|
On March 22 2019 20:30 mishimaBeef wrote:
aha that reminded me of an idea i had a while back
seeing as how balance is tightly coupled to the map design, is there any good that can come from matchup specific maps?
creating a cool and interesting map for one particular matchup can be done but most times will be imbalanced for some other matchup
maps that are required to fit all 6 matchups greatly reduces the space for innovation and creativity
i think this might be the number one way to breathe fresh ideas into the game without touching any of the core gameplay mechanics. all that is required is a paradigm shift away from the idea that every map is made to fit all matchups.
I tend to agree, if new, obscure maps were to be introduced fairly sporadically in tournaments, it wouldn't lend too much time to exposing any particular race's major strengths or weaknesses. Could lead to some cool on the spot strats.
|
On March 22 2019 21:28 whaski wrote:
I am watching Warcraft 3 tour right now and it shows how blizzard can wreck games with their "balance". I would rather keep game as it is rather than have nublizz screw up. With that being said, PvZ seems to be truly upphill battle for Protoss allgame long but how to fix it... Dunno. As for underused units, ghosts atleast product really entertaining games when being used and it was always a joy getting wrecked with Scouts when playing iccup haha.
If changing the balance, one of 5-10hp less, one damage less, maybe slightly longer or more expensive research on hydra speed would do it, other option is lowering cannon build time (Protoss traditionally has the fewest Starleague wins, so why not).
I think P vs Z past the early game is good, I think it's just hydra busts early on that skew the win rate in favor of the zerg. Must react perfectly, as a 2 cannons too little means you die, and two cannons too many means you're far behind if they don't fully commit.
Maps can address it though, for example a map like Transistor with either a very small ramp to the natural, or a natural on the high ground.
|
On March 22 2019 22:07 mozzybw wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2019 20:30 mishimaBeef wrote:
aha that reminded me of an idea i had a while back
seeing as how balance is tightly coupled to the map design, is there any good that can come from matchup specific maps?
creating a cool and interesting map for one particular matchup can be done but most times will be imbalanced for some other matchup
maps that are required to fit all 6 matchups greatly reduces the space for innovation and creativity
i think this might be the number one way to breathe fresh ideas into the game without touching any of the core gameplay mechanics. all that is required is a paradigm shift away from the idea that every map is made to fit all matchups. I tend to agree, if new, obscure maps were to be introduced fairly sporadically in tournaments, it wouldn't lend too much time to exposing any particular race's major strengths or weaknesses. Could lead to some cool on the spot strats.
ah okay, maybe i didn't fully clarify my idea but it is to have maps that are only played for certain matchups
for example, it is round of 8 in ASL, and for each match, one of the games (perhaps game 2?) is played on a matchup specific map. these maps are highly tuned for the given matchup and are not played on outside of the given matchup. so if it were a TvZ match, then map 2 will be on "the TvZ map"... in another match, say PvZ, then map 2 will be played on "the PvZ map".
the reason this method works is that there is no risk of exposing a weakness of a particular race/matchup for the map because the map is specifically designed to only be played on for a certain matchup
basically the point is to tune towards innovative timings for specific matchups without having to worry about screwing things up with regards to timings in another matchup
off the cuff example: a PvP map (or more generally a mirror match map?) where a 3rd base is very easy to secure. of course this would not be balanced to my understanding in say TvZ since terran will too easily secure a 3rd. no problem though, since the map wouldn't be played for TvZ, there would be a different matchup specific map played for TvZ matches
another quick example: having multiple paths to the main or wider ramps, which would not do well in matches where it's Zerg vs Not-Zerg
maybe these matchup specific maps can be flavored to tie into the lore as well? either through doodads, or naming or what not. and for televised matches would certainly make for some interesting commentary for the typically slower first few minutes of the game.
|
I dont play BW anymore but it's my favorite game of all time. As much as the scout is a personal favorite of mine (and as much as I think Terran are obviously broken), I dont think the game should be touched at all - units nor mechanics. If it's changed it will truly die imo.
|
Can anyone try to fiddle with unit sizes and stats? Turn Guardians into medium sized flyers (reduced damage from explosive attacks) maybe a tiiiiny bit of an increase in attack range and flight speed, better deceleration, so it won't just fly into static D blindly.
(Slightly controversial) have its attack deal damage over a small area. Smaller than scarab / siege tank explosion. Lower rate of fire.
(More controversial) add spell: Acid Bomb. Ranged attack, explosive radius of about a siege tank shot, deals damage to both enemy and own units. The unit has to stop completely like a Battlecruiser and charge for a few seconds. Either a direct attack like that, or a plague-like effect that deals some amount of damage over time and doesn't kill, in accordance to the whole acid-corrosion theme. 125 energy, requires 200m 200g to research at Greater Spire.
|
It would be nice if balance could be done by adjusting maps. Well, actually, it can. But tournament organizers have proven either incapable or unwilling to do so, unfortunately. A large part of that is on the community though too.
People seem to be ok with tournaments trying to crown a protoss every now and then with protoss maps and then going back to same old. Map making seems to be driven each season more by trying to make someone lose or by trying to make a protoss win.
Does that mean blizzard should step in? Probably not, even though some really small and targeted changes would be helpful.. All I personally hope for is that the archon bug helps the PvZ matchup a bit.
|
On March 19 2019 14:57 kidcrash wrote:
How can we make this unit viable without upsetting the natural balance of the game?
The whole premise of the OP is a logical fallacy. If you change anything, you must necessarily upset the natural balance of the game, by definition.
What you need to realize is that even if a unit isn't viable in the current meta and on the current maps, they are still influencing the way the game is played. For example, Queens were one of the main reasons the Mech Switch TvZ is not played anymore. The Dark Archon, which was also considered not viable and was just as rare as the Ghost and Scout, is now making a comeback as an anti-Muta utility in PvZ. In the era of smaller maps, Scouts were a common precursor to an all-in to disrupt a Zerg's economy prior to an attack, and Ghost play was also commonplace. But the meta naturally evolves in the direction of macro because that's how most people want to play; the reason FS was the most-played map of all time was because an easy third base on a four-player map dissuades cheese and requires less tenacious defense, facilitating long defensive games. Thus the Scout and Ghost were phased out in favor of masses of less specialized, more efficient units.
You cannot make changes to units with the current metagame in mind for the sake of unit-inclusivity and expect anything close to the balance that was forged through 19 years of theory and practice without a balance patch. That's what they do with SC2, and that game has never been balanced since release. A strong strategy emerges, and without giving other races time to figure out a solution, they buff the losing race and nerf the winning one, and the whole cycle starts all over. Infestors were king at the end of WoL, and when they got nerfed they disappeared completely for years, and there were people making posts just like this one on the Blizzard forums wondering how to make the Infestor viable. Even the smallest change can have a massive impact on all matchups and ruin such a precipitously balanced game.
I love that Sparkle was around for just long enough to provide complete closure to all these ridiculous balance patch discussions. Radically change the style of map, and Scouts, Queens, and Devourers become the core of the unit composition. The least-used units in so-called "standard" play are now standard on a different map. Was the game better because these units were being used? Of course not, it was more imbalanced than it's ever been. But that's why balancing the game via maps instead of balance patches is such a genius idea. If it doesn't work, just revert back to standard maps and you have a perfectly fine game once again.
Infested Terrans were a gimmick from the campaign that somehow made it into multiplayer. The way that tournament organizers tried to integrated into the other matchups was with Holy World, and almost all Zergs ignored the option. It's for the better that they aren't used.
Ghosts were used all the time in the Boxer era, and they're still useful. Like you mentioned, NaDa (inactive for almost a decade) almost beat Larva (top 5 Zerg in the world) using ghosts and nukes, and Larva barely survived; NaDa definitely would have won if Larva didn't have the extra economy afforded to him by Block Chain. That game was also the most exciting game of a dismal round of 24 because of the exotic strategy involved.
Ultimately the reason why the units mentioned are not used as often is because they fill niche purposes. Scouts are capital ship killers, but since Battlecruisers are never used TvP and Guardians/Devourers are never used ZvP, you don't see them as much. It's not "stubborn" to ignore that these units aren't used. It's simply a function of the maps and the units' interactions with each other.
|
Obviously, there are some balance changes that Brood War needs right now. We all know that the game not perfectly balanced, and requires some changes if the game is going to be successful. As it stands, right now, the Terran siege tank is wildly underpowered and is useless in most match-ups. I have long be an advocate of increasing its health slightly from 150 to 9999, and changing its attack to a nuclear missile launch.
|
that change could be to subtle to actually touch the imbalances prevailing in the current meta.
|
The way that tournament organizers tried to integrated into the other matchups was with Holy World, and almost all Zergs ignored the option. It's for the better that they aren't used.
Yes, but they're actually imbalanced vs Protoss. Protoss has no answer to hydra busts + infested terrans. It's just not fair for Protoss to have to deal with that unit.
See Zero vs Kal.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On March 23 2019 11:16 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +The way that tournament organizers tried to integrated into the other matchups was with Holy World, and almost all Zergs ignored the option. It's for the better that they aren't used. Yes, but they're actually imbalanced vs Protoss. Protoss has no answer to hydra busts + infested terrans. It's just not fair for Protoss to have to deal with that unit. See Zero vs Kal.
agree. If an infested terran explodes in a cannon line, it kills so so much. That game in particular was a really nice demonstration for why infested terrans need no buff imo.
|
Bisutopia19391 Posts
On March 23 2019 08:13 ninazerg wrote:
Obviously, there are some balance changes that Brood War needs right now. We all know that the game not perfectly balanced, and requires some changes if the game is going to be successful. As it stands, right now, the Terran siege tank is wildly underpowered and is useless in most match-ups. I have long be an advocate of increasing its health slightly from 150 to 9999, and changing its attack to a nuclear missile launch.
That would require a lot of command centers and silos to make tanks viable. I think the nerf is too large.
|
On March 23 2019 11:18 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 11:16 vOdToasT wrote:The way that tournament organizers tried to integrated into the other matchups was with Holy World, and almost all Zergs ignored the option. It's for the better that they aren't used. Yes, but they're actually imbalanced vs Protoss. Protoss has no answer to hydra busts + infested terrans. It's just not fair for Protoss to have to deal with that unit. See Zero vs Kal. agree. If an infested terran explodes in a cannon line, it kills so so much. That game in particular was a really nice demonstration for why infested terrans need no buff imo.
I don't think they need a buff either, I don't think they should even be in the game at all. A unit that can only exist in 1 of the 6 possible matchups without a specific map doodad is a stupid idea. But there were only 7 ZvP's played on that map before it was unceremoniously dumped after a single tournament, with only a lukewarm 4-3 record in favor of Zerg. So the specialized Infested Terran attack was hardly a decisive advantage.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On March 23 2019 11:26 JakePlissken wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 11:18 BigFan wrote:On March 23 2019 11:16 vOdToasT wrote:The way that tournament organizers tried to integrated into the other matchups was with Holy World, and almost all Zergs ignored the option. It's for the better that they aren't used. Yes, but they're actually imbalanced vs Protoss. Protoss has no answer to hydra busts + infested terrans. It's just not fair for Protoss to have to deal with that unit. See Zero vs Kal. agree. If an infested terran explodes in a cannon line, it kills so so much. That game in particular was a really nice demonstration for why infested terrans need no buff imo. I don't think they need a buff either, I don't think they should even be in the game at all. A unit that can only exist in 1 of the 6 possible matchups without a specific map doodad is a stupid idea. But there were only 7 ZvP's played on that map before it was unceremoniously dumped after a single tournament, with only a lukewarm 4-3 record in favor of Zerg. So the specialized Infested Terran attack was hardly a decisive advantage.
I never said it was an open and shut case. Furthermore, while I haven't watched the other ZvPs on that map, I have a hard time believing all the Zergs tried out the same strat that Zero did on that map so that is the only game that we have that shows how strong they can be against a competent toss such as Kal.
|
That logic works both ways. The players generally develop their strategies for tournament games on each map over dozens of practice games. So if the majority ignored the CC it was probably determined in practice that it wasn't viable except as a surprise tactic. In the 7 Holy World games, the neutral CC was completely ignored except for the Zero vs Kal game, and BackHo vs Gorush where BackHo destroyed the CC preemptively when he had an idle moment in the center of the map. No other Zerg bothered to infest it, nor did Protoss see fit to destroy it. So maybe it's a small sample size, but the fact that the neutral CC prop has only been used on one map, in one tournament, in the entire 19 year history of competitive BW is evidence that tournament organizers don't consider it a good addition to the game.
|
I'm ok with making infested terrans produced faster
|
On March 23 2019 11:18 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2019 08:13 ninazerg wrote:
Obviously, there are some balance changes that Brood War needs right now. We all know that the game not perfectly balanced, and requires some changes if the game is going to be successful. As it stands, right now, the Terran siege tank is wildly underpowered and is useless in most match-ups. I have long be an advocate of increasing its health slightly from 150 to 9999, and changing its attack to a nuclear missile launch. That would require a lot of command centers and silos to make tanks viable. I think the nerf is too large.
You could make up for it by buffing Blind spell, of course.
|
I think Archons are underused. I have been a long time supporter of Archs beeing half priced in order to save the game!
|
ugh please don't mess with it..
this is monthly topic rotation by now right?
|
On March 23 2019 08:13 ninazerg wrote:
Obviously, there are some balance changes that Brood War needs right now. We all know that the game not perfectly balanced, and requires some changes if the game is going to be successful. As it stands, right now, the Terran siege tank is wildly underpowered and is useless in most match-ups. I have long be an advocate of increasing its health slightly from 150 to 9999, and changing its attack to a nuclear missile launch.
Balance changes are needed for BW to become successfu, i agree on that part.
But the tank, really? It's one of the most over powered units in the game...
When thinking a lot about what units need balance i think of one unit in particular: the volture.
It does like 1 damage to TANKS and can blow up their own TANKS with mines.
-> make so mines don't do friendly fire atleast
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
