What if no balance changes had ever been made? - Page 2
Blogs > CableSCES |
diehilde
Germany1596 Posts
| ||
Tortious_Tortoise
United States944 Posts
| ||
![]()
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
Ahzz
Finland780 Posts
On January 25 2014 16:09 BigFan wrote: hmm I think Blizzard should've taken the map approach first. Leave the races as is and make bigger maps to see how things work out. I remember the crying that was plaguing the forums over the roach having range 3 and how they were being kited by stalkers etc... I think bigger maps might've meant less patches and nerfs however in the end, I think Blizzard would've had to balance(nerf or better to buff other races) some units. Maps do not fix the inherent problem that the game had. The average game length was like 9 minutes. NOBODY wants to stick to a game like this, regardless if its balanced or not. The question about balance doesn't revolve around 'If both players took half of the map and then made the ideal unit combinations, would we have a balanced fight in the middle ??!?!!!11'... It's about never getting even close to that point because the game was rigged with broken mechanics that emphasize on rock-paper-scissors. It was essentially how this game was designed | ||
KTP_TV
France42 Posts
On January 25 2014 05:22 Kuni wrote: Not really. Koreans still win everything and once in a while a few Europeans earn prize money. Barely any Americans though :-( Omg, in case your post was not a joke, he was talking about T/P/Z. And FYI there's only once race, the human one. Making distinctions between so-called "races" is actually the definition of racism ^^ | ||
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
On January 25 2014 22:37 KTP_TV wrote: Omg, in case your post was not a joke, he was talking about T/P/Z. And FYI there's only once race, the human one. Making distinctions between so-called "races" is actually the definition of racism ^^ Technically, no. Racism is when you think race is important - that a human can be better or worse because he belongs to a certain race. You can admit to the factual differences between genders, without being a sexist, just as you can believe that races exist, and categorize humans in to different races, without being a racist. As long as you don't think one gender is always better than the other, or that gender is a big deal, you are not a sexist. | ||
vthree
Hong Kong8039 Posts
I am not sure that making no changes would have been the best route. Would BW still be BW if it was vanilla Sc1? One could argue that if we could balance everything via meta and maps, SC1 would have been fine without the BW expansion. | ||
didsomeonesaydaeTL0
2 Posts
| ||
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
| ||
Izerman
Sweden99 Posts
On January 25 2014 09:44 NinjaBLT wrote: Could someone please make a custom map reverting all the balance changes? That would be interesting to play on. I'm noob at map editor so I can't T_T Iam already on it.. takes a while to read through all the 25pages of balance patches since 2010 :D anybody wanna help? ![]() | ||
CableSCES
United States367 Posts
On January 26 2014 02:04 didsomeonesaydaeTL0 wrote: Does this include balance changes from the alpha? Because 1 supply, 2 armor, 10 regen, 3 free speed, free burrow move, 20 regen while burrowed roaches would be hilariously broken, even disregarding the 3 range I am talking about post-release. So alpha and beta revisions are not included, for WoL or HoTS. IMO that's when balance should be most heavily analyzed and determined. On January 26 2014 01:45 vthree wrote: I dunno, didn't 5 rax reapers just destroy Zerg? Or was that after the roach changes? I am not sure that making no changes would have been the best route. Would BW still be BW if it was vanilla Sc1? One could argue that if we could balance everything via meta and maps, SC1 would have been fine without the BW expansion. I mentioned how I absolutely believe in expansions. Adding elements to the game is always great. It increases the options, choices, strategies, etc. If, during an expansion, an existing unit is adjusted, I would take this as an expansion change as well. BW was the best thing to happen to video games, imo, ever. I think studying and analyzing what made it a success is the key. On January 26 2014 03:59 Izerman wrote: Iam already on it.. takes a while to read through all the 25pages of balance patches since 2010 :D anybody wanna help? ![]() You, sir, are awesome. I wish I knew map editor to help you, but that is exactly what I hoped for. Now get TB on board with it, or build some kinda starbow hype, to get people to play it ![]() | ||
Izerman
Sweden99 Posts
On January 25 2014 07:44 Clbull wrote: Let's look at this in-depth for a second. If no balance changes were ever made to the game since Wings, we'd probably see:
Well.. i would really like to see how the koreans would exploit things like this. having people like iloveoov who keep coming up with "imba" builds only to see them nerfed because "imba" is plain boring. i remember how fun it was when maps where more open and the way zerg engaged terran/protoss was flanking and sending in cannonfodder to actually deal dmg to mech/colossus. And things like the mines.. man seeing the mines detonate killing 25lings.. well, why nerf mines when you can just buff lings to even the marine/ling interactions? And the infestor. man make it cost 250gas up to 300 gas but keep the ability as is.. And the more imba stuff.. snipe was a disaster, countering everything was stupid, but maybe remove armor tag from ultra/broodlords to make them specifically off the "sniping" counter.. would be more of a support midgame unit.. oh man the nostalgia.. EDIT: on a sidenote, the maps were different and all the stuff they do now may impact the game different | ||
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
in sc2 almost no units have that depth and scaling with skill like so many did in bw and "hardcounters" limit the strategic options anyway. | ||
Izerman
Sweden99 Posts
![]() | ||
| ||