As someone in a rental situation... when I move in, I replace the existing bulbs with my own, when I move out, I put the old bulbs back and take my bulbs with me.

A player that spends more of their time in the present will regenerate chrono energy faster than one that spends it in the past. Combine that with strong traditional-RTS skills, and you force your opponent to try to make up for it in extremely efficient time travel decisions

In the developer blog, it is mentioned that one of the developers (the guy who came up with the idea) is really good with time travel, and the other (the lead programmer) is a strong traditional RTS player. While their skill types are very different, and they spend their time at different points on the timeline, they more-or-less come out even.

So, while it is a valid strategy to play from as far back in time as possible, it is also just as valid to stay close to the present, and make it tough for your opponent to keep up- especially with the advantage of faster chronoenergy regeneration that can be spent in large bursts.

I think you're basing that assessment on the words of a vocal minority.

The current long-term users are the ones that would have purchased a sequel 10 years ago, and have never stopped itching for one. They're the ones that have kept playing, and have become attached to it. They're the ones that get their friends to play- the ones that make sure copies are still sold, 10 years after the original release.

The ones that feel the sequel will be inferior to the original are usually people that have been jaded by inferior sequels in other games, though they are sometimes just in opposition to some or another new feature.

What confuses me, somewhat, is that the alternative to catering to the long-term users would be catering to the short-term users. The ones that buy the game, play for a month, then move on? I mean, yeah, from a raw $$$ perspective, they give you as much money, without having to support them as much- but they're also less likely, on an individual basis, to ever buy any other game you make. These are the people you cater to by making amazing box art with lots of bullets and reviewer quotes!

Sorry to ignore your main point, but, a couple of links for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Pardo
-Note the bit where this guy was the leader of a major EverQuest guild.

The first line of a post is very important. It's not a good idea to load it with easily falsified information and logical fallacy.

Blizzard has actually gone out of their way to support DotA and DotA-like mods in SC2. For example, hero units exist in the editor, even though they do not ever appear anywhere in the actual game.

As a sibling commenter has mentioned, Blizzard is actually in direct contact with the developer of DotA, and have made sure StarCraft 2's editor can do what it needs to do with DotA.

Think of it this way: the SC2 editor can do anything the WC3 editor can do- and a whole lot more.

Strictly speaking, that's what the EULA and TOS are for.

[

I am not really seeing how serving your longer-term users is a mistake.

You will be able to change your account- the'll just charge you a fee for it.

You'll be robbing trains in the Wings of Liberty campaign- that's a bit like pirates, though perhaps a bit more like western outlaws. And the Protoss have ninjas- Ghosts and Dark Templar. There is also a healthy dose of robots for good measure.

Enlightenment [NSFW]:
http://www.wikiporno.org/wiki/Free_Porn_Directory
http://www.wikipornsite.com/Main_Page

Do you believe the majority of StarCraft players use LAN frequently? If so, why?

What makes you think you are in the majority? That most players will be upset enough to "punish" Blizzard? Blizzard is attempting to do with Battle.net what Valve has done with Steam, in terms of controlling their games. Is there a reason that the backlash will sink Blizzard in the way that it hasn't sunk Valve?

Blizzard is quite open about it being about keeping game matchups in their control, fighting piracy. I personally don't care, as the people affected are massively outnumbered by the people that are not.

Please stop spouting this stuff. Blizzard Entertainment was not directly affected by the merger of Vivendi Games and Activision in the forming of Activision Blizzard. Vivendi Games has owned Blizzard for most of a decade now, and decided to use the popular Blizzard name to make the resulting company look more attractive.

The merger did not result in a change in management within Blizzard Entertainment. What's more, Vivendi had majority control during the merger, so at worst, half of the management of the company that owns Blizzard has changed.

All of the major changes have been decided by the developers at Blizzard, without pressure from above. Yes, that includes splitting the game into three, removing LAN, and centering it around battle.net.

They intend to implement micro transactions- but they've specifically stated that they won't be game-altering ones. They'll be things like adding decals to units, changing your name color, or moving accounts between regions.

What? Screenshots? Where?