EPT
Blizzard creates changes not based on only the views of players (of all skill levels) but also on the views of their internal team. Sometimes populous opinions get listened to but not always. Some players complain that the PTR will not result in changes and that it is a formality. I feel that the discussions of many of us in the Starcraft community must change and that Balance, and map change suggesstions should be qualified and quantified. Simply saying we should nerf X or we need a buff for Y. Zerg UP, Zerg OP etc etc. We need to look first at our skill second at the objective nature of sc2 (numbers, %s), third the meta game and finally we need to look at how we construct our argument
Good input coming from many players should be listened to. I feel that too many people are over expressing their issues with regards to the amulet removal though as an example. a compromise should be made with regards to this and hopefully blizzard will understand that we as players dont want things removed we dont mind them changed though.
In this day and age it seems unlikely that dark swarm would ever be included in any version of SC2. though the spell was effective there were responses. Interestingly enough, amulet in BW was also not insta storm when the HT came out of the gateway.
many pro level players and others have voiced concerns with the amulet removal and propose a change with +50% energy when spawning meaning that the HT would come out with 63 energy and while not insta storm will storm in about 22 seconds instead of 44.
With regards to maps, yeah some of them are terrible and they do not promote macro games for the most part. I feel that Typhon peaks is great and slagg pitts is terrible. Removal of shakuras plateau while keeping delta quadrant seems confusing as well. As players we are all very concerned because these map changes go against what we as a community have wanted. These new maps seem to ignore the concerns we have had with the blizzard maps in general. Blizzard has looked at what we said and taken out 2 player maps for the most part with short rush distances. Proxies and cheese are less likely and more risky now than they were before. Pick wrong spawn from a 6 pool is different on any 4 player map than on steppes indefinitely.
I feel that blizzard is just not listening to the specific things we as a community are saying with regards to our general feelings and issues towards for example the maps. We look at the maps and say we want to be able to have TIME to defend if a push is scouted as coming. We do not want 30 second base to base walk distances and fewer bases on maps that resemble physically others (i.e. slagg and metal).
There is balancing for the lower levels and while this is fine we need to grow to learn that if they need to get more than 2 bases lower level players will. Maps with 2 bases are not macro maps, maps with 3 bases are not macro maps. Maps which allow us to expand and control map areas taking advantage of different map characteristics such as chokes or open spaces is what we want.
Let us look at shattered temple the open middle is key for Zerg control to enable them to expand while the chokes are key to hold for protoss and Terran to expand. Should the Zerg control the middle they own half the map and the Terran can defend their corner or quarter of the map with tanks. Similarly they can control half the map by controlling a number of chokes on the map.
Slagg pitts provides really open naturals making it difficult for Terran to control a second base. Let alone a third. Protoss is less mobile as well and expanding to a third is difficult as protoss unless you are containing the zerg. Through creep spread, the zerg can reinforce different areas of the natural so much more easily than the other races with the exception being a bio Terran. We see similar issues in PvZ as we did on blistering sands. The difference being that the Zerg can have a third closer and in a more reasonable location on slagg than on blistering.
Providing map characteristics that provide different places of control that differ based on army and race will allow zoning to occur. a few tanks at a choke can hold an avenue of attack down and allow 1 or two expansions to be taken behind it. These expansions can be attacked through other avenues or perhaps due to this lockdown 2/3rds of the map is available to the other race? perhaps the choke that allows 2 expos to be taken will require a sacrifice in not being able to defend from harass? Perhaps just past the choke is an open place where should you move out your army is going to flanked by 50 lings and mutas? This means that you need to be careful when moving out past the one choke?
I think that bliz needs to listen to the underlying arguments and reasons for the community position and not just listen to the claim. At the same time it is the job of the community to provide logical clear reasoning in our discussion and not just make single line statements whenever possible during serious discussion. "We want new maps" gave us these 4 new maps. We want macro maps gave us these maps.
We want maps that are interesting and provide strategical differences in each map and unit composition and new strategies is key. We want maps that provide some opportunities to Terran and OTHERS to Zerg and Protoss (or any combination therein) is what we need. We want maps that allow us to zone out an area and control a part of the map allowing us to expand based on this control would give us different maps.
"We do not want insta storm" removes amulet. We feel that instantly warping in storms is an issue because the reinforcement potential is too much. We feel that requiring some energy to be built up is key. 44 seconds is too long but 22 seems reasonable. After an emp our army is severely weakened as protoss and if the enemy terran is 30 seconds away from our main or natural we will not have much to defend with. this is a perfect example.
We can ask for bunker build time to be increased but without explaining why or how we want it done we won't get much from it. Reasons must be given and logical discussions provide blizzard with reasoning and logic. They can take this and listen but they can't listen to the one line "nerf X Pl0x" statements since they do nothing to convince Blizzard of anything at all.
In the future as a community we should commit ourselves to logic and reasoning. Even if this logic and reasoning is flawed due to lack of experience or knowledge its an attempt. Future attempts will involve research and learning and even if there is little experience objective knowledge or perspectives of those more experienced can be used to help us as a community make solid arguments. This is how academia works this is how knowledge creation is accomplished. We can not know everything but we can all learn and we can all take a few minutes to come to serious and thoughtful conclusions with the objective of discussion and eventual conclusions as our goal. Maybe these well thought out ideas will help make it easier for Blizzard to listen to us and our perspectives with regards to balance and changes on PTR servers.
TL;DR
Read the whole thing its important
