Direction of the Game

What kind of game did you want LotV to be? A completely new experience, a more refined HotS, a more BW style RTS, more micro-focused, macro-focused, faster paced or slower paced game or something else?

I think a middle ground between more refined HotS, with a reminiscence to Broodwar is what Blizzard should be aiming for. Which so far I think LotV is getting close to.

Could you elaborate on a reminiscence of Broodwar, what parts of Broodwar would you like to see more incorporated into LotV?

What I like right now about LotV is that a lot of times, you're not capable of managing everything that is going on. I've had to decide which battles to micro. Fighting at 3 spots doesn't only require great multitasking but lots of thinking. Which fight is the most important one, which one can I afford to lose. Where to fight and where to flee.

I never thought about that particular case. I think the safest call would be a somewhat refined HotS with more BW style RTS. I think we need more stable units with micro potential (not ability use, we have too many of them already). LotV should be fun to watch and appreciated by viewers through watching progamers do what the normal players can not. Some of that was already implemented in HotS (Terran "Maru style" with mass Medivacs. Only great Terrans could do that, others would simply crush under the defence).

I like the direction being taken with units being able to do more in low numbers like Lurkers, Disruptors, Ravagers, Liberators. I hope that technology units are stronger than in HOTS. There have been so many scenarios where players will make, say, 50 roaches or stalkers before teching onwards, and it's very dull when games play out like that. Some of the most mobile and massable units have been very strong, taking up a lot of space in the match-ups. I hope defensive play, tech play and positional play can be rewarded.



- LOTV brings a lot of new harassment options to the table. I hope we won't end up with the early Hellbat drop-TvTs we saw in HOTS release. If a player is unable to hit any sort of upgrade/technology timing because of constant harassment locking them down to their base 24/7, I don't think it's any good. I think Lurkers are a great unit since they can be devastating in defensive positions and allow Zerg players to be more active with their army.



- I was hoping we would see more energy units that truly would build up strength slowly, so that players could invest into long-term strategies and plan their move-outs accordingly. It brings a lot of tension to the game when you have the ability to put the opponent on a clock, or, if you feel like you're ahead, go for a strategy that could punish someone who's trying to get ahead with technology. I feel like technology units have been neglected in favor of mass-able junk units. Some of the new units, such as the Ravager, bring active abilities to the game. But that's not the same as moving out right before you hit 150 energy to hit a double fungal timing, for example. I think creating units that can bring tension over time is a great design. Not just scary timings here and there, such as Warpgate or Hellbat timings. Rather, real technology play with fewer, but more interesting units, as well as weaker 'massable junk units' such as the Adept, Marine, Roach, etc. would be really cool I think.

In response to your first answer. Despite its bad reputation, bl/infestor gave Zerg multiple options in terms of harassment, units, and build variety because it worked as tier 2.5 unit that could link the tier 2/tier 3 armies together. It made opponents work forward. Assuming you could fix the problems with Infestors from being too strong in mass and too strong defensively while allowing T/P players better tech units to deal with/counter the Zerg, is this the kind of scenario you were thinking of?

I think the key word here is 'too strong in mass'. If any kind of unit is too strong in mass, it's a problem of design because the units in the tech tree above it weren't designed to be better than the low-tech ones cost for cost. Someone who saves 600 gas and spends it on high-tech units should be rewarded for it, as long as the one that spent 600 gas on primitive units doesn't outplay their opponent by micro, for example.

Economics

There has been a lot of discussion a while back about changing the Economy of LotV, do you feel that the current LotV is fine as is or would you like to see something like the DH12/6 implemented in for a season to test it out, or would you like to see something like what Laguz proposed which was just using the current model but having the main base have complete mineral patches?

Right now, I haven't ran into any issues with the LotV model. I'm sure it can still be improved. I don't think you're forced into expand too rapidly but I could see the wisdom in Laguz proposal. DH12/6 might also be better, but we have to be realistic in the sense that I doubt that level of change will be implemented. And maybe it's not that big of a deal in the end if the game is good anyway. Overall I'm pleased with the current feeling of it.

Current economy model is fun to play when you survive midgame. I've played many mid-late game matches and expanding quickly and trading armies was very refreshing compared to the HotS one army trade and then game is most probably over. Of course we're very little experienced in LotV now, and lategame or getting into midgame can be completely broken in favour of some races (or maps can have a big factor). That's at least my opinion as of this moment. However, we're still in the Beta so we should be testing things. I don't think we should be leaving the economy and macro mechanics as they are currently.

I don't really care too much. It's mostly about what units cost and what type of strength they have. There are very few units that cost more gas than minerals, for example, and the ratios are very heavily in favor of minerals. Blizzard didn't have to change the economy, gas was there all along to be mined if people wanted to reward expanding, but there are almost no mass-able gas units. (Gas caps at 6 workers per base, minerals at 16)



Macro Mechanics

Another big issue is the removal or inclusion of macro mechanics, particularly larvae inject. There has been a 50/50 split in the community and developers on where to go, what do you think about inject? Also do you have any thoughts on mules/chrono boost?

I'm very pro macro mechanics, in particular inject. I love the middle path blizzard took in between auto-inject and hots-inject. The queued inject is actually a very elegant solution. Not only is it more beginner friendly than hots, but it also makes late game macro as simple as that of Terran and Protoss. Once you've completed your infrastructure you don't need to look much at your base anymore. That's the same for everyone now, which feels right.



Chrono boost and Mules seem fine to me as well, it's not overly complicated and would make the game less interesting to not have the choice of mule vs scan or the build order diversity chrono provides.

I might be wrong, but I understand current situation as: Terran has untouched macro mechanics (just a bit worse Mule economy because of smaller mineral patches), Zerg's got an improvement with stacking injects and Protoss was nerfed with the chronoboost. I didn't understand why Blizzard tries to change the macro mechanics and they are changing them back and fourth couple of times in the beta. I really wouldn't mind keeping the Macro mechanics as they were before (in HotS). Maybe I would like to fix the Mule Rain somehow in the very lategame with ~10+ orbital commands.

I think Chrono should always be in its HOTS state. It is the best and most strategic of the three. Larva is cool like it was before and stacks enabled would be a great addition. Auto is not good. Terran is best as it was in HOTS too, I think.

Balance Philosophy

Going into LotV, SC2 will have its largest development team in its history post launch. Given that circumstance, what kind of balance path do you want the game to take? For instance, do you not want them to touch the game at all unless another glaring problem pops up , would you rather they make small gradual changes over time, or massive overarching changes every year or every other year?

I'd like them to adapt to whatever seems necessary, I can't really decide on what I think will be best yet until we see how the game will be played and how it'll develop with or without patching. I don't like to play oracle on these things.

I think that's a very very tough decision to make. Some things may seem imbalanced right at the first glance, but don't necessarily have to be when we'll get time to react to the meta. I think the exact situation happened in HotS when they introduced the Medivac boost which I thought is completely broken. I still think it's a very strong ability, but something that Terrans definitely needed. We've been struggling against this for a long time, and it's been kind of figured out by positioning of the units and scouting that was necessary to defend these drops.



Same thing may be said about the oracles, game ending damage in the early stages, but people figured out how to read opponents builds, when and how to prepare for the incoming oracle. I hope we'll not be changing the game too quickly, and we'll give time for players to figure out the game. Let's just hope that there won't be any Warhound imbalance during tournaments.

Some cases have been extreme such as early Hellbat-only TvT and mass-Mutalisk only ZvZ. If those patches weren't brought in quickly, we would've seen the same dominant strategy used in those match-ups for years. I think at some times it's very appropriate to intervene quickly and make big changes. I wouldn't mind having gradual changes in addition to this. The balancing philosophy has been confusing to me at times, so I can't comment on it too much.

By the Race

What are your impressions of your race, both in balance and design?

It's difficult to say, but I find all the Protoss changes too strong and probably wrong design wise. Adepts are the go-to units in the beginning of the game and are very strong at keeping yourself alive throughout the rest of the game. Their stats and usefulness are too much for the cost. Also, they're not very micro demanding because of their high health and low attack response/speed. Disruptor - I don't like him at all as it is. Blizzard said that they're trying to switch this unit from all or nothing, but they failed to do so again. I think their damage is so big that it either crushes a significant portion of your opponents army or misses and is unusable for a long amount of time (same can be said about Immortals barrier, the cooldown on it is too big I think, but I don't find it a problem for this moment).



I would like to see some changes especially for the Disruptor, I think Adept can be fixed without much of a problem by simply tweaking the stats of the unit. Currently I also find ravagers, lurkers and Vipers anti-air ability to fight against, but I think it's still because I am very new to the game and I don't want to complain about something just because I have problems dealing with it in the very beginning of my journey.

You said the adept is the go-to unit in the beginning of the game. Do you think it overlaps with too many roles of the Protoss gateway units? It tanks more than the zealot, has better harass the stalker, has better mobility and fairly strong scouting? Do you think it is even a problem that should be looked at or do you think the adept should be the new go-to unit for Protoss?

It definitely is a better investment to get some adepts instead of zealots in most of the situation, but I don't find zealots useless. Stalkers were never the harass unit without the blink so after it's researched you usually want to use stalkers instead of adepts unless you can get into the mineral line of your opponent. Thinking about that, we can say that the adept is a ranged zealot with a late blink activation (he laughs). We definitely need to look at the adept, and after we see some changes we'll see if it still will be the go-to unit for Protoss match-ups.

It's hard to tell how the balance is, there's not so many people playing yet so the skill difference between players is much higher than in the HotS ladder. We're also still figuring things out and the map pool isn't the greatest So again I don't think I can comment on balance. I personally don't have any problems in any match-up though. Never felt like something is broken and I couldn't have done something better to win.



I think I like ZvZ the most, it's so action packed and you got a really nice build order diversity. ZvP gets the ''most improved'' reward it's actually super fun to play now and even if deathballs seem strong you can exploit them with high mobility much more now than before, so they're not nearly as viable.

ZvT is still super solid, really got nothing to complain about from my perspective. However opinions of players of other races might differ..

Right now I played about 30 games. So I don't really know enough to comment on what the game is like right now.

Maps

Are there any maps you would like to see included in the map pool going into 2015 (doesn't matter what era they came from)?

Hm, well I'm not sure which maps will be good in LotV. But I'd like old maps to be tested for sure, no need to throw out hard work someone put into them, if it turns out they're still good maps.

Some old maps, like Whirlwind, entombed, Frost, KSS or do you mean more specialized maps?

I think it would be pretty big ones, KSS might be amazing it's one of my favorites anyway. Whirlwind good candidate. I'm not fond of the super crazy maps, cause in my opinion they don't enhance strategy they reduce it.

What do you think about the current map pool. Do you think they should go back to the more HotS used ones, make new ones, or include some older maps that have been praised as very strong and balanced design wise (Whirlwind, Frost, KSS as examples)

I dislike the new maps that are in the addition for the current HotS map pool. It may be just because I am so used to the maps that should fit the HotS style. I think we should be adding new maps for sure, but should they be made similar to HotS or completely new? I have no idea here. I wouldn't actually mind playing again on the best maps like Whirlwind, Frost or KSS, but I think we should let them go already and think about making next maps just as good as they were.

I don't think it's very important. Blizzard seems to have taken a very aggressive stance on having maps that alter the 2/3-base flow, such as Moonlight Madness and Bridgehead. So we need to prepare for that, although I think it is unfortunate. Maps like Coda, KSS, Whirlwind, were loved by many. If the unit compositions and strategic variety is there, there is no need for extreme maps with gimmicks such as floating to the gold or back door rocks. Games can be great without.



Map variety is talked about a lot, but if we add too many back door rocks, games might end before we see any action in the expansions in the midfield of the map. The layouts around the midfield are often neglected, and to get there, we need players to have means of surviving beyond 10 minutes. I think it helps newer players too, to have some sort of consistency in how things look early game and figure it out to then use great movements and tactics in the later stages of the game. But in the end, it's not that important as long as players can adapt, and as long as the primary strategies don't end up in a single track per map. For example it would be a shame if every single ZvZ on Bridgehead was Tunneling Claw roach base-trading only.

Units/Unit interactions

What do you think of the new units? What I mean is do you think they overlap with the roles of previous units, are they too strong, too weak, too niche, not used at all?

Ravagers and lurkers are super cool, they give Zerg a zoning tool as well as minimize the effect of force fields. Having a few lurkers to defend a location and sniping detection can protect yourself from an entire deathball. I love that. Suddenly the bigger army can't just a-move into a position. Ravagers also can zone with their ability and have nice damage vs buildings which Zerg lacked in the past and promotes harass.



Liberators seem pretty neat, they just might need some numbers tweaking. I like that they’re strong but can be outplayed by positioning though.



Disruptors seem kind of cool, they're very strong but need to extreme baby-sitting so you can counter them with multitasking and again they reduce deathball potential so I like that.



Adepts seem fine in PvZ they're annoying but you can deal with them and don't seem too strong fights. If both players micro a lot they don't deal a lot of damage but if the Protoss has superior micro he can make strong plays with it. I heard they're too strong in pvt though. so might need number tweaking.



What I find interesting is that blizzard seems to be fighting death-balls by giving everyone extremely powerful splash. Splash always was a point of complaint in SC2, but if you give everyone a ton, suddenly you get broodwaresque zoning and a-moving with an entire army stops being an option. Quite smart actually

Ok, what do you think of the new drop mechanics for each race - i.e. Warp Prism loading/unloading at range, overlord drop being researchable after EVO? Is built? Medivacs loading/unloading Sieged Tanks

I find it fun to play with a warp prism, definitely gives much more micro potential and I think it's good for the game. Is it too powerful? I don't know yet, we need more time to find out. Same goes for the Overlord drops and Medivacs, haven't had too much of experience facing that, but I don't mind having these tools in the game, at least the action may start before we reach 200/200 armies.

Ladder systems

Is there anything you'd like to change about the current ladder system?

Yes, I don't like how it currently is. Being Grand Master and playing with people for pure points is not fun and doesn't mean anything to me. I wish we had a system that was used in Brood War for iCCup or PGTour. Ranks of D-A and stable points for winning / losing. Doesn't necessarily have to be exact same ranks, just something similar to that where there would be importance of playing vs worse/better ranked players. I think that there's also very little importance in divisions. It doesn't matter that you're rank one masters(or below) in your division, when you see that in other masters(or below) divisions, you're many points behind. I think they should do one big pool of players in each rank of Bronze-Masters and show players from Top500 or ranks. If we're allowed to romance here, I wish we had one big server where every player from every region would play + the LAN Latency just like in Brood War, but I don't think the technology is there yet.

Remove bonus pool, actual rankings -- basically what MaNa said.

Well, it would be nice if ladder wouldn't be segmented arbitrarily into 200 player leagues and not have so few leagues. I think it would be much more rewarding to have a system similar to ICCUP with far more ranks but also a continued ranking. Right now there's so few leagues from bronze to GM that in your whole career you rarely ever get the satisfaction over leveling up! In ICCUP or Dota you're happy about any 100 new MMR or points you reached for the first time. In the sc2 ladder, it doesn't really feel like you're playing for anything and you can just compare yourself to the other fish in your pond when most people would like to swim in the ocean!

Additional Thoughts?

Yeah, I can't think of anything in particular right now. I think standard stuff like adding skins for units to make people have a unique feeling whenever they play their favourite unit. A voice pack for units, anything that could encourage people to join in the fun of Starcraft. I want Blizzard to keep the conversation as it currently has with the community and hopefully that it won't be forgotten throughout the time.

I released an article about Macro Mechanics that you can read here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/495925-tlo-on-macro-mechanics



Don't forget to keep checking TeamLiquidPro.com for the latest in TL news, features, and events! Also follow us on social media for constant updates on the team. If you enjoyed ProTalk, comment who you'd like to see next! Don't forget to keep checking TeamLiquidPro.com for the latest in TL news, features, and events! Also follow us on social media for constant updates on the team. If you enjoyed ProTalk, comment who you'd like to see next!

This is a comprehensive interview about Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void with MaNa, TLO and Snute. The topics covered are the direction of the game, economics, macro mechanics, balance philosophy, experience with their own races in LotV, map pool, unit interactions and improvements to the ladder.For context, I am a writer for teamliquid.net. TLO, Mana and Snute are three of the longest careered foreign players that are still full-time. They have played about 400, 130 and 30 games respectively of LotV at the time of writing.Disclaimer: This interview was conducted on September 5th, 2015--due to unforeseen circumstances, the article was delayed. As a result, some of the information below may be outdated.