EPTThe State of Lurkers - Page 4
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
sorrowptoss
Canada1431 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9438 Posts
On April 07 2015 08:44 sorrowptoss wrote: I truly believe that solutions do not come from game patches. I mean, haven't we learned over the past 5 years that patching the game doesn't actually solve much, if not anything? Let the game age. Let the meta develop and shift. Let people experiment. Only in extreme situations (for example, if patches weren't such a common thing...) will people be forced to adapt and be innovative, and that's where we will see great plays. Are people like you robots who are programmed to write misinformed comments without observing what has happened in the past? Sc2 hasn't been pattched 8 months and the meta is stale. Diversity is incredibly lackluster. There is not a single chance Blizzard has done with Sc2 that can be attributed to them being too quick. Yes they made mistakes, but those mistakes were bade on awfull assesment (such as Widow Mine changes), and not to them being too quick with changes. your welcome to give me one single counterxample here or you can continue being a robot. There is no natural law that implies that underpowered units that sucks will eventually be part of the meta. And I am kinda glad that we have had no patching in Sc2 for a long time as your type of arguments were always flawed from a theoretical perspective. And now that we have empircal evidence to back it up, I expected that people like you would dissapear (and most of you have indeed so your a dying specie). The famous auto-repeat example that your specie bring up is the BIsu's PvZ invention. However, you know what has happened since then in the matchup? It went into Forge/Corsair --> Templar tech 80%+ of the games for the next 8 years. And BW also has awfull diversity in many other ways. Do you also believe that bio play in TvP BW will eventually be discovered to fully viable (for anything else than a timing attack?) What is your deadline here. 2030? Look, when there are balance issues, its indeed very likely that there pro players can solve it balancewise by figuring out new builds, but that doesn't imply that no change should be made. Instead, you must look at a case-by-case basis. Is the "no patch"-solution something that restricts openings/diversity or is it something that makes it more fun? In many cases it is actually the latter, and it's why I believe much more frequent pathing would be very benefical. TLDR; No do not learn from BW in terms of pathing, but learn from BW in terms of what it did in the late game, because that was awesome. | ||
|
ArgusDreamer
Canada63 Posts
On April 07 2015 09:25 Hider wrote: Are people like you robots who are programmed to write misinformed comments without observing what has happened in the past? Sc2 hasn't been pattched 8 months and the meta is stale. Diversity is incredibly lackluster. There is no natural law that implies that underpowered units that sucks will eventually be part of the meta. And I am kinda glad that we have had no patching in Sc2 for a long time as your type of arguments were always flawed from a theoretical perspective. And now that we have empircal evidence to back it up, I expected that people like you would dissapear (and most of you have indeed so your a dying specie). The famous auto-repeat example that your specie bring up is the BIsu's PvZ invention. However, you know what has happened since then in the matchup? It went into Forge/Corsair --> Templar tech 80%+ of the games for the next 8 years. And BW also has awfull diversity in many other ways. Do you also believe that bio play in TvP BW will eventually be discovered to fully viable (for anything else than a timing attack?) What is your deadline here. 2030? Look, when there are balance issues, its indeed very likely that there pro players can solve it balancewise by figuring out new builds, but that doesn't imply that no change should be made. Instead, you must look at a case-by-case basis. Is the "no patch"-solution something that restricts openings/diversity or is it something that makes it more fun? In many cases it is actually the latter, and it's why I believe much more frequent pathing would be very benefical. TLDR; No do not learn from BW in terms of pathing, but learn from BW in terms of what it did in the late game, because that was awesome. I completely agree with your view on balance/patching. Time doesn't always favor the progression of balance and gameplay. Waiting can also lead to situations like: broodlord infestor/swarmhost era. There are countless other examples. I personally didn't think Blord infestor era was that bad but statistically i have no right to believe my own bias lol. It's proven that it really hampered the versatility and % win rate for all players in tournaments. i'd definitely consider that bad. The unfortunate problem is that a lot of times when players use an "OP" strat or less than considered fair build. It's because people simply refuse to play in less optimal ways. Which is not the fault of players but rather the game. Furthermore it's important to note that player bias does heavily affect the theorizing of viable builds. Based on the consecutive thinking that a certain style or multiple styles are considered the 'best' you will run in to various problems. Inflating the probability of successful builds that aren't being examined and explored enough. It's frustrating but honestly i feel like we as a community have to be more careful of what we say. An example would be that so many people say remove the SH out of the game etc. Ok for each time you say that come up with an argument that brings in a replacement and solution else just shut up. Time and time again you see balance threads/ptr test threads riddled with these idiotic of none substance comments. If anything these comments should get a temp ban. I remember browsing TL back in 2010-2012 and you'd see people be temp banned for all kinds of dumb shit people used to say. Is it just me or has teamliquid become more lax when it comes to these kind of posts? | ||
|
Dingobloo
Australia1903 Posts
| ||
|
sorrowptoss
Canada1431 Posts
| ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13998 Posts
| ||
|
ArgusDreamer
Canada63 Posts
On April 07 2015 10:13 sorrowptoss wrote: OK relax, I was wrong and I agree with what you guys said, I just meant that it was too early to make patches on lurkers and I got way to general with my post, didn't mean to fluster anyone or put down discussion :s It's alright you had good intentions ! No worries, you had the right objective.  | ||
|
RaiZ
2813 Posts
| ||
|
FaiFai
Peru53 Posts
On April 06 2015 14:53 starslayer wrote: its like 5 days of beta can we wait for stuff like this, i remember ppl saying swarmhost are aweful/useless in HOTS beta and were are we now. people are really only trying out the most op stuff like cyclones or ravagers. just give it time, I think the viper could be OP but no one uses them so we'll never know also a viper lurker combo with blinding cloud , same with stasis ward maybe not OP but could be very very good with force fields disruptors combos. just let ppl try everything out give it a month even two before we say things like this. Agree with that is very soon to seee the real potential of the units, just adding that HOTS beta about swarm host, people in HOTS still saying taht they are awful XD, the zergs only use them bcoz doesnt have other thing to fight effectivly against deathball protoss and mech terran late game, its like zergs dont like them but they have to use them. | ||
|
HumpingHydra
Canada97 Posts
I think a lot of people were correct that a traditional lurker, i.e., BW lurker, doesn't really work in SC2 (it was fairly dependant on dark swarm). Thus blizzard has gone with the 9? range lurker. Which doesn't make the unit interesting. My theory-craft analysis and take on the lurker's current status. The lurker has the potential to do some serious damage stats wise with its decent range, ambush potential(burrowed) and linear splash. Unfortunately, these effects don't add up to produce a unit with a badass factor or strategical appeal. The unit seems straight up good stat-wise, but can be severely migitated in SC2 with simple micro, effectively countering the lurker. My proposed solution: I thought burrow-charge was cool back in the day. I propose that an adaptation of burrow charge is given to the lurker. Instead of a long range burrowed move, Seismic Tunneling: - it would be a short distance (maybe about half a blink? what is that… 3-4 range?) - would take 2 sec or so - the lurker would seismically tunnel, visually you see 3 or so bursts of movement, 1 range each? - would leave visible dust-cloud formation above ground for opponent to see (subtle or obvious, depending if you want lurkers to be able to perform some sort of stealth function) -upon finished tunnelling, lurker can attack very quickly -cool-down of 15sec? This in my mind lets the lurker be MUCH more interesting. -dodge opposing skill shots, aoe (disruptors), also lets you "split" burrowed lurkers to prevent some types of AOE -increase positional advantage (essentially the lurker's role) -decrease opponent's ability to negate lurker's presence via simple micro -increase lurker's ability to siege properly --> lets you set up lurkers at exactly the right positions to effectively harass mineral lines or concave advancing armies -possible to "stealth" advance lurkers into positions, but requires planning and time Anyway, you wouldn't want this to be broken, so the siege range of the lurker would likely have to be nerfed or reduce the lurker's damage. Other factors to change. -Hold-fire option like the ghost. -burrow sound, death sound, attack sound (please need to be more epic) seems alright to me, what do you think? | ||
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?37088 Posts
On April 07 2015 05:14 Barrin wrote: The reluctance to use siege units as potentialy somewhat-unsupported-but-still-cost-effective defensive units actually has a lot to do with unit radius, range, speed, sight, survivability, splash variables, and the mapping proportions mapmakers are thus restricted to. My explanation of this will be my biggest OP (and/or mapping project) yet, if I ever get around to it. The key to making siege units more common/viable is to give them truly significant defensive capabilities that outweigh their lack of mobility. There are fundamental issues with design (unit radii/range/speed/sight/survivability vs. map proportions) that inhibits"terrible, terrible damage" from becoming more methodical, subtle, seemingly-unbeatable well-thought-out strategies. [spoiler]BTW I think radii, range, and sight are too small compared to the fast movement speed and killing times, which really ramps up the importance of twitch-reactions over planned & well-executed strategies.[/ quote] I'm confused, are you trying to spoiler that message or quote it? | ||
|
-NegativeZero-
United States2142 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9438 Posts
I personally didn't think Blord infestor era was that bad but statistically i have no right to believe my own bias lol. It's proven that it really hampered the versatility and % win rate for all players in tournaments. i'd definitely consider that bad. This is also why I was pretty aggressive in my post, because people like him have influenced Blizzard towards patching less frequently, and its really bad for the game. Broodlord/Infestor was something that was very likely to be imbalanced post Snipe nerf (I remember predicting that - and at the very least Blizzard should have reacted quickly here becasue terran didn't have a theoretical counter). In Summer 2012, it should have been apparent that the composition was too strong and both toss and terran suffered. But because MVP at a foreign tournament beat 2 foreign zergs (whom are so irrelevant that I forgot their names) with Ravens, Blizzard waited another 6 months before nerfing the Infestor. That was so bad... And then we see the same issue with terran being too weak post Widow Mine nerf for 6 months, and SH forcing players into retirement. I would much rather have a community that encouraged Blizzard to patch stuff and - yes - once in a while you do make a mistake in a patch, but you know what the good thing is? You can revert the change! Furthermore it's important to note that player bias does heavily affect the theorizing of viable builds. Based on the consecutive thinking that a certain style or multiple styles are considered the 'best' you will run in to various problems. Inflating the probability of successful builds that aren't being examined and explored enough. It's frustrating but honestly i feel like we as a community have to be more careful of what we say. The reason I would like to see Lurkers coming out faster is to create an alternative to Banelings in TvZ. The current research time is definitely too long for that to be the case, and while Lurkers could be a strong tech-too option, I see more advantages with it coming out faster. So my suggestions to the Lurker aren't so much related to whether its currently weak or strong (because that does indeed requre more testing), but rather that I wanna reward a bit more diversity in builds. I think a big part of lurkers' weakness is that they usually have no terrain to exploit. Current SC2 maps have very few real chokes, mostly because they disadvantage Z in HotS. In LotV, now that Z can more effectively defend a choke with lurkers and ravagers, I think maps should start incorporating more of them, not only to benefit lurkers, but so the idea of actually defending at a particular strategic location (aka "positional play") becomes more commonplace. Quite a few mapmakers tried this in the past, most notably Superouman, but it just didn't work in those versions of the game - but in LotV it might. True and the lack of Dark Swarm which synergized heavily with Lurkers. However, note that they actually buffed the Lurker by ALOT. 75 more HP and +3 range upgrade. The Lurker is probably viable in certain situations, but it could be so much better if it came out earlier imo. At least that's what a beta is for, right? You have a theory that you think could improve the gameplay and you put it out on the beta for people to test and give feedback. | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
1- The high tech cost of getting and upgrading them: - Hydralisk Den morph. 50/100, 80s? - Hive to get range upgrade. 250/150 100s - 200/200 110s upgrade to get 9 range -150/150 each Lurker. Back in BW, the total cost of getting fully functional Lurkers was 200/200 120s. Now it's something around 500/450 300s (5 damn minutes!), which is something really expensive. We need to remove the Hive requirement for the range upgrade, research and morph times decreased for the Lurker Den and maybe a reduction in cost of the range upgrade to make lurkers work again. All hydralisk tech is damn expensive. too much for how they perform. 2- Ravager massively OP at hatch tech, only needing Roach Warren (150 minerals) and costs 100/100 each, timing friendly, ability that breaks walls, synergy with roaches that can move when burrowed, has 20DPS + the stats of some very upgraded Hydralisk. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9438 Posts
We need to remove the Hive requirement for the range upgrade, research and morph times decreased for the Lurker Den and maybe a reduction in cost of the range upgrade to make lurkers work again. Blizzards logic is probably that if 9-range Lurker could come out in the midgame, then they would be able to stomp over protoss with timing attacks (since protoss needs robo units to deal with them). Giving the current state of protoss, that's probably true, but I think this is more of an issue with toss tbh.T erran on the other hand has better counters in terms "free" Siege Tanks and can run around with Medivacs to buy time. In the next patch where Blizzard hopefully buffs protoss midgame by alot, I want Lurkers to be more accessible in the midgame. | ||
Teoita
Italy12247 Posts
As i wrote in our beta article, i think we should settle on an economic model before changing units, and more importantly Blizzard should be open to trying out a few different economies to see what works. | ||
|
shell
Portugal2722 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9438 Posts
and more importantly Blizzard should be open to trying out a few different economies to see what works. As I wrote previously, unit-design/balance and the economy are related. You can't simply test an economic model for a month without unit-changes and evaluate whether it works or not. If you for a BW-economy, protoss would be all about timing attacks on 2 base (maybe 3). Its tough to say whether thats good or bad. But then you would have mech being insanely OP as it will have both really high mobility through the Cyclone and Siege Tank Drops combined with solid cost efficiency. In a BW model, mech must per definition have a much more immobile "core army" in the midgame. On the other hand, in the LOTV-economy, its extremely important that mech easily can move around in the midgame to secure extra bases. The point here isn't that we shouldn't go to a BW model. But rather that you go all-in and make changes accordingly. Testing a new economy without proper unit changes behind it is useless. | ||
|
Teoita
Italy12247 Posts
On April 07 2015 19:20 Hider wrote: As I wrote previously, unit-design/balance and the economy are related. You can't simply test an economic model for a moth without unit-changes and evaluate whether it works or not. If you for a BW-economy, protoss would be all about timing attacks on 2 base (maybe 3). Its tough to say whether thats good or bad. But then you would have mech being insanely OP as it will have both really high mobility through the Cyclone and Siege Tank Drops combined with solid cost efficiency. In a BW model, mech must per definition have a much more immobile "core army" in the midgame. On the other hand, in the LOTV-economy, its extremely important that mech easily can move around in the midgame to secure extra bases. The point here isn't that we shouldn't go to a BW model. But rather that you go all-in and make changes accordingly. Testing a new economy without proper unit changes behind it is useless. Other than your horribly wrong point about BW protoss being about 2-3 base timings, i agree. We are currently testing HotS timings and units in a completely different economical environment and the results is a complete clusterfuck. I'm not saying we need to absolutely copy every single thing from the BW economy, but simply that we need to settle on an economical model before changing units, as that is a better time investment than just trying to change two dials at the same time (unit balance and economical balance) and hope something works. You can't change units according to a particular economy, test it for however long and then decide it doesn't work and backtrack, that's just a massive waste of time and it takes way too long to have enough data. When you have a system as complex as sc2 you try to change the most important parameters first - in this case economy - and then you move to secondary paramenters like unit design, and finally you tweak the unit's stats. Assuming Blizzard hasn't already decided that this is the economic model to go, no matter what, i think the overall plan should be a) Find economic models in which players are more rewarded for expanding past a 3rd base b) Measure and compare the income differences for all these models outside of real games (which is easily done) c) Based on income figures (and any situational balance consideration i guess) settle on one economic model, or even on a couple and then test both of them. Balance around the new economy (or economies). This will result in a more productive testing overall. I personally think that since we start from a very balanced starting point (hots), what is likely to produce the best game is most likely to be as close as possible to hots, with just enough changes to move away from the three base style. This kind of economic model is more easily tested since it's closer to balance than any more extreme change. On the other hand, anything that's incredibly game changing - such as the current lotv economy- has the major issue of throwing things so far off the hots starting point that it's incredibly hard to draw any conclusions. Maybe the games will really be more action packed, and maybe once balanced LotV will simply go back to the HotS style of 3 bases and strong army, but that army might be less tech based. That is currently impossible to predict. I feel like the current Lotv economy model essentially forces Blizzard to rebuild the game from the ground up, and even then we don't know wether the game actually will go in their direction. After all, WoL itself was meant to be more about 1-2base games, smaller maps and shorter games, and that stated goal just didn't happen. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9438 Posts
Other than your horribly wrong point about BW protoss being about 2-3 base timings, i agree. That's not what I said (meant). I said (meant) that Sc2-protoss with BW econ will be about 2-3 base timings. Why? Because they can now stay at fewer bases than in Sc2 with higher income rate (60 workers mining on 2 base > Sc2 2 base). The reward of acquiring a 3rd base is relatively less. BW economy difference is more related to 4-to-to-2 base assymetry than 3-to-2 base assymetry. This allows them to have an easier time attacking. I'm not saying we need to absolutely copy every single thing from the BW economy, but simply that we need to settle on an economical model before changing units, as that is a better time investment than just trying to change two dials at the same time (unit balance and economical balance) and hope something works. Yeh I can agree with that. But I think Blizzard has already settled on the new economy. Whether that turns out to be good or bad is something we can only speculate on as it depends on future balance changes. I feel like the current Lotv economy model essentially forces Blizzard to rebuild the game from the ground up, and even then we don't know wether the game actually will go in their direction. This was why part of the reason why I 4 months ago recommended to stick with the Sc2-economy (over the LOTV and BW econ). Not because its better than the BW economy, but because the Sc2 economy would require fewer changes to be improved upon (and I don't have faith in Blizzard when it comes to making lots of changes). Now in hindsight, I was still a bit off when it came to the LOTV economy. The snowball effect, punishment of protoss and lack of late game was expected, but I didn't properly take into account what would happen if all units were good offensively and defensively. Given the fact that LOTV midgame can be a lot more actionpacked than both Sc2 econ and BW econ, I honestly think there is more potential in the LOTV economy. The protoss issue is something that's fixable, at least I can solid theoretical solutions here. The lack of BW'ish late game with mobile army trying to break immobile army is something that can be created into LOTV as well (but would require some changes and I am not sure the game dynamic is on Blizzards priority list). The snowball effect on the other hand is much harder, and I only see band-aid fixes. As you point out, you need to rebuild larger parts of the game, but I hope that Blizzard will do that and test out changes such as cheaper/faster bases with infastructure adjustments as well. As someone who just follows Starcraft atm., I guess I kinda like that they are changing the econ, because its a chance to test how my theories work out in practice. So its definitely very exciting even though I am not sure the tradeoff is positive. | ||
| ||
