DemolitionSquid Reviews HotS Multiplayer Changes

[mythology]

I'm a graphic designer with a background in advertising. I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about. If something is created to solve a problem, it is design, not art. Visual clarity of units and abilities is not art, it is design. Creating a "cool" looking unit is art, forcing it into the game is design. Most "so-called" art is in fact design because it was created to sell and thus solve the problem of the artist needing money, or to hand in for grading so some hipster can graduate high school. True art is impossibly rare, pure expression for the sake of expression.

The distinction between the meanings of the two words is as clear as the glass on the Louvre.

art is life.

design is apart of art with the intention of the person behind it. cool is apart of the design process. design uses true art for the sake of expression.

i can see where your coming from demo cause i've done graphic designer work as well and the strictness of structure with marketing can be controlling in your perspective.

[DemolitionSquid]

art is life.

design is apart of art with the intention of the person behind it. cool is apart of the design process. design uses true art for the sake of expression.

i can see where your coming from demo cause i've done graphic designer work as well and the strictness of structure with marketing can be controlling in your perspective.

>_<

I can't take you seriously if you're actually going to play the "life is art" card. I had hoped for a serious discussion, not hippie trolling.

[ZealotPowerade]

I'm a graphic designer with a background in advertising. I'd like to think I know what I'm talking about. If something is created to solve a problem, it is design, not art. Visual clarity of units and abilities is not art, it is design. Creating a "cool" looking unit is art, forcing it into the game is design. Most "so-called" art is in fact design because it was created to sell and thus solve the problem of the artist needing money, or to hand in for grading so some hipster can graduate high school. True art is impossibly rare, pure expression for the sake of expression.

The distinction between the meanings of the two words is as clear as the glass on the Louvre.

I think the main problem here is that you're trying too hard to put everything into a box. But let's follow your definition out logically. For instance, If I'm designing a computer keyboard. I can choose to employ utilitarian styled sharp edges or elegant rounded curves at the four corners. Neither choice is wrong and neither choice is solving a problem. However If I choose to make the corners so sharp that I may cut myself on them then I would have a problem that I need to fix.

So according to your definition my first attempt with sharp corners is not design but the second try is? Design is not always to solve a problem. Sometimes when designing you make a choice that is purely arbitrary. It's also hard to say what a "problem" is in a situation like this. The choice of color is another example of something which in many cases is arbitrary or chosen to push a certain mood.. Part of design is problem solving. But that cannot be its entirety.

I also think that your definition of art is far too exclusive when rather it should be inclusive. "Pure expression for the sake of expression." So it can only be art if I express my anger purely for the sake of communicating my anger? But the second I paint an image of a sunset to expand my ability to observe and knowledge of technique it is no longer art? We all have different reasons for doing things. Who are you to say what isn't art?

What if my problem with my painting is that it doesn't express exactly what I want it to express and I set out to solve that problem. According to your definition, am I creating art still or have I started designing?

Art isn't the "fluff" on the top. A huge part of art is the observation of the smallest details and understanding how to use them for a purpose. To communicate yes, but just for the sake of communicating. I think you have to go deeper still and ask what the purpose of communicating is. Why do it at all? Everyone will have a different reason.

Why am I posting here? Just for the sake of posting/communicating/expressing myself? No, to have a good conversation and largely for my own enjoyment actually.

[Caliban113]

For what its worth...

Was watching one of DeMuslim's very rare streams yesterday, and he was asked by someone in chat what he thought of the new HotS units/abilities - In short, he said "they will ruin the game." While he didn't mention anything specific, he really didn't seem to like any of it. However, he did mention that he hopes he is wrong.

Then I realized, have any pros had an opportunity to play the HotS multiplayer yet, and is Blizz seeking their input the way they did for the WoL Multiplayer?

I tried asking myself, but then his girlfriend got in there and literally took over the stream....oy

[RamiZ]

For what its worth...

Was watching one of DeMuslim's very rare streams yesterday, and he was asked by someone in chat what he thought of the new HotS units/abilities - In short, he said "they will ruin the game." While he didn't mention anything specific, he really didn't seem to like any of it. However, he did mention that he hopes he is wrong.

Then I realized, have any pros had an opportunity to play the HotS multiplayer yet, and is Blizz seeking their input the way they did for the WoL Multiplayer?

I tried asking myself, but then his girlfriend got in there and literally took over the stream....oy

They have been playing it on Blizzcon. The guys that were there, and that created many topics about new units, said that they saw how MVP destroys NesTea with Shredders(how shocking). Also, I am pretty sure that majority of Pros that visited Blizzcon have tried it, and also Beta will begin soon(I hope). But I wouldn't take anything from DeMuslim too seriously. I mean, sure he is good player, but many good players are biased as f*ck.

And new units will add a lot more diversity to the game, even though they will change a lot of them, since SC2 WoL alpha had some different units, or same that had different abilities and were different tier. They will get changed, and will get balanced in the end, I don't see how he can judge the units by few games in Alpha.. ;/

[Aldrius]

People always seem to forget that things can and absolutely will be changed if they don't work.

[TheEconomist]

Professional players are naturally biased against changes. It's their job to perfect builds. New units ruin this. Of course they're going to hate the new units. Anyone remember all the hate for SC2 when it was first announced?

[solidsamurai]

Professional players are naturally biased against changes.

I think day9 scream sums up professional behavior/maturity-level perfectly well.

-----

Battle Hellion:

TBH, if the battle hellion is just a slower hellion, then that's fine with me (especially if changing between forms takes longer than a siege tank, and hopefully you can cancel a change in between forms; because I HATE MISCLICKS/KEYS, I always miss key siege mode because 'd' is so close to 'e', but anyway...). Maybe, the blue flame (damage boost) doesn't apply to the battle hellion? Also, battle hellion needs a better name. Like, I dunno, something-something-firebat?

Shredder:

Couldn't agree more.

Warhound

Personally, I think the warhound should be more connected to the Thor (tech-wise, or in applicability). The Thor, as it stands (on ridiculous, trash can, chicken legs), needs to be gotten rid of. Which makes sense, Raynor steals the Odin project and it never gets off its feet. The dominion looks at plans for a Thor, and never sees it as viable enough for mass production. The Odin is just one project they're working on and Mengsk can afford to say 'I don't care' hard enough that it doesn't become part of the monthly/weekly budget-renewal plan.

Unless blizzard introduces an upgrade to cheapen Thor production or make it better protected against anti-massive/armor units (only slightly; so units like siege tanks still do major damage). Or better yet, give players a choice of defending against anti-massive/armor units or against light units (zerglings, zealots and the like). Either upgrade should be pretty expensive and late game.

I also think that they should return to letting SCVs construct a Thor and not just put together in a factory. Production from a factory still feels very schlocky (I had this opinion from pretty much day 1).

BC Speed Boost:

This is fine, as long as it remains available as an upgrade and not a change to the base unit.

As a Tier 3 tech unit, I think the BC should have many upgrades and should be able to swap weapon types for extra minerals/gas. It usually assumes something like late game, many expos, big map right? Lots of stuff for a small fleet of the things to destroy! Would be very fun, but of course, unviable in anything but late game. Still, having those upgrades available at the fusion core would be great and feel fleshy, if anything. Like a pair of fake titties hanging on your wall that you want to feel up only once in a while.

Thor as a "superunit":

Bah, still doesn't make sense. The laws of physics disagree and this was Blizzard's original angle. Maybe, have the option of upgrading a single Thor to a super Thor (requires an scv to work on it for a bit? A bit like mutating with the zerg, only it requires an scv as well and the scv activates it, sorta like the ). That way, you can still mass Thors, but you can't mass super Thors.

Reaper Regeneration:

If it's an upgrade, fiiine. It probably works just like roaches, except reapers can't burrow and there's probably like 10 seconds of down time or something. Which would be fine in my book (that's usually how long it takes to get medevacs to fly across the map and over to them).

Carrier removal: FINALLY. This unit has been a broken burden for a decade. I could go into a huge post about it, but I think it's clear to everyone why its a good thing it's gone, so lets move on.

Hey, guess what? If you're gonna write a review of something, you should make your opinions clear to everyone.

Personally, I don't think the carrier is broken. I see it as a sort of tank of the sky that does spread damage to air or ground. It's easy to counter, but it's also easy to get surprised. As a mid/late game unit, it doesn't seem to be all that aching for removal.

Mothership removal: I approve. The Mothership was a missed oportunity. Too costly, too late. Huge target, weak spells. It was a glorified Arbiter, and it failed.

Uh huh.

You also say 'everything should be synchronous to everything else; everything should be viable at all times in gameplay'. This was the theory that blizz went with (or strove for, whatever you want to call it), and it kinda detracted the game a bit (imo).

The arbiter is a great unit, albeit also expensive and late game. SC2 is more about faster play and doing something all the time. Which is kinda what BW was about too, but SC2 really takes the cake for 'just keep doing it until you win', so that effectively there is no late game, because all late game really is is just a battle for the expos that your opponent has already siezed or continual mineral line ambushes.

IMO, blizz should bring back the late game and bring it back in style. The game should change completely in late game. They can do it by introducing super units. They can do it by introducing upgrades that only appear with the final building. They can do both. It doesn't matter. But they should bring it back, because it would make the game feel more dynamic and make macro and defense a bit more worth it.

The mothership contributed towards the late game. The battlecruiser as well. The thor, not so much. The zerg have no late game, I don't think (though, haven't played zerg nearly enough to cover them yet).

[Twilice]

I stopped reading after you said carriers aren't broken :O

[solidsamurai]

I stopped reading after you said carriers aren't broken :O

I didn't say they weren't. I just said that it needs explanation for why they are.