|
Since this whole topic degenerated into the usual balance flamefest where every topic ends up if unmoderated it's time for it to clean up. Locking this down for a while. Any posts made after my post [page 233] not addressing the changes in this patch directly and containting flames or general balance whine will get banned for at least a week. ~Nyovne
There is way too much flaming in this thread right now. Calm down before you post! (Page 271) ~iamke55 |
On August 26 2011 16:47 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 16:38 MrDudeMan wrote:On August 26 2011 16:12 Honeybadger wrote:On August 26 2011 12:34 VenerableSpace wrote:
lower divisions shoudlnt matter when balancing a game for the top level. When your "top" level is based on players rising up from said lower divisions, yes, it does. There's a fine line between what's going on. You shouldn't balance a game around the lower divisions. But you shouldn't IGNORE them and focus entirely on 1-3% of your player base. That's about as stupid of a business model as it gets. No, it really isn't when it comes to balance. The pros are playing the game much better then anyone else, thus if you want to balance a game but still have it involve skill, you should base it on the pros. If you base it on the lower tiers, you end up lowering the skill ceiling because the lower tiers cannot do what the pros do, and thus the game turns into a "casual game". Besides most people who are aware of the pro scene would agree that the pros say on balance is above theirs, and most people not aware of the pro scene don't really care about balance to begin with. You still should not ignore everyone else. Sure, Pro-level play should be the focus of balancing, but the game should also not be blatantly imbalanced at lower levels. Note, i am not saying it is. I just say that it should also be taken into consideration a bit. It should also be able to make a complex game which is balanced good at pro level, and still acceptably balanced at lower levels.
It is acceptably balanced at low levels.
If you lose against something, you're terrible.
At low levels basic strategy / build changes help you overcome any imbalance, because
everyone is terrible and their macro is shit.
|
United States1050 Posts
Why do workers have to classified as light? Why not just make SCV's and Probes just mechanical and make drones just biological, then Hellions wouldn't totally rape them and mech play can continue to grow.
|
On August 26 2011 16:50 captainwaffles wrote:
Why do workers have to classified as light? Why not just make SCV's and Probes just mechanical and make drones just biological, then Hellions wouldn't totally rape them and mech play can continue to grow.
Because hellions are designed as a harass unit i think.
|
On August 26 2011 16:50 captainwaffles wrote:
Why do workers have to classified as light? Why not just make SCV's and Probes just mechanical and make drones just biological, then Hellions wouldn't totally rape them and mech play can continue to grow.
You sir scare me.
|
United States1050 Posts
On August 26 2011 16:53 Shiluk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 16:50 captainwaffles wrote:
Why do workers have to classified as light? Why not just make SCV's and Probes just mechanical and make drones just biological, then Hellions wouldn't totally rape them and mech play can continue to grow. You sir scare me.
??? Why?
|
On August 26 2011 16:54 captainwaffles wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 16:53 Shiluk wrote:On August 26 2011 16:50 captainwaffles wrote:
Why do workers have to classified as light? Why not just make SCV's and Probes just mechanical and make drones just biological, then Hellions wouldn't totally rape them and mech play can continue to grow. You sir scare me. ??? Why?
Making workers different in any way just seems like a bad idea to me(edit: except for things like repair and regen of course). Why do you think they fixed the drone turning rate thing.
Also hellions and mech play is already so strong vs zerg x.x
|
On August 26 2011 16:31 shizna wrote:
also - thor cannon is untouched? why? has anyone even bothered researching that at ANY level of skill since 1.3?
It's pretty worthless since it's ~the same range and DPS as the Thor's base attack. I'd rather it be removed (and the mana bar as well), or be given 10 range.
But that would be a different patch.
|
did they also fix the lost tab issue when cancelling buildings ?
|
On August 26 2011 16:50 captainwaffles wrote:
Why do workers have to classified as light? Why not just make SCV's and Probes just mechanical and make drones just biological, then Hellions wouldn't totally rape them and mech play can continue to grow.
I don't think many Terrans actually like mech play all that much. Only Artosis and hard-core Broodwar nostalgics seem to want mech TvT.
|
lol. actually i haven,t seen a single patch going for terran!? i'm playing all three races at master level and i have a hard time playing terran. barracks nerfed?! why not adding another additional hour on stim upgrade T_T
|
Blue flame nerf is cool and all, but 4 hellion drops still do insane amounts of damage(not imbalanced tho) and I think nerfing their damage vs light shouldn't be nerfed as it affects mech vs bio, hydras, etc. I think workers should just have a new unit type classified as "Worker" instead of being light, so that you don't have to nerf anything else, since hellion vs lings,marines,hydras wasnt really a problem. With the unit type they could just do a specifc amount of dmg vs workers.
|
I've tried the PTR and the new Warp Pism is really tanky. I have no complaint but I'm afraid the final patch may reduce the buff slightly. (40->80 instead of 40->100) But here is to hoping.
|
With the unit type they could just do a specifc amount of dmg vs workers.
And then they'll suck against Zerglings and other light Zerg units. And Marines. Which means that the only reason to build them would be to attack workers. That makes them too 1-dimensional.
|
On August 26 2011 16:50 Elefanto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 16:47 Simberto wrote:On August 26 2011 16:38 MrDudeMan wrote:On August 26 2011 16:12 Honeybadger wrote:On August 26 2011 12:34 VenerableSpace wrote:
lower divisions shoudlnt matter when balancing a game for the top level. When your "top" level is based on players rising up from said lower divisions, yes, it does. There's a fine line between what's going on. You shouldn't balance a game around the lower divisions. But you shouldn't IGNORE them and focus entirely on 1-3% of your player base. That's about as stupid of a business model as it gets. No, it really isn't when it comes to balance. The pros are playing the game much better then anyone else, thus if you want to balance a game but still have it involve skill, you should base it on the pros. If you base it on the lower tiers, you end up lowering the skill ceiling because the lower tiers cannot do what the pros do, and thus the game turns into a "casual game". Besides most people who are aware of the pro scene would agree that the pros say on balance is above theirs, and most people not aware of the pro scene don't really care about balance to begin with. You still should not ignore everyone else. Sure, Pro-level play should be the focus of balancing, but the game should also not be blatantly imbalanced at lower levels. Note, i am not saying it is. I just say that it should also be taken into consideration a bit. It should also be able to make a complex game which is balanced good at pro level, and still acceptably balanced at lower levels. It is acceptably balanced at low levels. If you lose against something, you're terrible. At low levels basic strategy / build changes help you overcome any imbalance, because everyone is terrible and their macro is shit.
I agree. Balance changes inevitably affect all levels of play, since they are tinkering with fundamental unit and production values, but have less of an effect as skill scales downwards, as less skilled players are not as likely to utilize the full range of units and strategies available. I don't think there can be imbalance at lower levels; there can be greater difficulty in dealing with certain units/strategies, but these can be easily solved with better understanding of, and experience with, the game. Thus, the game can really only be balanced when taking into consideration the full range and potential of all of the game's elements, which manifest most clearly at the highest level of play.
|
United States1050 Posts
On August 26 2011 17:04 usethis2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 16:50 captainwaffles wrote:
Why do workers have to classified as light? Why not just make SCV's and Probes just mechanical and make drones just biological, then Hellions wouldn't totally rape them and mech play can continue to grow. I don't think many Terrans actually like mech play all that much. Only Artosis and hard-core Broodwar nostalgics seem to want mech TvT.
I think you're wrong, I haven't heard of any pros (Terran) not liking the metagame shift in TvT. I mean, its just so much more fun and entertaining to watch than watching a blob of marines running into another blob. Mech makes it more like chess or a game of Risk- much more emphasis on what areas of the map you can control.
|
On August 26 2011 17:22 NicolBolas wrote:And then they'll suck against Zerglings and other light Zerg units. And Marines. Which means that the only reason to build them would be to attack workers. That makes them too 1-dimensional.
No, I mean they still do x amount of dmg to light with bf (ns how much), but do a diff amount to the worker type, and the workers wont be light.
|
make workers armoured
SEIGE TANK WORKER HARASS
IMMORTAL WORKER HARASS
ULTRALISK WORKER HARASS
sound so much better imo
|
BTW I find it funny that some T's are complaining about 5 sec increase in rax build time because it creates a gap in scv production, makes the timing weird whether to 15 orbital or 16 orbital, yadayada.. They seem quite liberal how many SCVs (10? 15? or maybe every one of them) to bring for their all-ins, after all.
|
United States1050 Posts
On August 26 2011 17:32 askTeivospy wrote:
make workers armoured
SEIGE TANK WORKER HARASS
IMMORTAL WORKER HARASS
ULTRALISK WORKER HARASS
sound so much better imo
Get this man a podium.
|
On August 26 2011 16:50 Elefanto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2011 16:47 Simberto wrote:On August 26 2011 16:38 MrDudeMan wrote:On August 26 2011 16:12 Honeybadger wrote:On August 26 2011 12:34 VenerableSpace wrote:
lower divisions shoudlnt matter when balancing a game for the top level. When your "top" level is based on players rising up from said lower divisions, yes, it does. There's a fine line between what's going on. You shouldn't balance a game around the lower divisions. But you shouldn't IGNORE them and focus entirely on 1-3% of your player base. That's about as stupid of a business model as it gets. No, it really isn't when it comes to balance. The pros are playing the game much better then anyone else, thus if you want to balance a game but still have it involve skill, you should base it on the pros. If you base it on the lower tiers, you end up lowering the skill ceiling because the lower tiers cannot do what the pros do, and thus the game turns into a "casual game". Besides most people who are aware of the pro scene would agree that the pros say on balance is above theirs, and most people not aware of the pro scene don't really care about balance to begin with. You still should not ignore everyone else. Sure, Pro-level play should be the focus of balancing, but the game should also not be blatantly imbalanced at lower levels. Note, i am not saying it is. I just say that it should also be taken into consideration a bit. It should also be able to make a complex game which is balanced good at pro level, and still acceptably balanced at lower levels. It is acceptably balanced at low levels. If you lose against something, you're terrible. At low levels basic strategy / build changes help you overcome any imbalance, because everyone is terrible and their macro is shit.
Nothing else did i say. I was just making a general statement regarding balance philosophies. The game is acceptably balanced at low levels, while being better balanced at higher levels, as it should be. It is still in the process of being balanced, but the steps seem to get smaller and smaller, which, too, is a good sign. But this is not because Blizzard ignores Low-level balance. People seem to have the strange notion that everything that making a game balanced at lower levels is sacrilegious, and may only happen maybe as a byproduct of pro-balancing, but never on their own. But i say that as long as it does not majorly interfere with balancing on a pro level, and obviously also does not make the game absurdly simple, it is a good thing on its own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
