Ladder maps are for all players so we intentionally have rush maps in ladder pool. So people in lower league can learn the game. We aware that this will cause pros wont have as much fun on ladder as casual gamers but we have confident that the community wont use the maps that dont work for them in tournaments play.
a lots of pros chinese dont think the game is closed to balanced. Comparing rush in BW and sc2, rushing in sc2 are much powerful and have follow up to them, unlike BW they are heavily punished. (dustin troll the chinese trans at this part, i skip) is it intentionally in design?
no, we just make the game and the pros decided how they will play the game. i dont believe rush are that strong, i dont really agree with the question so i will talk to the balance designed team about that problem (he answered this like trying to dodge the question, press skill lol)
but the rush are stronger than BW we dont make the game based on BW: new engine, new system, 2 games are not the same.
(i cant really hear the question here, the woman speak in low voice =_=) something about HoTS we dont know yet, we are trying to make something that is worthy with this name and to last many years to come...
(they tried some kinda trick questions to make dustin reveal new units in HoTS multi) no we have no idea, we had some horrible stupid units in the pass like the Soul Hunter for example. We still discussing about it.
do you have a timetable to anounce new units? we dont know yet, we will when we have a good idea. "its done when its done"
it is confirmed that we will have new units in multi players. yes
are they being added or replace we dont know yet
beside new units whats gona change in multi players dont know, sorry
are you know but you are just avoiding? no, im truely dont know. i have some personal idea but my team could think its stupid. We will reveal it in blizzcon.
about starcraft 2 dota... you mean blizzard dota
yes, people asking when is it gona be releash we are wasting time, when its ready!
is there anything speacial about this map u wana talk about? its gona be awesome. we are working on the shops. we are recreating the heros completely new from last blizzcon. new systems, new features, new gameplay. we are hoping a game will be 20-30 minutes long compare to normal dota 30-45 minutes so that you can play more games.
all heros from last year has changed? yes
will you borrow stuff from war3 to dota? no,we are trying to design something new completely. the inventory and shop system still there but will be different. We dont know yet but we still working on it.
will there a cross region feature for GM in different sever? our current technology does not allow us to do that just yet. We will look into it but unlikely.
do you think sc2 is harder to watch compare to BW? unit clumps and AoE spell... (they tried to link this to balance design) unit clums means not "horrible pathing". For mordern RTS we NEED good pathing and we think its the future. Its is true that its harder to see if unit clumps but we are trying our best to solve that with the UI. About the AoE, i feel like it makes the battle much more fun to watch (micro challenging). If you dont think Sc2 is a good game to watch, BW is still out there and a lots of people still watch it. SC2 is a different game and different people. Please go back to BW if you think sc2 is not suited for you.
for different players skill are different. in sc2 every units DPS are higher than BW. this make battle happen too fast for lower league. Why dont we adjust the game according to player players? We thought about this but its better to learn the game from the beginning. The exp could be accumulated over time. If you need to learn something, we want you to learn the game as what it is.
more newer player we have added stuff to help them in the single players as well as practice league. We tried to relies mostly on tool to help people improve quickly in lower league.
Some question about the percentage of zerg workers (drone) compare to BW... calculation no, its just what player doing and its not intentional design. infact we expect that question when we decided we will have 2 gas geyser instead of 1 but it turns out ok...
picture taking, hand shaking etc...
edit: im on part 3/4 right now.... gona watch live on three and comeback edit2: done!
In the end its us who buys the games, and the pro-gamers who try to create interesting builds and fun games to watch that increases the longevity of the game. I believe the community should be listened to more, especially in interviews, rather than just refuting them with useless examples.
I'm pretty sure after a year of constant complaining, when Blizzard caved in and decided to make better maps, that there was an improvement. I mean even back then, the community was given terrible reasons for small maps, I don't see how its any different now with things like dynamic pathing, map control, etc.
It was just plain embarassing listening to the recent Browder / Sen interview, where every time some problematic issue was brought up, it was just ignored.
I hope Blizzard will listen to the community once more and make the drastic changes that are fundamental to the games progress as both a fun game and an E-Sport.
Probably the only real answer I've read in the entire thread. Even if I kind of disagree, it would be unfair not to put in the OP for objectivity.
On June 13 2011 03:25 theburricane wrote: Design is hard
Designing stuff is hard. Designing games is hard, designing thermostats is hard, designing web sites is hard. I think all of us will generally agree that this stuff is hard. But many people don’t know why it’s hard.
One of the reasons designing stuff is so hard is because there are no solutions to any problems, at least not in a larger, systemic view.
“But theburricane! What about chat channels at release? That seems like a pretty simple freakin’ thing to include that everybody and their dog wanted!”
Fair enough, if Blizz had included chat channels at release that would have solved the “have chat channels at release problem”. But if they had spent time on chat channels, something else would have had to fall off the radar. Maybe we would have had no Achievements.
“Pffft. Those are unimportant to competitive play.”
Perhaps we would have had no FFA matchmaking.
“Again, how does that affect the serious gamers?”
Maybe it doesn’t. Perhaps we wouldn’t have had the RealID friend system when the game launched.
“You mean facebook integration? Guffaw. Puh-lease.”
But you see the point? Design is not about solving problems, because those solutions will invariably cause problems elsewhere. Design is about making conscious tradeoffs to address the problems that are most impactful, and address them at the appropriate time.
Takeaway 1
I’m not saying “hey man, lay off Blizzard they’re tryin’ real hard here!” They are, but that’s no reason to lay off them. We simply have to sit down and ask, “Why is Blizzard making/not making this change at this time?” I guarantee you the answer is not because they have “bad communication”, are “blinded by their own pride”, or are “[fascinated] with ’meat shield units’.”.
Blizzard’s “bad communication”
It is easy to interpret good user research as bad communication. Research participants will make suggestions, “I think you should do X here”, but when they see the finished/updated product, their suggestions won’t be included. The designers will have implemented something that addresses that problem in a different way, and all the participant can see is “Well this solution doesn’t fix everything mine did! Why didn’t they go with what I had suggested?”
An example: Everybody and their dog says to Blizzard, “You really need to change your maps. Seriously, Steppes of War? Seriously?!” So Blizzard begins to add new maps into their map pool, and look to community feedback as to what maps they would like to see. “GSL maps, of course!” But when we finally get Tal’Darim Altar, it’s got a bunch of destructible rocks and giant chokes and crap.
“That’s not what we suggested! This doesn’t solve the problem. Look at LSPrime, he even gave them reasons why they shouldn’t do what they did. And they still did it. That’s aggravating.” (Of course, what LSPrime was arguing for, the imbalance achieved by a 3rd base with 8 minerals 2 gas, is something that will go unfelt by everyone up to very tippy-top of Masters League. How many of us have honestly thought to ourselves, “The third has 8 minerals?! Great, that means I can run Plexa’s Shock and Awe build more effectively once I take it!”, or something similar?)
However, from Blizzard’s perspective they are making balancing their solution so that it applies positively to every group. To simplify it, “We are giving the ‘competitive’ players larger maps, and we are giving the ‘casual’ players maps that limit their options enough to suggest clear goals.”
Takeaway 2
Think systemically when you encounter a solution different from the one you’ve proposed. Chances are either ‘solves’ the problem in an entirely different way, or it solves problems you didn’t even know existed.
Know your audience
It is very easy for us at teamliquid to labor under the misapprehension that we make up the majority of the SC2 community. Or that we + the reddit community are the majority. Or that we + all the online SC2 communities are the majority of SC2 players. But the truth is if you walked up to every SC2 player individually and said, “My opening build order is 10 depot, 12 rax, 13 gas” more than half would respond, “Why do you build 10 depots? Don’t you just have one SCV building depots the whole game?”
Most SC2 players lack even the basic vocabulary that we as a competitive community have developed as a tool to help us think critically and reflectively about the way we play. Most SC2 players don’t know why Steppes of War was removed, unless they’ve read the Blizzard Situation Report explaining why. They probably had no idea it was blacklisted by thousands of people.
Blizzard has the daunting, grizzling task of designing a product that meets the expectations and needs of an infinitely large and diverse user group. All designs suffer from this requirement to varying extent, but Blizzard in particular has a very polar user base. Bronze league 4v4ers versus Grandmasters 1v1 Rank 1.
Takeaway 3
When Blizzard designs for their broader user base, it feels like they are not listening to their competitive, online communities. Because we live in our dream world where everyone has a finely-crafted opening BO, aggressive yet thoughtful 3rd base timing, and over-arching gameplan, we can completely ignore the huge number of people who enter a game thinking nothing but “I’m going to make a forge right away so I can get a cannon up in case he zergling rushes me.”
When we encounter a decision by Blizzard that impacts us ‘negatively,’ we also need to think about the people who are being affected ‘positively’ and how their experience playing this game is going to change.
Overall takeaway
I have a lot of respect for sluggaslamoo, who took the time to voice the opinions of many community members. Specifically opnions regarding how Blizzard is out of touch with its player base via poor communication and decision making, even though they think they are right next to us, hwaiting all the way. Although I disagree with him whole-heartedly, I agree that the overall experience TL’ers have expressed, the feelings and emotions they have felt, over the past few months is that whatever Blizzard hands them is 50% treasure, 50% trash.
I think this is a mindset problem, however. We need to realize that what we as reflective, competitive gamers define as trash is really treasure for a gigantic number of ‘casual’, one-game-a-day players. They have extremely different needs than we do, and it is something Blizzard owes to everyone who pays them to play their game to provide the best experience possible. They have a duty to systemically support all of their user bases as they continue to design and implement two more expansions.
Although this answers the unexpected changes, the willingness to side-track and "share their knowledge of the game" rather than respond to the answer is not something that can be explained through logic, but more or less psychology and attitude.
Answers like "We encourage users to go back to BW if they want to" does not help SC2 Progamers in anyway because they can't do that. Meaning that instead of looking at an issue in depth, it will simply be completely ignored. So what was the purpose of the interview in the first place?
I believe this is part of the problem, they throw out questions, but when they are given an answer they don't like, it somehow doesn't register.
If you look at the poll released by BattleNet, the majority found destructible rocks as "They're annoying. I'd rather focus on the battle than watch rocks, and I don't like losing games because of a map that changes". So then if Blizzard needs to cater to the casuals as well, why were destructible rocks put on Tal Darim?
Catering to the casuals is also unnecessary. I have many friends that are extremely casual SC2 players. Will not play 1v1, will only do team mono-battles or starjeweled and left 2 die, to the one game a day semi-competitive players. Although your point addresses the thinking behind blizzard rather than what you actually desire.
I know, these guys would not care if there were a change in maps, units, etc. If units got harder, they would just use different ones that were easy to use (e.g lots of zerglings/hydras like beginners in BW).
The higher you go, the more changes have an effect. And when part of SC2's longevity is banking on televised games like BW, then I think this is quite important.
On June 13 2011 17:03 theburricane wrote: I agree with part of your. I like the idea of “going back to BW” for someone who doesn’t like SC2, just as I like the idea of someone going back to soccer if they find out they can’t get into basketball. But I agree it’s a really crappy way to defend a burgeoning design, especially when the issue you’re dealing with is the experience of a large group of people who have invested a lot of time, money, and effort into something new.
You’re right about the poll, 39% said destructible rocks suck, while only 11% said they’re great. However, 28% said they think “a changing map makes the game more interesting.” While I think “changing map” is a loaded term, the sentiment behind the answer is positive. The other 21% left gave a neutral answer. So 39% of people don’t like it and 61% are either neutral or like it. Not great, but not wretched either. If the poll appeared on TL I’m sure it would be much more heavily skewed towards the “rocks get out” side of the fence. (I’ve got a lot more problems with how that poll was designed, from a user research perspective, but I think that’s for another discussion.)
Even the idea that BattleNet is the forum of the unwashed masses is a fallacy. The bridge between the ‘casual’ players and those who visit BattleNet regularly is very wide. To be frank, I don’t have the numbers to back this up. I can’t tell you how many players are ‘casual’, how many are ‘semi-casual’, or anything like that. But I can tell you that it is a very regular phenomenon for the majority of users’/players’ experience with a product/game to end with their actual interaction with it.
People who love to play (American) football don’t necessarily contribute to the NFL fan forums. People who love playing games on their PS3s don’t necessarily contribute to the PlayStation community forums. People who love Call of Duty: Black Ops as a series don’t necessarily contribute to the official CoD forums. Hell, most people who play World of WarCraft don’t regularly visit and contribute to the WoW forums.
Therefore it stands to reason that a very large amount of SC2 players will have little to no interaction with even BattleNet, the “dregs” of the SC2 community. And part of supporting those people, from Blizzard’s standpoint at least, is transitioning them from very casual players to people who are invested in the game and the community.
If I were given the task of reverse-engineering Blizzard’s design choices on the matter I would say that the point of adding destructible rocks to these maps isn’t to make maps easier to digest for the lower-end players, it’s to make them question the choices they make in any game. Back when BW started, the idea of expanding was nuts. Like, why would you make a new base before your current base was mined out, wouldn’t that just keep you from building more units now? It was actually a stroke of inspiration that allowed someone to come up with the idea of a “fast expansion.” Things like Xel’Naga watchtowers and destructible rocks are there to facilitate that kind of inspiration in players whose SC2 experience only extends to what they and their bronze level opponents do.
Which brings us to what I believe is your most valid point. “SC2’s longevity is directly tied to the ‘high-level’, the televised games.” But I also believe that it’s tied to another thing: supporting the development of the casual base over the X years it takes for the expansions to come out, not only in terms of unit sales, but also in terms of getting the casual base to transition to consumers of the ‘high-level’, of the televised games. So what we should do is ask, “Do we think Blizzard’s current strategy is supporting both of these goals in the long-term?”
The easy answer is “No, we are seeing detrimental affects to the highest levels of play. Unless competitive play is completely balanced and supported by Blizzard, we shall not rest.” The hard answer is identifying where we’re willing to surrender to the ‘casuals’, and where we have to dig in our heels and demand that the pendulum swings in our direction.
I think it's a pretty ridiculous leap to conclude that the immortal is the most likely unit to be changed because they said "instead of the hardened shields people like it for the burst damage".
udgnim United States. June 12 2011 14:25. Posts 6523
the developers/in-house testers never reach the skill level to adequately understand the game they create, but they sure do like to act like they understand
E-Sports is competitive video gaming with a spectator fan base. Do not take the word "Sports" literally.
On June 12 2011 14:24 rawb wrote: I think it's a pretty ridiculous leap to conclude that the immortal is the most likely unit to be changed because they said "instead of the hardened shields people like it for the burst damage".
I think its pretty ridiculous to assume that its the only unit that will be changed. HotS may see tons of changes. Hell, just introducing new units might bring changes to existing unit functions.
the developers/in-house testers never reach the skill level to adequately understand the game they create, but they sure do like to act like they understand
I think SC2 is incredibly fun and fairly balanced. I play it everyday. I'm happy with the game Blizzard has made and the balance changes they've implemented so far. I would like a slightly better map pool but even that issue is relatively minor; I'm fairly pleased with the current pool.
Do you think it is a bad game?
To die having made something more equal to the centuries than muscle and bone is mostly to shed weakness.
blade55555 United States. June 12 2011 14:28. Posts 14254
On June 12 2011 14:26 Herper wrote: I wonder.. is it viable to bring back the reaver and take out the colossus?
they would have to change some stuff because scarabs with how much units clump and smart AI so they don't all fire at 1 unit would be so strong I would cry everytime I played against protoss
When I think of something else, something will go here
Skwid1g United States. June 12 2011 14:29. Posts 918
I'm fairly certain they want to remake the overseer because it doesn't fill its role well and is uninteresting, while the roach/marauder may be uninteresting, I'd say they do their respective jobs pretty well.
They're sometimes out of touch but they're not entirely off the chart right and wrong. They get some things right, that's for sure. Whatever game philosophy they have in mind doesn't always work out.
DeepBlu2 United States. June 12 2011 14:30. Posts 969
I can't help but agree. I think their methods to tell balance, although statistics, are not the correct approach of designing a game, and although the game will take years to be close to perfection, I feel they are taking the wrong steps such as the map pool of 1 rush map, 1 normal map, and 1 macro map in HotS.
I think maybe you, the OP, is out of touch? Blizzard has proven it listens to the community, and no, it can't make sweeping changes randomly in WoL. I would suggest you wait till HoS, where they're clearly going to take the game in a whole new direction.
This topic is unneeded.
sleigh bells United States. June 12 2011 14:30. Posts 358
so blizz doesn't think rush = evil, macro = good. so what?
and meat shields? marauders are just awesome against armored ground units. that makes them solely a meat shield....how? they might tank baneling damage, but that's about it. i agree their comments about immortals are weird though...
Sup son? ¯\__(ツ)__/¯
jalstar United States. June 12 2011 14:31. Posts 7055
Immortals ARE more boring than Colossi, it's just that Colossi are much more "noticeable" because they're big and do lots of damage, and immortals just kind of sit there.
But you barely have to micro immortals because of hardened shield, while if you don't position and micro colossi well they'll get killed by vikings or corruptors in a few seconds.
they're talking about you, boy, but you're still the same
SecondChance Australia. June 12 2011 14:32. Posts 603
I don't understand. The blizzard interviews were talking about balance, unit roles etc. And you base the need for redesign on the "Most UNINTERESTING unit". What the fuck? Characteristics that contribute to a unit being "Uninteresting" don't exactly correlate with it's use and it's balance.
I could say x unit is uninteresting because I don't like it's colour...A more accurate poll would ask the question directly.
Will they plan on adding the DA/ Corsair / Arbiter / Reaver back in? They were pretty unique... especially the Reaver with its ultra slow movement that required some micro to use it or used in conjunction with the shuttle or warp prism. DA could be useful vs biological units with the maelstorm spell. Arbiters with the good ol mobility + recall into someone's base would be pretty fun...
Year 2500 Greater Israel ( Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Gaza Strip, West Bank, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Yemen )
Itsmedudeman United States. June 12 2011 14:32. Posts 8891
hmm, the only really strong rush I find is the 2 rax bunker rush (coming from a terran)
it has very good potential to do great damage whether they know it's coming or not, and it has a good follow up as long as you don't lose everything for nothing
the game as a whole is pretty balanced, and certain races have advantages over each other at certain points of the game, but I don't see any glaring balance issues as a whole; the player who played better will win, and if someone loses we can point out where they went wrong 99% of the time
certain units are pretty boring though, colossus, marauder, and corrupter I'll agree with
When I learned that Dustin B also made Red Alert 2 everything just made sense... RA2 was a great game but its not SC... And I feel Dustin B made SC2 feel more like C&C than SC. I might be wrong, but hey that's how sometimes I feel the battles go.
It is only the dead who have seen the end of war - Plato
TheRabidDeer United States. June 12 2011 14:34. Posts 2599
On June 12 2011 14:30 DeepBlu2 wrote: I can't help but agree. I think their methods to tell balance, although statistics, are not the correct approach of designing a game, and although the game will take years to be close to perfection, I feel they are taking the wrong steps such as the map pool of 1 rush map, 1 normal map, and 1 macro map in HotS.
They dont look at only statistics, they also analyze games, have their in-house high level player and they regularly communicate with many other high level players (and pros)... all of this on top of statistics.
Lokian United States. June 12 2011 14:35. Posts 569
personally i think I should trust in the developers instead of the 'pros.' aka, 1 person named sen.
Developers went through this for years already and already explain how they collect data for balance. I don't think the developers should listen and give into the community easily because some of the time, the community doesn't know what the hell they are talking about. There might be a handful of people that have good opinions, but they can be hidden behind the massive zerg tears.
shindigs United States. June 12 2011 14:36. Posts 4353
SC2 isn't a bad game by no measure, but compared to Brood War it does seem to lack something its predecessor had. However, its not really Blizzard's fault since even the most hardcore BW enthusiasts never really figured out what made BW entertaining until after SC2 came out.
It's easier to criticize when we have something to compare to BW.
Store
WCS
![[image loading]](http://sc2armory.com/img/zerg/renders/roach.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://sc2armory.com/img/terran/renders/marauder.jpg)
SecondChance Australia. June 12 2011 14:32. Posts 603
