|
I feel that this isn't worthy of a thread in the SC2 section so I am posting it as a blog.
Treat this like a wish list of some sort. This is what the next patch should be:
- Added new gameplay mechanic; the damage of units firing from lower elevation is reduced by 50%.
- Increased the collision sizes of all units by a little bit.
- All structures are no longer "Armored"
I see this as an improvement on the overall gameplay of SC2 since it addresses the three biggest issues of the game:
1) The strategical depth of retreating to higher ground and defending it are almost non-existent.
2) Imagine if the developers fixed the over-clumping issue instead of directly nerfing the Colossus and Psi Storm (which they just did).
3) Razing expansions can be done very quickly that the defender has no time to react accordingly. Many players complained how a handful of Marauders/Immortals (both units having bonus damage against Armored and are essentially standard for armies) can destroy a Nexus/CC/Hatchery in just a few seconds.
After this, Blizzard should resume the standard procedure of tweaking unit statistics.
Poll: Should Blizzard do this for the next patch?
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
As a BONUS, they could include this for testing:
- Galaxy Editor
- Chat Channels
- added a new health bar system: occluded (objects are able to cover health bars)
- players are now able to view their overall ladder standing in their respective leagues
- players are now able to log into different servers (US, EU, Asian)
|
it's a beta, man. you're expecting too much. in terms of unit modification and gameplay changes, sure, but how far should they go with what you want? your poll question is too black and white, when the issues you have raised may be gray.
|
I don't agree with your bonus list at all, except for being able to view the overall ladder; (chat channels aren't a bad idea, but if they will be implemented I think it will only be at release).
On the other hand I personally really wish they include the things you listed first.
|
On April 07 2010 20:26 Bill Murray wrote:
it's a beta, man So throwing in more stuff into the TESTING FIELD in a BETA TEST isn't a good idea?
On April 07 2010 20:26 Bill Murray wrote:
your poll question is too black and white, when the issues you have raised may be gray. Please expound. Maybe you aren't updated with the current issues of SC2 (Easily breakable defense on ramps, Buildings dying fast, and over-clumping of units).
|
Dude, these aren't patch notes. This is a wishlist. Be realistic. They can't possibly patch in all that in 1 go. Even the balance changes are radical.
If you're making a ridiculous list add this to it:
Changes have been made to Terran, Zerg and Protoss. The game is now balanced.
We have decided on an open worldwide beta. Enjoy!
The game is going gold in 2 weeks. It will be in stores in 5 days! Additionally, the beta servers will stay open, so that the people who don't want to buy it, can play anyway.
-.-
|
On April 07 2010 20:38 Latham wrote:
Dude, these aren't patch notes. This is a wishlist. Exactly.
On April 07 2010 20:38 Latham wrote:
Be realistic. They can't possibly patch in all that in 1 go. Even the balance changes are radical. I just wish to see how would the beta turn out if all the independent issues were addressed. Imagine if the devs decided to fix the unit clumping instead of nerfing the Colossus and Psi Storm (which they just did).
On April 07 2010 20:38 Latham wrote:
If you're making a ridiculous list add this to it:
Changes have been made to Terran, Zerg and Protoss. The game is now balanced.
We have decided on an open worldwide beta. Enjoy!
The game is going gold in 2 weeks. It will be in stores in 5 days! Additionally, the beta servers will stay open, so that the people who don't want to buy it, can play anyway.
Not funny.
|
Can you explain why you think this is an improvement?
|
On April 07 2010 20:48 meeple wrote:
Can you explain why you think this is an improvement?
Ok. Updated the OP.
|
On April 07 2010 20:21 lolaloc wrote:
1) The strategical depth of retreating to higher ground and defending it are almost non-existent.
That is complete nonsense. You clearly don't understand the game at all if you think this is the case.
What we don't want is the BW effect where you have units 1 pixel higher on a large sloping ramp having a ridiculous, unintuitive advantage over units 1 pixel below it.
If you watch the top level games occurring in the finals of the many SC2 tournaments they usually reach mid-late game and are exciting through-out. That is all that matters.
|
On April 07 2010 21:00 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 20:21 lolaloc wrote:
1) The strategical depth of retreating to higher ground and defending it are almost non-existent. That is complete nonsense. What we don't want is the BW effect where you have units 1 pixel higher on a large sloping ramp having a ridiculous, unintuitive advantage over units 1 pixel below it. As I see it, ramps automatically turn into ordinary choke points once the player has vision on the higher elevation which is practically easy (Medivacs, Observers, Colossus, rushing in a unit or two).
|
Doubt defenders advantage is coming back. Blizzard said they wanted to make balance less dependant on maps, hence no highground advantage
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Many players complained how a handful of Marauders/Immortals (both units having bonus damage against Armored and are essentially standard for armies) can destroy a Nexus/CC/Hatchery in just a few seconds. Uh, I dont see this as an issue at all...
Honestly the changes you're suggesting are down right terrible. I fail to see the connection between those changes and your desired outcomes, there just isn't a connection.
|
|
|
I really think your opinion was worth this blog, except for these parts.
On April 07 2010 20:21 lolaloc wrote:
I feel that this isn't worthy of a thread in the SC2 section so I am posting it as a blog.
Treat this like a wish list of some sort. This is what the next patch should be:
- Added new gameplay mechanic; the damage of units firing from lower elevation is reduced by 50%. 1) The strategical depth of retreating to higher ground and defending it are almost non-existent.
Not only was this discussed and your idea deemed retarded, but there was an entire NEWSPOST on the issue.
- Increased the collision sizes of all units by a little bit.
2) Imagine if the developers fixed the over-clumping issue instead of directly nerfing the Colossus and Psi Storm (which they just did).
There are threads on the issue of clumping of units. Comment on it in there.
Oh, I found one for you
- All structures are no longer "Armored"
3) Razing expansions can be done very quickly that the defender has no time to react accordingly. Many players complained how a handful of Marauders/Immortals (both units having bonus damage against Armored and are essentially standard for armies) can destroy a Nexus/CC/Hatchery in just a few seconds.
You are right, last time I checked expo's dying quick was an issue. I think they should patch BW as well since 12 zerglings can bring down a nexus in around 5 seconds, and a group of marine med can kill a hatchery in just about the same time.
If I made a thread every time I thought my opinion was so much more important and correct, and needed to be understand by all so they could just get this feeling of "FUCK, WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT?, I would have around 1706 threads created.
So next time you have your ideas for the next patch, post in a thread about it, if there is no thread make one, or you will make me waste more time writing negative posts when I Should be doing homework.
|
On April 07 2010 21:00 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 20:21 lolaloc wrote:
1) The strategical depth of retreating to higher ground and defending it are almost non-existent. That is complete nonsense. You clearly don't understand the game at all if you think this is the case. What we don't want is the BW effect where you have units 1 pixel higher on a large sloping ramp having a ridiculous, unintuitive advantage over units 1 pixel below it. If you watch the top level games occurring in the finals of the many SC2 tournaments they usually reach mid-late game and are exciting through-out. That is all that matters.
Remember the diverse strats we'd see in BW? Remember how viable flash style 2-1 push or quick reaver techs were because of how highground allowed you to defend easily? Not anymore. As has been stated by a lot of pros, you don't have the range of available strats because weak defense buildings and no highground missing have eliminated defenders advantage. Now its just mass cause you always need to have the same amount of units as ur opponent. I'd gladly trade the "BW" effect for highground advantage.
|
On April 07 2010 21:25 Plexa wrote:Show nested quote +Many players complained how a handful of Marauders/Immortals (both units having bonus damage against Armored and are essentially standard for armies) can destroy a Nexus/CC/Hatchery in just a few seconds. Uh, I dont see this as an issue at all... Honestly the changes you're suggesting are down right terrible. I fail to see the connection between those changes and your desired outcomes, there just isn't a connection.
Plexa, can you please stop going into sc2 threads and making extreme, unjustified statements? If you are going to say something sucks at least take the time to explain why you feel that way and try to back up your statements with evidence... I respect your opinion and status here at TL but I've seen you do this too many times lately not to kindly ask you to put more effort into your criticisms.
|
On April 07 2010 22:29 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:I really think your opinion was worth this blog, except for these parts. Show nested quote +On April 07 2010 20:21 lolaloc wrote:
I feel that this isn't worthy of a thread in the SC2 section so I am posting it as a blog.
Treat this like a wish list of some sort. This is what the next patch should be:
- Added new gameplay mechanic; the damage of units firing from lower elevation is reduced by 50%. Show nested quote + 1) The strategical depth of retreating to higher ground and defending it are almost non-existent. Not only was this discussed and your idea deemed retarded, but there was an entire NEWSPOST on the issue. Show nested quote +2) Imagine if the developers fixed the over-clumping issue instead of directly nerfing the Colossus and Psi Storm (which they just did). There are threads on the issue of clumping of units. Comment on it in there. Oh, I found one for youShow nested quote +3) Razing expansions can be done very quickly that the defender has no time to react accordingly. Many players complained how a handful of Marauders/Immortals (both units having bonus damage against Armored and are essentially standard for armies) can destroy a Nexus/CC/Hatchery in just a few seconds. You are right, last time I checked expo's dying quick was an issue. I think they should patch BW as well since 12 zerglings can bring down a nexus in around 5 seconds, and a group of marine med can kill a hatchery in just about the same time. If I made a thread every time I thought my opinion was so much more important and correct, and needed to be understand by all so they could just get this feeling of "FUCK, WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT?, I would have around 1706 threads created. So next time you have your ideas for the next patch, post in a thread about it, if there is no thread make one, or you will make me waste more time writing negative posts when I Should be doing homework.
NEWS FLASH: None of those threads are about being implemented ASAP. I doubt that you read the title.
On a side note, zerglings would have to be FULLY UPGRADED for 12 of them to destroy a Nexus in 4 seconds (takes 15 seconds when unupgraded - yes, I actually tested it).
|
Why does your wish list not deal with the big three at all? It seems like everyone but you things they are a huge problem.
|
On April 08 2010 02:14 Two_DoWn wrote:
Why does your wish list not deal with the big three at all? It seems like everyone but you things they are a huge problem.
I would rather see how would changing the mechanics would affect the big three first. And if it got uncontrollably worse, revert back. If it got better, good. If it still needs slight tweaking, fix it then.
|
I'm voting no because I don't agree with all the changes. I think it's a good idea to increase the collision size, but 50% damage hitting high ground is a little much in my opinion. 75% would be better. I don't agree with taking away the armoured aspect of buildings either. You can't tell me a bunker or nexus or what have you looks like it isn't sturdy/armoured.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
