EPTPatching is a bad idea - Page 4
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
| ||
|
Sqq
Norway2023 Posts
On September 21 2010 05:41 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: i just hope they don't take the wow arena route, patching every couple of months and shifting the balance all over the place. rts games need stability. I think its unfair to both the teams to do this comparison, seing as wow has more classes, more spells, and had more matchups that needed to be sorted. They basically took a step back and told the community they had to start focusing on 3v3s because 2v2 and 5v5 was so badly broken. Also the fact that there is PvP and PvE item adds an even bigger problem to the mix. I've played it at a fairly high level, and some items that is a must in PvE totally breaks PvP. There are so much more to consider, and when you nerf something in Arena, suddenly something else becomes overpowered. And I mean in a huge state not a small tweek like sc1 \ sc2 seems to need. Even maps are in the mix of balancing when arena, there is just so much shit that they basically have to shift what compos are good. | ||
|
TheAngelofDeath
United States2033 Posts
| ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
On September 21 2010 05:54 0neder wrote: Completely agree with the OP. Except we do need better maps and tanks need to overkill. No to the tanks, but definitely 100% yes. Maps are really also a main balance concern. A lot of em are very small, which makes some match-ups/styles extremely too good on those maps. Mainly steppes of war is the map that makes the game entirely different from other maps. | ||
TheOGBlitzKrieg
United States346 Posts
| ||
|
DreamSailor
Canada433 Posts
Zealots do school tanks when they are isolated, but they kill zealots in 3 shots currently, and when the AI pathing makes units clump together you can easily lose 1500 minerals worth of zealots to 1 volley from 3 tanks. | ||
|
pointy stick
Germany19 Posts
Are you serious? I really didn't want to bring up specifics about the game and your post is just a pool of arbitrary statements. Also, 'I play random btw.' what? you're actually a really modest guy? When you don't wanna talk about specifics (which is all you should talk about when discussing imbalances imo) consider this: imbalances do exist! And SC2 is currently considered imbalanced. It might not be as obvious in rts than in rpg, but i personally have no doubt that it's there. I switched from Z to random cuz of 1.0 tanks btw. :-p | ||
|
Ordained
United States779 Posts
On September 21 2010 05:56 TheAngelofDeath wrote: You patch a game when it needs to be balanced. I'm pretty sure Blizzard knows more about the game then some random people on TL. 0_o There are probably people on TL who have been playing longer than some Devs at Blizzard. This is not the 100% full team from 1998, same name, new face. Blizzard is really, really smart. but they are really, really clueless sometimes too. Edit to clarify that I agree with you. | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On September 21 2010 05:53 Sybris wrote: Yeah you're right, Blizzard's changes are really subtle and clever and I like them - I'm more focusing more on the proposed balance changes you read/hear all the time and why I dislike them then read it again, please I'm sorry, but after relooking over it, I'm afraid I still completely disagree if my assumption that your not talking about blizzard trying to create a cyclic metagame or something like GW. I agree that the constant flavor of the week tweak would be detrimental. However, I feel that your just assuming that this certain element of depth will come to the top. (also, I mean if one race required 4apm and another 1000s but a 50% winrate occured on ladder is that balanced?) I mean there are much greater questions that come into the argument than winrates and openings. I do feel that Blizzard can sometimes undermine strategic depth, but I feel like the title "patching is a bad idea" is absolutely horrible, and saying something like "patching is a bad idea sometimes" is no different than the argument that "Patching is sometimes good" It's just moot. That said, you mention proposed balance changes that you read and hear about all the time... I wasn't aware blizzard was in the business of proposing changes, like they need permission. I disagree with the notion that because they post a teaser of possible changes to come once, that we're reading/hearing about them all the time... If your talking about users posting their opinions, well then, so what? I don't remember who said it, but blizzard uses almost exclusively math for balance? | ||
|
Toxigen
United States390 Posts
The game is already evolving and changing -- and it's doing it extremely rapidly compared to BW. In BW, races were underpowered for YEARS without any intervention by Blizzard (beyond small tweaks to the cost of the spawning pool and academy before BW). We, as players, really need to keep this in perspective: the game has been out, literally, for only 2 months. I'd prefer it if Blizzard waited at least until after Blizzcon to start considering buffing/nerfing units and build times. | ||
|
Outshine
1 Post
| ||
|
csfield
United States206 Posts
that's certainly true but no one is playing terran or protoss to their full potential either and zerg has far fewer options | ||
|
Channel56k
United States413 Posts
On September 21 2010 04:43 natewOw wrote: It's flawed. Patches happen because there are irreconcilable issues in the gameplay. Allowing these issues to persist causes games to die. This... Your SF4 example is a little confusing because it goes against everything you've said here. Your right, street fighter was patched very little, but it was patched.... In its second release there were quite a few large balance changes. This is the first balance patch since beta so it cant be the regularity of the patching that has you worried. Patching is what the community wants, and the game is young, this is the time to patch. The game will have years upon years of gameplay evolution. A patch may not speed up the evolution of the game, but it will give it different branches in which it can evolve... and people who dislike going up against a terran now will dislike going up against a terran just as much post-patch :p | ||
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
On September 21 2010 05:54 avilo wrote: Rather than nerfing things like bunkers, zealots, etc. they should have re-buffed spine crawlers, especially the uproot/rooting times. HALLELUJAH! I can't believe someone actually finally realized how completely retarded the spine crawler root time nerf was. Just reduce build time by like 10 seconds and BAM problem solved. | ||
|
BuzzJuice
United States97 Posts
We shouldn't expect Blizzard to cave in immediately to patch and balance changes. I wouldn't expect them to and they shouldn't. People when discussing balance threads are talking about imbalances present, but they are frustrated. A person who faces 5 rax reaper again and again and finds it very hard to counter, with seemingly no hope to counter it will vent his frustration when talking about balance calling for massive changes even if small changes are warranted. They will get upset that their messages aren't being listened to fast enough. Even if there is a glaring imbalance (5 rax does not COMPLETELY break SC2, but does break it a bit). We shouldn't say BLIZZARD DO THIS NOW!!!, but neither should we advocate leaving the game alone. In retrospect, the approach Blizzard is taking is very good. They are waiting a few months rather a few weeks, and making small changes. They will gradually lead the game to a good balance for players to start off from. | ||
|
SlowBlink
United States102 Posts
On September 21 2010 06:05 Toxigen wrote: We, as players, really need to keep this in perspective: the game has been out, literally, for only 2 months. I'd prefer it if Blizzard waited at least until after Blizzcon to start considering buffing/nerfing units and build times. Beta: "the game's not even out yet" Last month: "the game's only been out for a month" This month: "the game's only been out for 2 months" 2 years from now: "the game's only been out for 26 months, it took BW 23435 years for herp to derp" The overwhelming consensus is that the game needs at least minor patches, and a change to the map pool. Waiting for Zergs to become superior players and learn to do cutesy moves to even have a chance isn't the way to fix the problem. | ||
|
IPS.Mardow.
Germany713 Posts
If you dont patch the game, P and T simply will get stronger vs Z, I'm pretty sure about that. | ||
|
bulge
161 Posts
there's no way to deny that blizz spent the most time on terran (for the campaign obviously) but it also shows in multiplayer. there are definitely some protoss fans at blizz, you can see the sexy units they made (colossus, void, mommaship) but zerg was most definitely an after thought (the new infestor and roach just don't do it for me, hydras are total shit, i'd take a 2 food guardians over 4 food broods any day). banelings are decent but only because if you didn't have them, terran would just walk all over you with marines. basically terrans have every advantage in the game and can deal with any threat very very effectively, whereas other races have to out expand, out macro, use difficult tactics, have higher apm... i think its summarized nicely by the fact that 2 stimmed + shielded marines (100min) are stronger than 1 hydra (100min 50 gas), can move faster, and 100 marines beats 50 hydras just the same. | ||
|
dreamend
64 Posts
On September 21 2010 06:08 konicki wrote: This... Your SF4 example is a little confusing because it goes against everything you've said here. Your right, street fighter was patched very little, but it was patched.... In its second release there were quite a few large balance changes. This is the first balance patch since beta so it cant be the regularity of the patching that has you worried. Patching is what the community wants, and the game is young, this is the time to patch. The game will have years upon years of gameplay evolution. A patch may not speed up the evolution of the game, but it will give it different branches in which it can evolve... and people who dislike going up against a terran now will dislike going up against a terran just as much post-patch :p You're saying there are 'irreconcilable issues in the gameplay' then? and I'm not saying this upcoming patch is a complete error either and I think people are getting the idea I'm completely dismissing the idea that patching the game can help, which is untrue, but after 2 months some people want radical changes because a strategy and race is dominant? please | ||
| ||
