|
![[image loading]](http://bnetcmsus-a.akamaihd.net/cms/blog_header/ZIBRBIXE7F5K1426688146595.jpg)
Before we talk about specific changes coming in the next balance patch, we’d like to cover a few topics.
Big Changes on the Way
First, there’s a common misconception that after all the changes we’re implementing as we transition from Heart of the Swarm to Legacy of the Void, we’re planning to make the game completely different with each patch after release.
When we say the game will change with each patch, we’re referring to the big picture. When you compare Heart of the Swarm to the current state of Legacy of the Void, the changes are profound. This means we need even more time testing and iterating to make sure that these major changes work well.
Completely remaking the game with each patch is impossible—what we’re saying is that we will continue to iterate on major changes with future patches, and these changes will have a great impact on the game. We’re definitely not saying we won’t be trying new, big things in the beta—we clearly are and will continue to do so.
But we need to spend a lot more time working on, testing, and polishing the huge changes we’ve already implemented, and although it may be more fun to only try crazy new things that would make the game completely different, that’s not the purpose of this beta.
General Changes
- Archon Mode Update
Second, we’d like to tackle Archon mode and any necessary improvements to how players will control shared units in StarCraft II. We’ve been exploring various options, including your suggestions. After many discussions and test sessions, we decided to abide by this rule:
“Only make changes that can’t be handled by good communication.”
Archon mode is a mode where you only play with arranged teams. And part of an arranged team’s skill—not just in Archon mode, but as a whole—is good communication.
So far, we have one Archon-friendly change that we’re exploring:
When you select units and use the Alt + (number) command, those units are added to that number’s corresponding control group, and removed from other control groups.
This change addresses a common situation in Archon mode where one player is controlling a bunch of units when that player’s teammate wants to take a few of those units off to harass the enemy from another direction. Currently, there’s no easy way to do this.
For example:
Player A is controlling all Marines and Medivacs and needs to focus on the main attack
Player B wants to take 2 Medivacs and 16 Marines for a Medivac drop harassment
In this scenario, Player A would have to add 16 Marines and 2 Medivacs to Player B’s control group. Player B would then have to figure out which 16 Marines and 2 Medivacs Player A removed from their control group.
With our proposed alteration to how control groups are handled in cooperative games, after the strategy has been communicated, Player B can Alt control group the 16 Marines and Medivacs without having to interrupt Player A. This is something we’re currently working on, and it won’t make it to the next balance update, but we’ll try our best to get it out to the beta test as soon as possible for testing.
- Minimap Improvements
Third, we’d like to address potential improvements to the Minimap. We haven’t begun testing anything in this area, but we’d like to share our perspective so that we can gather initial player feedback.
We are looking at two areas of potential improvement. One is the issue of destructible rocks and towers not showing up on the Minimap—this can be confusing, especially on newer maps. Because we cycle through maps faster now, we feel that this would be a good thing to address before the Legacy of the Void launch.
We’re also looking at displaying spawn locations more clearly in-game. We have more and more maps, mostly in 1v1, where there are special case rules for possible spawn location such as diagonal spawn locations only or vertical spawn locations only. With many new maps coming in every season, it’s something we feel should be addressed. One way we could do this would be to ping the Minimap at the start of the game to indicate all potential enemy spawn locations. This way, we wouldn’t have to explain anything to the players through text—they’ll know where to scout by tracking the ping locations.
Balance Changes
- New Ghost Ability
Ghosts would gain a new ability that spawns a flying drone on an enemy target. That drone would channel a beam at the enemy unit, reducing its Armor by 3. The drone would have a fixed duration and can be attacked and killed. The main purpose of this ability is to help Terran bio armies better deal with a current weakness—high armor targets.
- Ghost Movement Speed Increase
We’d like to try this one out to see if Ghosts can be better combined with other bio units.
- Individual Overlord Transport Upgrades
After testing out this popular suggestion, we decided to give it a go during the beta. We feel that with the Nydus Worm changes in Legacy of the Void, doom drops have been buffed with the Nydus Worm, so we wonder if Overlords can be served for the small drops.
- New Upgrade to Reduced Medivac Unload Delay
We were exploring various upgrade replacements for the Medivac, and tried upgrades ranging from providing straight-up power in combat to various utility upgrade ideas that change up their gameplay. We decided to try reducing the unload delay because we feel that Medivacs don’t need to be buffed in strength in main engagements, but we wanted them loading and unloading in various locations throughout combat or during harassment.
- Disruptor Damage Increased from 145 to 145 +55 Shields
Disruptors aren’t very effective in the PvP mirror matchup, so we wanted a targeted change that only affects that matchup.
- Ravager No Longer Has the Armored Flag
Ravager is looking too fragile now, so we wanted to buff its survivability.
- Viper Parasitic Bomb Ability Cost Increased from 100 to 125
In larger fights against many air units, the micro we wanted to see wasn’t happening if too many Parasitic Bombs were used at once. So we wanted to reduce the number of Parasitic Bombs being used per combat situation so that we can see the micro and counter-micro a lot more in engagements involving this ability.
- Armory Ship Upgrade Costs Reduced to Match Vehicle Upgrade Costs
With the upgrades being split out again, we felt the choice of committing into the specific tech routes is cool, but we wanted to make each path similar in terms of investment needed.
- Spore Crawler Damage Decreased from 15 +30 Bio to 15 +15 Bio
While the Lurker add is working well in ZvZ in terms of transitioning out of Roaches, we’re seeing that fights are generally trending to be ground-based only. We’d like to have the option to go Mutalisks in some ZvZ games, so we’re reducing the +bio damage of Spore Crawlers. We’re looking for Spore Crawlers to still counter Mutalisks well, but at the same time, we don’t want Mutalisks to almost never be used in the matchup. We think this is a good starting point to get the damage value of Spore Crawlers to the right place, but we can continue tuning it as needed throughout the beta.
- Worker Counter Change Displays 2 Per Mineral Patch Instead of 3 Per Patch
While 3 workers per mineral patch is the max efficiency, 2 per is optimal in multiplayer games of SC2, so we decided to try out this change in the beta.
- Liberator AG Search Radius Indicator Is a Dotted Circle Similar to Siege Tank in Siege Mode, but the Ability’s Startup Still Displays the Animation
This change is due to performance issues caused by potentially having so many splats in a given spot.
Please keep in mind that these changes aren’t final. We’d love to hear your thoughts and feedback on all of the topics we’ve discussed. Thank you so much for all of your assistance as we work to make Legacy of the Void the best StarCraft II expansion possible.
Source
|
your Country52797 Posts
So many changes :O
Poll: Archon Mode Changes?Approve (233) 83% Neutral/Don't Care (45) 16% Disapprove (3) 1% 281 total votes Your vote: Archon Mode Changes? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Minimap Changes?Approve (250) 92% Neutral/Don't Care (15) 6% Disapprove (7) 3% 272 total votes Your vote: Minimap Changes? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Ghost Ability Addition?Disapprove (200) 50% Approve (141) 35% Neutral/Don't Care (62) 15% 403 total votes Your vote: Ghost Ability Addition? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Ghost Movement Speed Change?Approve (268) 75% Disapprove (64) 18% Neutral/Don't Care (26) 7% 358 total votes Your vote: Ghost Movement Speed Change? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Overlord Transport Change?Approve (211) 68% Neutral/Don't Care (62) 20% Disapprove (38) 12% 311 total votes Your vote: Overlord Transport Change? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Medivac Unload Delay Change?Disapprove (292) 67% Approve (114) 26% Neutral/Don't Care (32) 7% 438 total votes Your vote: Medivac Unload Delay Change? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Disruptor Change?Approve (139) 57% Neutral/Don't Care (66) 27% Disapprove (41) 17% 246 total votes Your vote: Disruptor Change? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Ravager 'Armored' Removal?Approve (185) 65% Neutral/Don't Care (57) 20% Disapprove (44) 15% 286 total votes Your vote: Ravager 'Armored' Removal? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Parasitic Bomb Change?Approve (211) 77% Disapprove (36) 13% Neutral/Don't Care (28) 10% 275 total votes Your vote: Parasitic Bomb Change? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Armory Ship Upgrade Cost Change?Approve (204) 78% Neutral/Don't Care (35) 13% Disapprove (21) 8% 260 total votes Your vote: Armory Ship Upgrade Cost Change? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Spore Crawler Damage Change?Approve (199) 73% Neutral/Don't Care (40) 15% Disapprove (32) 12% 271 total votes Your vote: Spore Crawler Damage Change? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Worker Counter Change?Neutral/Don't Care (152) 57% Approve (93) 35% Disapprove (22) 8% 267 total votes Your vote: Worker Counter Change? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: Liberator Change?Approve (128) 62% Neutral/Don't Care (68) 33% Disapprove (9) 4% 205 total votes Your vote: Liberator Change? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
Poll: How do you feel about the overall direction of the changes?Approve (233) 73% Disapprove (66) 21% Neutral/Don't Care (19) 6% 318 total votes Your vote: How do you feel about the overall direction of the changes? (Vote): Approve
(Vote): Disapprove
(Vote): Neutral/Don't Care
|
Some of these look good, but they are not quite what I was hoping for. I like the Ghost changes, will definitely make them more useful. Also like the medivac upgrade, its not the most creative but its solid. Cant say much about the rest without having the beta.
Not sure about the Parasitic Bomb change, to me it doesnt sound like it will improve the situation. After all, Vipers can replenish their energy quickly.
|
The overlord change is interesting. Wonder what the cost would be.
The ghost, however, seems to be a square being shoved through a round hole.
|
I really look forward to what qxc's thoughts are, assuming that he does another blog.
Thanks for posting!
|
I like them all exept medivac unload speed. It will lead to ugly situations if medivacs have no downside. I can't imagine how that's not overpowered/abusable as hell.
|
I thought people were complaining about ZvZ still being dominated by mutalisks? The 10 games or so that I've watched (primarily Dimaga and Vibe) have all been muta play.
|
IMO the Ghost spell is an elegant solution to the current bio problem. I really like it. Depending on how the drone works, of course. If it just hovers over an Ultra and dies immediately to anything hitting it they may need to make it so the Ghost itself can just paint the target.
|
I hope they do not consider those changes as the big changes.
There has been no mention of what the long term plan for these changes are, and all we really get are balance updates. While they are important in the long run, they are not what the most important part of an expansion should be about. Just because there is a long list of changes does not make them big.
This makes me feel like they are just doing these changes to trick the majority of players who see a longer than average LotV update and associate it with big, important changes and then are satisfied.
|
Seems like they're still taking a few stuff from SBow, the ghost ability sounds a lot like the one from there.
Unload speed, pls god no, as a terran doom drops in TvT are already too idiotic, this would make it even more.
Still not buying the Split upgrade change, but if they are going that way reducing the cost of armories to 100/50 (BW cost) is pretty necessary (that may make hellbat pushes strong but they can always balance that)
Not sure about other changes
Also, I still hate the liberator
|
Some of these things are baffling, I am confused as to what Blizzard is thinking anymore...Just add Ladder and let LOTV run its course!
|
Heh, the ghost ability soudns underpowered just by thinking about it.
Single target, you can destroy the drone, that seems very weak for only -3 armor.
I would much rather have it be -2 but with either a duration and indestructible drone, or somewhat aoe.
This is theory tho, I want to see it in gameplay.
|
while I'm all for making ghosts more useful this new ability just looks like an anti ultralisk spell.
I thought they wanted to get rid of those hardcounters.
Seems like it will be similar to current tvp: have enough ghosts -> you can take the fight; don't have the correct number of ghosts -> you'll lose 100%.
(in tvp I'm referring to vikings, not ghosts)
|
Katowice25012 Posts
That Archon Mode change is smart I like how that might work out. Doesn't Alt + number do something similar in BroodWar only for your own units? I totally forgot how it works 
|
the medivac keeps being the most broken T unit lol
|
Ghost ability sounds really boring. They want us to spam a single target ability on enemy units in order to reduce their armor?
That's exactly what Sc2 shouldn't be! Random spamming where the effect easily could be replicated by just not giving the Ultralisk super high armor in the first place. Abilities shouldn't take up too much APM, but should reward movement of units (like Psy Storm). This is the exact opposite!
Also just give the Ghost stim instead of movement speed increase. This will make it a ton easier to use along with bio as you won't need an extra control group.
The Parasitic change also feels slightly too much of a bandaid fix to me. Yes its an improvement, but I much rather see it not stack in the first so zerg players also must be more careful on targetting the right units. (it could then receive a slight AOE radius buff as compensation).
Overall, I see very little reason to play LOTV.
|
Can anyone explain the worker counter change?
|
Italy12246 Posts
On June 13 2015 03:31 CrazyBread92 wrote:
Can anyone explain the worker counter change?
The display thingy above bases they added in hots says x/16 instead of x/24 now
|
I think the Ghost ability is primarily focused towards the Ultralisk problem. Most units scale with upgrades in a linear fashion to bio units scale in damage but the Ultra then gets the plating upgrade which makes it so marines simply tickle it. I wouldn't expect someone to spam it on a bunch of zealots or anything.
|
The ghost ability will only be useful against ultras, right ?
|
every time i think I can't be more disappointed with LotV blizzard surprises me again with their incompetence.
|
There's no disurptor poll.
|
Not the best changes, but at least some changes.
|
The new ghost ability competes with snipe in a bad way. Both are single target. Both you need to spam on multiple units. But I am pretty sure snipe is more damage against anything that isn't an ultralisk.
If they didn't nerf marauders to be bad versus ultras, we wouldn't need this silly spam ability on top of snipe.
I think they should change snipe and delete this ability. Make it like Rise of Nations snipe: 10 range, 2 second cast, more damage, more energy, and give it a cooldown. Or maybe have it cause an armor debuff too and just trash the silly armor reducing drone.
Also, how is this armor debuff ability not just Corrupter Corruption warmed over?
|
I like the direction of the changes.
Still would like to see some slowdown to how fast we need to expand though. It's a little too fast. But without removing the advantage of taking an extra base. Maybe reduce mineral patches to 7 from 8 and keep their full mineral value there but increase the rate at which they're collected slightly to compensate.
|
Still no economy changes? why have a beta when they don't listen to community feedback?
|
My one comment on the ghost drone is that in a big army situation if you have anything that shoots up wouldn't that drone die instantly? Or would it be like a PDD where it has the lowest attack priority. Either way I feel like it would just get targeted down instantly.
Can we just remove the ridiculous armor buff on the Ultra and maybe just give it +1 armor? 8 seems a bit much especially when combined with the Marauder nerf.
|
that alt key thing will be a big deal for zerg in 1v1 o.o//
|
On June 13 2015 03:34 Dota_Lust wrote:
The new ghost ability competes with snipe in a bad way. Both are single target. Both you need to spam on multiple units. But I am pretty sure snipe is more damage against anything that isn't an ultralisk.
If they didn't nerf marauders to be bad versus ultras, we wouldn't need this silly spam ability on top of snipe.
I think they should change snipe and delete this ability. Make it like Rise of Nations snipe: 10 range, 2 second cast, more damage, more energy, and give it a cooldown. Or maybe have it cause an armor debuff too and just trash the silly armor reducing drone.
Also, how is this armor debuff ability not just Corrupter Corruption warmed over?
Previously they talked about replacing Snipe, and I think that this is the replacement.
|
On June 13 2015 03:38 Acer.Scarlett` wrote:
that alt key thing will be a big deal for zerg in 1v1 o.o//
isn't that only for archon mode?
|
On June 13 2015 03:38 Acer.Scarlett` wrote:
that alt key thing will be a big deal for zerg in 1v1 o.o//
Is it going to be a 1v1 thing? I've never played archon mode so I don't know if there are things exclusive to it but I hope its in both.
Unrelated I really like most of the changes. Except the medivac one. I don't see why the medivac needs buffing in the first place. If they did need a buff I was just thinking about something like a cleanse type ability where for a certain amount of energy the medivac would cleanse a unit of an ability. Like you could cleanse away parasitic bomb or the seeker missile target or this new ghost drone from a unit, or maybe fungal/blinding cloud. If balanced right it would give a tradeoff to healing your bio and allow countermicro for different abilities in the heat of battle. Idk its just a thing I was thinking about, still not sure how it would effect TvP. I still don't think they need a buff at all
|
Blizzard is finally going in the right direction. I like every single change except the Medivac Unload Delay reduction. As a Terran player I think drops are already too good, no reason to make them even stronger.
And please for the love of everything that is good remove the Nydus Worm being invulnerable while building. It is so broken it is absurd. A slight increase in base armour or hit points would have been a much better change.
|
Mostly good changes. I'm especially interested in the implications of overlord drops being changed. Medivacs don't need a buff though, especially in the area of their most annoying roll. Ghost ability is kind of meh too, it seems like it'll only be used against Ultras, and we'll still never really see Ghosts much.
Still waiting on economy experimentation though, I hope they haven't decided to settle for what they have now.
|
I dont want to see every unit get more and more abilites that were created exclusively to counter a specific unit/ability. This is not a moba. Give us units that are multifunctional and fun with the less amount of spamming abilites possible please!
|
your Country52797 Posts
On June 13 2015 03:33 DinoMight wrote:
There's no disurptor poll.
Fixed that for you.
|
On June 13 2015 03:48 IeZaeL wrote:
I dont want to see every unit get more and more abilites that were created exclusively to counter a specific unit/ability. This is not a moba. Give us units that are multifunctional and fun with the less amount of spamming abilites possible please!
We all know Blizzard isn't nearly competent enough to make units like that.
|
I'm kind of okay with Disruptor not being that great in PvP. I don't want every matchup to be more of a disruptor fest than it already is.
Also +55 to shields means it hurts my own units more lol which i dont want.
|
While I think these are all nice tweaks, I voted "approve" to almost all, but still not what I was hoping for.
I think the overlord change could really open up many more diverse options for gameplay. I also like that muta could be more viable in zvz.
I have no idea why someone thought medvacs needed a buff? Seriously... They are in every mu and composition as terran. If you are playing terran (mech or bio now) you have medvacs and you are dropping units for harass, and there is no problem with the harass. 90% + of the time the harass is very effective and always somewhat effective. It is maybe the most versatile unit in the game. Making a medvac able to pick up sieged tanks, imo was a buff. The unit is FINE (Great even)... nothing needs to happen to it.
My disappointment comes in regard to the economy. Ever since the 12 worker start we haven't really heard anything about it (as far as I know). I get that maybe it's not the best choice to update eco during every patch, and I'm happy with testing it for long periods before changes.
* But how about a blog or write up? I mean I would be a lot happier if someone was at least telling me how the testing was going. "Hey guys in this blog we are going to discuss economy and how the changes are affecting the meta," instead it feels like nothing is happening with it. It almost feels like the changes are made and issue is closed.
The only time the eco is mentioned in the post is in regard to a worker count number. I use that number to see how many workers I have mining, the suggested number has been ignored since it was first implemented. I have always been confused why anything other than 16 (optimal) was recommended. It probably just confused new players.
|
It is hard to comment before you get to see the changes in action.
I like the ghost speed increase, makes them more versatile I guess. The drone sounds rather strange, it needs to be very hard to kill for it to make any difference at all or have a long range.
I rather them do something with snipe, so it is somewhere in between what it was with the nerf and before it.
The overlord drop is kind of cool, I like it. Maybe we'll see some more fancy baneling bomb drops.
Archon mode to remove units from your team mates hotkeys is also pretty cool I guess.
|
So no change that will really improve the game at all, although the overlord drop and ghost stuff is cool. Sadly nothing about changing damage points, air unit collision, tracking turrets etc. that would fundamentally improve the game all around. It also seems like they are already content with the current economy .
I mean all these balance changes seem good, but that's what they are, balance changes... and I couldn't care less about balance changes. I want fundamental changes that will improve the quality of the game.
|
the overlord upgrade looks nice
the ghost drone is a "vs ultra change", why dont just buff snipe and add another feature to the ghost?
if they want to change the medivac i would prefer the hots orginal chnage that buffed the healing ratio, make the upgrade require fusion core and be expensive.
no mention to the liberator bug, is it going to stay?
im feeling a little bit dissapointed with this patch
|
On June 13 2015 04:07 Topin wrote:
the overlord upgrade looks nice
the ghost drone is a "vs ultra change", why dont just buff snipe and add another feature to the ghost?
if they want to change the medivac i would prefer the hots orginal chnage that buffed the healing ratio, make the upgrade require fusion core and be expensive.
no mention to the liberator bug, is it going to stay?
im feeling a little bit dissapointed with this patch
Yeah good point, what about the Liberator bug? They should change it fast or people will get used to it  .
|
The change that stands out to me the most is the overlord drop change, simply because that change is clearly influenced by the community.
|
Dunno about you guys but I'm glad the ghost is getting corruption as a spell.
|
Lol a these terran changes, seriously. Terran is faster and stronger than other races units (speedvacs and stim), T can be anywhere and trade favorably with any of the other races if
1) P doesnt have perfect unit mix
2) Z doesn't have tons o banelings... nevermind T still trades favorably or at least even unless T doesn't micro at all.
T speedvacs are so affective its borderline imbalanced, what are we seeing terran players do nowadays? Speedvacs harassing all day everygame, the opponent know what they are going to do? Doesn't matter it cant be blocked because its so flexible, it can always get damage. So whats the answer, buff speedvacs more? What the hell, then please buff the defense of all races. Defense is unbalanced as it is vs speedvacs, if any change is needed its the opposite.
|
what is this overlord drop change supposed to do?
|
On June 13 2015 04:18 Charoisaur wrote:
what is this overlord drop change supposed to do? Instead of researching Ventral Sacs to turn all your Overlords into dropships, you can individually transform Overlords into Drop Overlords. So you can do some drop play without having to pay the entire cost of Ventral Sacs.
|
On June 13 2015 04:18 Charoisaur wrote:
what is this overlord drop change supposed to do?
Yea I'm a bit confused on this as well, maybe since they said individual it's like, you turn it into Overseer, then additional upgrade/morph time enables Overseers to have cargo? I re read it so if anyone could clarify that would be cool.
Any buffs to the Ghost is totally welcome, decent change on the Ravager and Medivac even though they aren't quite as elegant as I would like, the Parasitic Bomb changes seem not good enough though, I'm a Zerg and it's a bit unfair how OP it is lol
This is the direction the patches should be going, this is probably one of the better patches that has come out so far.
|
Make HT viable plox and dont buff medivacs
|
I think they should increase the Parasitic Bomb damage or decrase the time it needs to deal the damage, but don't make the damage stack, just like storm. So units can only take damage from a single bomb at a time.
|
On June 13 2015 04:28 Musicus wrote:
I think they should increase the Parasitic Bomb damage or decrase the time it needs to deal the damage, but don't make the damage stack, just like storm. So units can only take damage from a single bomb at a time.
The stacking has got to be a bug. The exponential damage doesn't make sense.
|
I will be honest here... if the only changes were the Ravager and Overlord one (also the Armory, ok, but I want combined Armor Ship and Vehicle Plate at least) I would be happy.
But seeing the other changes it is like "Ugh... they have no idea what they are gonna do or even trying to do"
I don't know, I think I am gona try again Starbow, this is sad man... I still had some hopes before this patch.
|
On June 13 2015 04:18 Charoisaur wrote:
what is this overlord drop change supposed to do?
I think it will be clearer with more details. For example, if it just costs mineral to convert an overlord to carry and if it is available before lair.
If either of these are the case it makes drops much more available to zerg. I would consider converting just 2-4 ovis and loading them with lings earlier in the game. Interesting plays like that could be available.
|
Still no ladder? Guess they'll continue to have no players to test their stupid little changes.
|
Instead of increasing ghost speed, just give ghosts stim.
|
people still arnt going to play it unless they put a ladder in.
|
Ghost Drone will not just be a Ultra counter, it will be really useful against any high priority target like Battlecruisers, Carriers and Colossus.
I hope the Ghost Drone will have lots of HP though and that you have to target them manually in order to shoot them down.
|
yes, fLyiNgDroNe ftw!
EDIT: hey i just got in beta!!! perfect timing for me!
|
I wonder if the drone can send a target into negative armor or if the floor is 0. Also I wonder if it will effect both Protoss shield and hull armor or only hull.
|
Does this mean Ghost spell on a unit with less than 3 armor will take bonus damage to attacks? Ie. if you hit a 0 armor zergling, then it will take +3 damage to every attack? Or does it cancel @ 0/
I'm also thinking about how this works against Immortals and barrier.
|
Disruptor Damage Increased from 145 to 145 +55 Shields
Does the +55 only damage shields, or does that mean, any unit that has shields regardless whether it is currently at 100 shields or 0 shields, will be hurt by 55, that is, it will affect shields first and the remaining will effect HP?
|
On June 13 2015 05:06 whetherbye wrote:Does the +55 only damage shields, or does that mean, any unit that has shields regardless whether it is currently at 100 shields or 0 shields, will be hurt by 55, that is, it will affect shields first and the remaining will effect HP?
As per the widow mine damage, I think we can assume that the +55 shields impacts first in order to directly affect protoss units. Otherwise it wouldn't make sense
|
On June 13 2015 05:06 whetherbye wrote:Does the +55 only damage shields, or does that mean, any unit that has shields regardless whether it is currently at 100 shields or 0 shields, will be hurt by 55, that is, it will affect shields first and the remaining will effect HP?
I suppose it will be done as widow mine damage.
Damage in widow mines acts this way: shield damage and then normal damage. It's like two separate effects happening at the same time, but the first one only damages the shield healthbar.
It means that damage effect will drain 55 SP (shield points) from the unit that recieves the damage, damaging only shields down to 0 in the most efficient case, and then apply 145 of normal damage, damaging the total health of the unit.
Just an example: if a Colossus is damaged with only 37 shields remaining (200/37), it will recieve 55 damage onto the shield healthbar without affecting, getting shields down to zero (200/0), and then would recieve 145 damage (55/0). In that case, the Colossus only recieved a total of 183 damage because there weren't more than 55 shieldpoints.
A full health Colossus (200/150) would take first 55 damage to shields (200/95) and then 145 damage (150/0).
|
On June 13 2015 03:27 Charoisaur wrote:
while I'm all for making ghosts more useful this new ability just looks like an anti ultralisk spell.
I thought they wanted to get rid of those hardcounters.
Seems like it will be similar to current tvp: have enough ghosts -> you can take the fight; don't have the correct number of ghosts -> you'll lose 100%.
(in tvp I'm referring to vikings, not ghosts)
Don't be foolish the new ghost spell doesn't hard counter ultras.
It's just moves them from never ever die class to needs to be transfused once in a while to never ever die class.
|
Archon mode change is pretty brilliant, huge props for that. These other changes...idk they just seem really sporadic and random. But none of it matters because the economy is still garbage.
|
I'm really not liking the direction of the Disruptor changes and the Ravager changes. Other than that, these sound pretty solid.
|
That new Ghost ability is so lame. Give me a break. Are they really so opposed to trying Snipe +35 dmg? +45 was too much, +25 is too little.... Why not try 35?
The rest seems reasonable though...
|
What about some sort of psionic thing a ghost can deploy to fuck with the AI of the units affected?
Opponent has to micro his units out of it.
Fits w the lore? Can help Terran bio late game.
|
The ghost ability only sounds useful if the drone has to be manually clicked on and cannot be autoattacked. It sounds more like a troll ability rather than a useful one, not sure how Terran will be able to use the ability considering how much APM it takes to micro vs zerg, it has to do something like slow the target down for it to actually be useful.
Let's compare the cost of ghosts vs ultra:
Ghost = 200 minerals + 100 gas for a 100 hp unit that does 7 dps
Ultralisk = 300 minerals + 200 gas for 500 hp unit that does 40 dps AOE (and has insane armor and is much faster)
I think that says it all, don't expect ghosts to be viable vs Zerg or Terran any time soon unless their damage output is significantly increased.
|
On June 13 2015 05:54 WhenRaxFly wrote:
The ghost ability only sounds useful if the drone has to be manually clicked on and cannot be autoattacked. It sounds more like a troll ability rather than a useful one, not sure how Terran will be able to use the ability considering how much APM it takes to micro vs zerg, it has to do something like slow the target down for it to actually be useful.
Let's compare the cost of ghosts vs ultra:
Ghost = 200 minerals + 100 gas for a 100 hp unit that does 7 dps
Ultralisk = 300 minerals + 200 gas for 500 hp unit that does 40 dps AOE (and has insane armor and is much faster)
I think that says it all, don't expect ghosts to be viable any time soon unless their damage output is significantly increased.
Or they provide some sort of other benefit that makes it easier for the Terran to engage.
Such as my idea 
|
On June 13 2015 05:47 DinoMight wrote:
What about some sort of psionic thing a ghost can deploy to fuck with the AI of the units affected?
Opponent has to micro his units out of it.
Fits w the lore? Can help Terran bio late game.
Yes, if the ability causes the affected unit to lose control and attack random units including friendly ones, however I don't think this would ever happen
|
So many good thoughts in this thread already! Blizzard, just do it right!
|
The ghost and overlord changes are very interesting. Need to see the drone ability in action, but immobility is probably one of the main things wrong with the current ghost and I'm glad they're looking at it.
The overlord idea was unexpected and seemingly cool. I think drops could've benefited from simply buffing the unload speed and cargo capacity of small units (hold more zerglings) while simultaneously redesigning the nydus worm to have synergy with drops rather than overlap with them. This is a very cool alternate idea though, I just hope they don't get to thinking the current LotV nydus is a good idea...
On June 13 2015 04:12 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
The change that stands out to me the most is the overlord drop change, simply because that change is clearly influenced by the community.
Indeed.
http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/37chha/individual_overlords_get_ventral_sacs_as_a/
there's still hope!
|
The initial paragraphs by DK are so confusing and sound so stressed. Do they make big changes now or not? What does even count as a big change? Why is it not the purpose of the beta? And please Blizzard, just take all the time you need. I can wait. There are so many excellent suggestions in this thread alone! And even on reddit (http://bit.ly/1SbHTkP). Not the purpose of a beta? Plz.
|
On June 13 2015 05:54 WhenRaxFly wrote:
The ghost ability only sounds useful if the drone has to be manually clicked on and cannot be autoattacked. It sounds more like a troll ability rather than a useful one, not sure how Terran will be able to use the ability considering how much APM it takes to micro vs zerg, it has to do something like slow the target down for it to actually be useful.
Let's compare the cost of ghosts vs ultra:
Ghost = 200 minerals + 100 gas for a 100 hp unit that does 7 dps
Ultralisk = 300 minerals + 200 gas for 500 hp unit that does 40 dps AOE (and has insane armor and is much faster)
I think that says it all, don't expect ghosts to be viable vs Zerg or Terran any time soon unless their damage output is significantly increased.
Let's compare the cost of ghosts vs ultra:
Ghost = 200 minerals + 100 gas for a unit that can cloak, launch nukes and has a aoe damage spell vs protoss and anto spell caster
Ultralisk = 300 minerals + 200 gas for a unit that has no active abilities
This comparing game is fun !
|
the medivac change sounds so stupid that it might be their idea indeed
|
On June 13 2015 06:28 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 05:54 WhenRaxFly wrote:
The ghost ability only sounds useful if the drone has to be manually clicked on and cannot be autoattacked. It sounds more like a troll ability rather than a useful one, not sure how Terran will be able to use the ability considering how much APM it takes to micro vs zerg, it has to do something like slow the target down for it to actually be useful.
Let's compare the cost of ghosts vs ultra:
Ghost = 200 minerals + 100 gas for a 100 hp unit that does 7 dps
Ultralisk = 300 minerals + 200 gas for 500 hp unit that does 40 dps AOE (and has insane armor and is much faster)
I think that says it all, don't expect ghosts to be viable vs Zerg or Terran any time soon unless their damage output is significantly increased. Let's compare the cost of ghosts vs ultra: Ghost = 200 minerals + 100 gas for a unit that can cloak, launch nukes and has a aoe damage spell vs protoss and anto spell caster Ultralisk = 300 minerals + 200 gas for a unit that has no active abilities This comparing game is fun !
Regardless, for cost the ghost is not very good or effective. Heck, you sacrifice the ability to do those other spells just to potentially reduce 1 ultra back down to HotS armor level.
|
It's a bit odd they're framing alt to remove units from control groups as an archon mode improvement given that a lot of people have asked for literally this change for normal multiplayer.
The ghost change reminds me of my suggestion to change snipe to reduce armor (which nobody liked), and here I'm not sure why it's necessary to add a completely new ability instead of tweaking snipe. The more radical solution would be to address the eight armor, which creates the conditions where bio needs additional tools versus ultralisks to begin with.
The ship armor upgrade just looks like sloppiness, similar to when they changed the mineral patch values but forgot to scale the geyser counts to maintain the ratio.
For the minimap changes, I thought they could show the spawning circles on the map and hide them upon first gaining vision of this area. Warcraft 3 had a good system where circles indicated creep spawns and after scouting the area the circles would be removed if the spawns had been cleared.
Ravager change might be good to add some distinction between the roach and the ravager, but I otherwise I don't know.
Reducing medivac unload delay and increasing ghost speed is just ... . I'll admit it's possible that these are good changes, but when exactly is Blizzard going to be consistent about game speed? If the game needs to be faster why don't they just make all units faster instead of doing this one change at the time? Is it to acclimatize the playerbase like the proverbial boiling frogs?
Also, won't there be issues with the medivac unload delay? When you unload a unit it is kind of like a transformation or phase change, and as we all know if there is no cost to changing phase it's like the unit has dual functionality active at all time. This change is almost like turning the medivac into an actual fighting unit, just one with very complicated functionality. That's why reavers had to have a firing delay added after being dropped from a shuttle.
Viper change I suppose is good. Disruptor change seems a bit odd but might be good too. Spore crawler change makes the spore crawler - mutalisk interaction less extreme, but if they're going to add all these specific changes they should buff infestors vs mutalisks maybe? Overlord drops might be good, but nydus still seems stupid.
|
Man, I was so looking forward to the classic "Approve all the changes, Disapprove overall". You disappoint me greatly, Teamliquid.
Archon mode will definitely be cool as fuck.
|
AAAh i'm glad they didn't change the liberator shooting in each other target areas; maybe that mean they will keep it as is?
Also the ghost ability is terrible. They might as well give an upgrade to marauder saying "ignore 3 armour while attacking an ultralisk" it's so stupid.
|
I thought complaints were that the Disruptor is already too strong?
|
On June 13 2015 07:14 ZenithM wrote:
Man, I was so looking forward to the classic "Approve all the changes, Disapprove overall". You disappoint me greatly, Teamliquid.
Archon mode will definitely be cool as fuck.
Will you ever be able to get over the results of that poll or will you keep mentioning it incessantly? The poll outcome was perfectly reasonable as you know very well.
|
On June 13 2015 07:31 BruMeister wrote:
I thought complaints were that the Disruptor is already too strong?
Yes but it was only complaints from TvP and ZvP players; they eared those complaints and realized it was not fair so they buffed the disruptor in PvP.
|
Nothing relevant is happening, as usual. I'm very disappointed.
I don't understand the disruptor change at all by the way.
|
I think the spore crawler change is a good start to open up ZvZ options. But melee compositions are still shunned because of the upgrade issue:
Here is the read:
Creating a better ZvZ for LOTV
|
I'm just gonna sum up my feelings in a letter entitled,
Dear Blizzard:
+ Show Spoiler +Thanks!
|
activision is forcing them to launch the game quickly, so now they say they wanna make big changes after launch, not before.
rofl
|
The ghost ability... is really stupid. The only unit and matchup that could possibly be affected is the ultralisk and late game bio TvZ. The ability is a single target, limited duration spell that can easily be countered by having some AA units in the army to destroy the drone. Plus I am not really sure whether the apm necessary to achieve a bit of armor loss is worth the lost opportunities in kiting and splitting your units, which is absolute essential in this match up. The liberator seem like a much better alternative to deal against ultralisks at the moment.
Here is my suggestion for the ghost's new ability:
Radiation round
75 energy
Range 10
Hits a single target. Target, if biological, takes 250 damage over 30 seconds and deals same dps to any biological units with 1.5 radius.
|
On June 13 2015 07:34 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 07:14 ZenithM wrote:
Man, I was so looking forward to the classic "Approve all the changes, Disapprove overall". You disappoint me greatly, Teamliquid.
Archon mode will definitely be cool as fuck. Will you ever be able to get over the results of that poll or will you keep mentioning it incessantly? The poll outcome was perfectly reasonable as you know very well.
Do I? I did not agree with the last poll, nor do I think the results were reasonable. But you're right, I will cease my incessant posting (that was like, what, my second post?) on the topic.
|
Personally I just disagree with Ghosts moving quicker. Units that move at the same speed create 1-A deathballs, even if it's bio.
|
I wish I had the APM to use the new Ghost buff - but it takes all my efforts to split my army and kite in TvZ. The Medivac change is welcome - bio looks really bad in LotV whenever I have watched - in fact nowadays I only see Terran mech.
|
On June 13 2015 05:15 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 05:06 whetherbye wrote:Disruptor Damage Increased from 145 to 145 +55 Shields Does the +55 only damage shields, or does that mean, any unit that has shields regardless whether it is currently at 100 shields or 0 shields, will be hurt by 55, that is, it will affect shields first and the remaining will effect HP? I suppose it will be done as widow mine damage. Damage in widow mines acts this way: shield damage and then normal damage. It's like two separate effects happening at the same time, but the first one only damages the shield healthbar. It means that damage effect will drain 55 SP (shield points) from the unit that recieves the damage, damaging only shields down to 0 in the most efficient case, and then apply 145 of normal damage, damaging the total health of the unit. Just an example: if a Colossus is damaged with only 37 shields remaining (200/37), it will recieve 55 damage onto the shield healthbar without affecting, getting shields down to zero (200/0), and then would recieve 145 damage (55/0). In that case, the Colossus only recieved a total of 183 damage because there weren't more than 55 shieldpoints. A full health Colossus (200/150) would take first 55 damage to shields (200/95) and then 145 damage (150/0).
Makes sense. Thanks.
|
On June 13 2015 08:27 Loccstana wrote:
The ghost ability... is really stupid. The only unit and matchup that could possibly be affected is the ultralisk and late game bio TvZ. The ability is a single target, limited duration spell that can easily be countered by having some AA units in the army to destroy the drone. Plus I am not really sure whether the apm necessary to achieve a bit of armor loss is worth the lost opportunities in kiting and splitting your units, which is absolute essential in this match up. The liberator seem like a much better alternative to deal against ultralisks at the moment.
Here is my suggestion for the ghost's new ability:
Radiation round
75 energy
Range 10
Hits a single target. Target, if biological, takes 250 damage over 30 seconds and deals same dps to any biological units with 1.5 radius.
I wonder if that would be a buff to terran or zerg in late game tvz :O
|
Bisutopia19229 Posts
I really wish the ghosts current abilities were either made useful or taken away. Memories of Snipe versus feedback in WoL are the best. And MVP vs July on metropolis snipe was also awesome. If anything this new ability should go on the raven. Thats a midgame unit that could be a staple of mech and bio.
|
On June 13 2015 08:27 Loccstana wrote:
The ghost ability... is really stupid. The only unit and matchup that could possibly be affected is the ultralisk and late game bio TvZ. The ability is a single target, limited duration spell that can easily be countered by having some AA units in the army to destroy the drone. Plus I am not really sure whether the apm necessary to achieve a bit of armor loss is worth the lost opportunities in kiting and splitting your units, which is absolute essential in this match up. The liberator seem like a much better alternative to deal against ultralisks at the moment.
Here is my suggestion for the ghost's new ability:
Radiation round
75 energy
Range 10
Hits a single target. Target, if biological, takes 250 damage over 30 seconds and deals same dps to any biological units with 1.5 radius.
lolol, that would be the end game for TvZ. 12 ghosts = win the game. You could hit every single zerg roach/hydra/ultra/muta etc and then just run away before they even hit 1 ghost.
But I do think the current ghost drone is too weak. I could see it being useful against just ultralisks/ling, which does happen. But lots of times there are hydras or more likely mutas and guessin the drone just dies instantly, and if theres banes then Id think moving your army is more useful than trying to fire a drone off and get hit by banes. Pros can probably pull this off, but without seeing this drone this is all just speculation. I liked someone elses idea where it was indestructible, set time limit, -2 armor. And adding onto that, instead of having to directly target a unit, it should have a blanket area where it will target a unit in that area, if the unit dies it will move onto another in the area and die after said time-limit. This way its actually more useful and less micro intensive
|
On June 13 2015 09:29 DeadByDawn wrote:
I wish I had the APM to use the new Ghost buff - but it takes all my efforts to split my army and kite in TvZ. The Medivac change is welcome - bio looks really bad in LotV whenever I have watched - in fact nowadays I only see Terran mech.
Medivac change is already the worst rated change so far. Doomdrops are already very very strong and static defense does almost nothing, so basically it's the desperate move of pusing MMM to an Imba state justified by "lack of good lategame". This was alrrady tested in HotS beta just like healing buffs, both rapidly discarded. Now just think:
Free speed button in HotS
Free ability to pick up sieged tanks in LotV.
And now double unload speed? I think that honestly medivac functionality is really, really strong. The only upgrade I think it could be relatively reasonable would be a Mech-healing mode or ability and in a very restricted way.
If bio feels weak, buffing an already strong aspect of it (dropping) it's not the way to go unless buildings become far more resistant, since they evaporate to drops already. I think that if bio feels weak,( something that it's a lie from what we can see in LotV tournaments) what they shoul do is really reworking Reapers and Ghosts to have flexible roles and functions, and provide better transitionig points towards mid-lategame tech like other races do .
MMM is damn strong but lacks of good lategame or units complementing them better. The siege tank - medivac pickup is a very huge buff of BioTank. Hellbats being bio was another buff. Widow mines already work well with MMM. Please, MMM does't need buffs at all. It needs progression.
|
I guess the weakening of the marauder and these buffs to the ghost is their attempt to streamline bio into a more stable early-mid-late transition. Not quite sure if it'll pan out the way they want it, but it'll be an interesting sight nevertheless.
|
They need to stop the medivac buff and start thinking to nerf them.
Terran needs to get punished by being out of positioned like any other race.
PvT is a disaster right now
|
This is the first really good patch in lotv in my opinion. The previous patch was a dissaster, this one is not only interressting, but shows that blizzard is actually reading some of the community's suggestions. I think all the changes are really good in theory, now lets see how they work out. Lotv will still be broken as hell though with ultralisks..... tvz bio vs ling bling muta in hots is by far the most fun matchup to play and watch. And Bio needs some help vs zerg right now.
|
Not sure what the deal with buffing ghosts and speedvacs is... If anything I's say the speedvacs need a proper nerf to bring them in line with other units, they already completely dominate the game as-is. Like... they are good in every single situation and the matchups revolve around other races struggling to deflect speedvac drops to the point where Protoss sits in their base for like half an hour until they are safe enough to start moving their army onto the map - and even then top-tier Protoss players die to drops all over the place. It is the single most frustrating thing to play against and watch. Buffing the drop capabilities of the Medivac? I don't even...
And I have no idea why ghosts need a movement speed increase.
As for the new ability: Combine that with snipe, no need for more situational spells.
And I don't get their overall idea... "Nerf the Marauder against heavy armor targets" "Sir, now terran bio has no answer for heavy armor targets anymore" "then give an ability to the ghost that only works against heavy armor targets or something, I don't care!". Why? To promote using ghosts in bio armies against ultras?
At this point it really feels like they are blindly throwing darts and posting all their hits in order to see if the community likes any of those. And every few updates they randomly stumble upon an interesting unit interaction.
|
On June 13 2015 13:39 ETisME wrote:
They need to stop the medivac buff and start thinking to nerf them.
Terran needs to get punished by being out of positioned like any other race.
PvT is a disaster right now
TvT is not very pretty either
On June 13 2015 09:29 DeadByDawn wrote:
I wish I had the APM to use the new Ghost buff - but it takes all my efforts to split my army and kite in TvZ. The Medivac change is welcome - bio looks really bad in LotV whenever I have watched - in fact nowadays I only see Terran mech.
Funny I acutally find mech weaker and all I see in streams/tournaments is either bio or some bio/mech bio/sky combination
|
Pretty obvious the ghost speed was so they can run more easily with bio but also work better as an "assassin" using snipe, EMT and now this drone. But I wonder if just giving them stim wouldve been a better idea? I'd like to see how fast they are now though. I know people have been cryin out to make them more useful against other races than protoss, and I sure would like to see them used more but dont know if this will do it or if these are the right changes. Already expressed my view of the drone idea. I will be watching to see how this goes,
|
The ghost change is the biggest joke I've ever seen ............................
In HOTS a fully upgraded ultralisk had 6 armor, so marines did 3 damage and marauders 23.
In the beta ultras now have 8 armor, marines do 1 damage and marauders do 10.
So now WITH THE LOCK-ON, marines do 4 damage and marauders do 16. So unless you have a composition that's 7 marines to every marauder (you don't, because marines dont kill ultralisks) you're still behind on damage vs HOTS damage.
AND if you make it -4 armor instead of -3, then why even make marauders? lol...
Literally the ONLY problem bio has is against ultralisks. Who thinks that ghosts in a bio comp vs zerg is a good idea? They only thing they'd be good at is using the anti-ultralisk ability and then dying a glorious death. Damage against zerglings is perhaps a slight bonus, but they do base damage vs ultralisks and banelings
What is this supposed to solve ???????????????????????????
You'd be wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy (like way) better off trying to work the cyclone into a bio comp
|
Ghost speed increase is not a good idea because it will impact Ghost v. HT dynamics. They are unbelievably underused units by Terrans for whatever reason but I do not think the reason is because they are underpowered in any way.
|
What's with DKim's obsession with medivacs. Probably his stupid ACTION ACTION ACTION HARASS HARASS HARASS philosophy. Yeah keep buffing the number one unit that is the source of SC2's retardedness DKim.
|
And we still have no reason to build the cyclone .................. the most boring unit in the world
Takes more upgrades than a battlecruiser and costs 150 gas.
I'd like it a lot better if it was a ton of gas and we used it in place of the thor as a gas dump
|
As good as the ghost new ability is, I ain't got enough APM in hell to actually pull it off in a fight. If it was something like a ground Parasitic bomb(that anyone within the radius gets -3 armor and stacks) maybe it's usable but for it's a single target spell. HELL NO I'm not gonna waste my APM on that sh1t.
|
still no change to early game zerg,,
Ravagers are still useless
|
You know there is something inherently wrong with the game when you have to remove 'armored' tag in order to increase survivility
|
Changes look good overall. But PLEASE dont show rocks on the minimap. I remember it being a thing in the early stages of hots (correct me if im wrog, but for like a week). It completely freaked me out. Even stopped playing because of it until it got removed lol. So annoying.
Edit: And for the sake of all of us, just rebuff the marauder to what is was before. That would save many keyboards.
|
Why no mention on Liberator targetting bug? Is DK trying to make it how it's supposed to work?
|
On June 13 2015 03:38 Acer.Scarlett` wrote:
that alt key thing will be a big deal for zerg in 1v1 o.o//
Yes, I soooo want this for 1on1!
Actually, to be a bit provocative, I think that change by itself will promote more smaller battles more than any economy change can ever do. Imagine the possibilities to split off a few units to an undefended mineral line, without having them suicide into the opponent army from some odd angle when you control your main army.
Also, what does "individual overlord drop upgrade" mean? I have to upgrade each overlord separately? Or was it joined with the speed upgrade, and now re-split?
|
On June 13 2015 17:28 HallofPain4444 wrote:
Why no mention on Liberator targetting bug? Is DK trying to make it how it's supposed to work?
I'm pretty sure the Community Manager saying this behaviour is a bug made a honest mistake. But because they are Blizzard, they can't admit it and will just never say something about the issue again.
|
Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster.
http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27s
Although I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough.
|
I dont understand the formulation of the overlord change, what exactly will be changed?
I love the direction that lotv is going, away from deathball mechanics, more like bw overall
|
Ghost changes are bad: speed increase will make them faster than unstimmed bio compositions and thus run ahead of them. Stim would be a much better change because they would mirror the rest of the bio behaviour and it would be easier on the hotkeys and army management. They could remove dmg buff with stim if needed but I don't think they are OP damage wise anyway.
Ghost drone ability - don't really know what to think of it. Vs protoss EMP is always a better choice damage wise and it's also AOE. Vs terran - I dont feel it's needed to "drone up" the mech units one by one and it's also much more beneficial for you to keep making marauders and use your apm for splitting. Vs zerg - the Ultralisk is the only viable target and honestly, I can't see many players be able to pull this off in TvZ when fighting ling-bane-muta. This ability should be AOE at the least, but i'd rather just have researchable nuke on cooldown.
Overlord transports seem very fun and I support this change. I'm slightly scared about nydus though, because it's really really powerful right now.
Medivac might be a bit strong, not sure. Considering terran bio doesn't change much during the course of the game this might be a useful buff in later stages. Terran shouldnt be punished so much for being out on the map because it SHOULD be out on the map, having the worst massable static defences and worst defense potential when you army is away (no warp ins, no really fast units on creep).
Ravager seems interesting - would need to see what this means for marauders in TvZ. This really needs testing before theorycrafting.
Rest seems quite OK to me. Also, Liberator "bug" is apparently not a bug which is cool, because if it would be, noone would make them for ground attack anymore. I guarantee it.
|
On June 13 2015 18:15 NiDoXiD wrote:I dont understand the formulation of the overlord change, what exactly will be changed? I love the direction that lotv is going, away from deathball mechanics, more like bw overall
No more universal upgrade for overlord drops but you would be able to upgrade individual overlord to gain drop ability. Something like a morp to overseer, with presumably lower cost.
|
On June 13 2015 18:18 _indigo_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 18:15 NiDoXiD wrote:I dont understand the formulation of the overlord change, what exactly will be changed? I love the direction that lotv is going, away from deathball mechanics, more like bw overall No more universal upgrade for overlord drops but you would be able to upgrade individual overlord to gain drop ability. Something like a morp to overseer, with presumably lower cost.
Ah, thank you. It sounds like a reasonable change to me because then you have kind of a window in the early midgame where the other harassing methods are not available yet, without investing 200 200.
|
Agree, NiDoXiD. Drop upgrade would also not feel as "all in" with the resources invested. I'm all for Zerg having more legit options to do damage.
About the nydus worms - I guess viking followup will be very popular in TvZ now.
|
|
|
Ghost changes are bad: speed increase will make them faster than unstimmed bio compositions and thus run ahead of them. Stim would be a much better change because they would mirror the rest of the bio behaviour and it would be easier on the hotkeys and army management.
This is my thought proces too. Giving it stim makes the unit 100% more simple to use (which is good).
|
Italy12246 Posts
On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough.
Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating.
|
On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating.
How did that argument go? Was it the IP thing?
|
On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating.
It's fucking embarrassing that they won't even listen to the pros. Why bother even setting up a Skype chat if your going to ignore everything they say? I get that some pros might be biased, but there's no way that they don't come up with some really good ideas
|
I now played some LotV beta.
The game looks very good already. Even though we still have largely the units we are used to, the game feels different, if only for the fast game start. I have to almost immediately make my tech choices.
The change to real time is a welcome change, thank you JakAtak for pushing for this.
|
Blizz have not put in any changes suggested by the Korean or Foreigner pros into LotV. It is my understanding that they have never put any suggestion by any pro into the game ever. Not even to be tested. (Am I wrong here?)
Atm LotV is a vomit on a Sydney sidewalk on Sunday morning after a Saturday night over self indulgence.
And was I the only one that detected a ' angry defensive tone of voice' in the balance update? "First - there is a common misconception..blah blah" "Blah Blah - what we are saying is..." = " get it through your fucking skulls SC2 Community - we Run this motherfucker - We are not locked in here with you, You are locked in here with us!!!!"As if the outcry from the community regarding the stupidity of LotV is being resented by Blizz?
These latest changes are baffling to say the least. I have the invite like many of you but I for one am not playing until they go further back down the chain of mistakes they have made and fix them at their root.
|
On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating.
I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community.
Most of them are not too useful.
As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal.
In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions.
|
Italy12246 Posts
On June 13 2015 20:01 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions.
Most of them, sure, but something like this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/433944-depth-of-micro ? That's just not justifiable. The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period.
Also, there's more to it than just "they dont listen to our suggestions". It is actually impossible to have anything remotely resembling a dialogue with them.
|
On June 13 2015 20:01 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions.
There is a huge difference here in the relevancy of community suggestions since consumers spend hours and hours on the product and has access to the same level of information and should have the same goals (better gameplay/design) as the developers. That's not to say that 99% of suggestions aren't bad, but what about the 1%?
|
so how do these changes change anything....all i could think of reading this was ' whats the point'?
|
Russian Federation421 Posts
On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating.
Um, what about Individual Overlord Transport Upgrades?
|
I think the Ghost ability is pretty cool. Question is whether or not its worth the micro in big fights. Maybe just buff snipe again?
|
On June 13 2015 20:11 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 20:01 [F_]aths wrote:On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions. Most of them, sure, but something like this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/433944-depth-of-micro ? That's just not justifiable. The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period. Also, there's more to it than just "they dont listen to our suggestions". It is actually impossible to have anything remotely resembling a dialogue with them.
"The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period." Do you know that (in a provable sense) or do you just feel so? If I read Lalush's article, I would agree with you; but I am no game developer nor have I years of experience in developing SC2.
On June 13 2015 20:14 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 20:01 [F_]aths wrote:On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions. There is a huge difference here in the relevancy of community suggestions since consumers spend hours and hours on the product and has access to the same level of information and should have the same goals (better gameplay/design) as the developers. That's not to say that 99% of suggestions aren't bad, but what about the 1%?
Our users also spend endless hours on your application. We also get valuable feedback, pointing out the weaknesses of our user interface, allowing us to fix things in future releases. We also implement features based on demand. But we almost never take a suggestion and implement it 1:1. Instead we very carefully consider how to serve our >100.000 users best.
Every line code written for one feature is missing on another one. But back to the topic.
Blizzard did change things after community feedback, take the unit scan range and the real-time clock.
"Better design" is empty without providing a concrete design. That is also what Nathanias' rant was missing. "Just" better design? How to do that without recreating the entire game from the ground-up?
|
Our users also spend endless hours on your application. We also get valuable feedback, pointing out the weaknesses of our user interface, allowing us to fix things in future releases. We also implement features based on demand. But we almost never take a suggestion and implement it 1:1. Instead we very carefully consider how to serve our >100.000 users best.
Sure, but this isn't about implementing anything 1:1. But rather take a concept from a community suggestion (like 0 damage point) and find a way to put it into the game. Or at least they could give responses to those who spend a lot of time trying to make indepth/wellthoughtout feedback in order to constructive behavior (and thereby deincentivize rants).
Blizzard did change things after community feedback, take the unit scan range and the real-time clock.
Honestly, those things barely matter. Instead the below are some more relevant issues they should be expanding on:
Why they don't want the epic late game styles from BW to be viable where you through a significant defenders advantage could defend multiple locations at once? What research/analysis/testing have they performed here in order to assess whether this type of gameplay cannot work at all in the Sc2-model?
Why they want micro to be about mass spamming abilities instead of unit movement?
Why all units must have a 0.16 damage point despite it making micro less rewarded (?)
Why do they think the infinitive kiting/hardcounter approach of the Cyclone is good design when almost noone enjoys using the unit?
Why do they want protoss to rely on the Msc for mobility (recall) and defenderes advantage (photon overcharge) that everyone hates? Why aren't they experiementing with giving protoss an actual stronger and more reliable core army along with a different defenders advantage?
Why did they choose to make the Ultralisk better when amoved instead of making it more microable through a lower model size and faster offcreep movement speed?
Why do they enjoy hardcounter interactions so much? (like cyclone owning all ranged ground unts but losing to air units, and Ultralisk > bio)
Why is Forcefields still in the game. It's a very unforgiving mechanic to use and thus make it harder for casuals, and competitive players hate it as well. Do they really think the new Ravager ability will make Forcefields fun as zerg?
Why isn't the Colossus redesigned instead of nerfed?
Why do want the early game to be more coinflippy by reversing ebay-requirement on turret. Do they have any evidence that the target group think this will lead to more fun gameplay?
|
Italy12246 Posts
On June 13 2015 20:47 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 20:11 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 20:01 [F_]aths wrote:On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions. Most of them, sure, but something like this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/433944-depth-of-micro ? That's just not justifiable. The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period. Also, there's more to it than just "they dont listen to our suggestions". It is actually impossible to have anything remotely resembling a dialogue with them. "The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period." Do you know that (in a provable sense) or do you just feel so? If I read Lalush's article, I would agree with you; but I am no game developer nor have I years of experience in developing SC2. Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 20:14 Hider wrote:On June 13 2015 20:01 [F_]aths wrote:On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions. There is a huge difference here in the relevancy of community suggestions since consumers spend hours and hours on the product and has access to the same level of information and should have the same goals (better gameplay/design) as the developers. That's not to say that 99% of suggestions aren't bad, but what about the 1%? Our users also spend endless hours on your application. We also get valuable feedback, pointing out the weaknesses of our user interface, allowing us to fix things in future releases. We also implement features based on demand. But we almost never take a suggestion and implement it 1:1. Instead we very carefully consider how to serve our >100.000 users best. Every line code written for one feature is missing on another one. But back to the topic. Blizzard did change things after community feedback, take the unit scan range and the real-time clock. "Better design" is empty without providing a concrete design. That is also what Nathanias' rant was missing. "Just" better design? How to do that without recreating the entire game from the ground-up?
The only comparison we have (to my knowledge) is BW, which just so happens to be the best game of all time in no small part because of that kind of unit control. It's a really small sample size but yes, i'd say confidently that if basic units were more microable without adding a ton of extra buttons to click for the sake of micro, the game would feel and play better.
|
This is beyond retardness. I guess i'm just going to stick with heart of the swarm and forget about lotv as my worst nightmare.
|
The depth of micro article is one of the best and most relevant ever written on the design of SC2. It got little to no attention from Blizzard and thus had no impact whatsoever on the game.
I've stopped playing Starcraft (2, of course, BW is still pure awesomeness), I still want LotV to be good but let's face it folks, the team in charge is not only incompetent, it's also stubborn, hardly creative and frankly a little stupid.
edit : In fact, having taken another look at LaLuSh's article and having remembered its countless quality peers that have been completely IGNORED by the design team I'm gonna have to add something a tad less diplomatic :
piss off Blizzard, you passionless disrespectful money-driven turds.
User was warned for this post
|
Ghosts would gain a new ability that spawns a flying drone on an enemy target. That drone would channel a beam at the enemy unit, reducing its Armor by 3.
Don't do drugs kids...
Apparently "Double Harvest" still too crazy ;P
|
An entire new ability to counter Ultras. Why not do as others have suggested and integrate it into an upgrade of snipe. Vital Points Auto-Tracking: Snipe reduces Armor by 3 for 5s or something.
|
Ravager No Longer Has the Armored Flag
Ravager is looking too fragile now, so we wanted to buff its survivability.
wtf thats all the Viking would have needed to be good on the ground. >.> thats so unfair
|
On June 13 2015 20:52 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Our users also spend endless hours on your application. We also get valuable feedback, pointing out the weaknesses of our user interface, allowing us to fix things in future releases. We also implement features based on demand. But we almost never take a suggestion and implement it 1:1. Instead we very carefully consider how to serve our >100.000 users best. Sure, but this isn't about implementing anything 1:1. But rather take a concept from a community suggestion (like 0 damage point) and find a way to put it into the game. Or at least they could give responses to those who spend a lot of time trying to make indepth/wellthoughtout feedback in order to constructive behavior (and thereby deincentivize rants). Show nested quote +Blizzard did change things after community feedback, take the unit scan range and the real-time clock. Honestly, those things barely matter.
I think they do matter, a lot.
The unit scan range fix takes out a random element, making the gameplay mechanic more accountable.
The clock change is a big plus for new or inexperienced players. Blizzard has to cater to all players.
On June 13 2015 20:52 Hider wrote:
Instead the below are some more relevant issues they should be expanding on:
[...]
I guess that there are answers for most of those questions, which we are either not aware of, or would not like (and therefore find it hard to accept as valid answer.)
I also agree that some mechanics like the force field is a source of constant frustration.
As this is an expansion though, the developers probably want to stick with most of the existing artwork and gameplay. LotV tries to be an improvement upon HotS, it is not Starcraft re-invented.
In my daily work experience I see what it means to have limited resources. Our team leaders always make decision what we do next. That means, other things have to wait, many of them indefinitely. There is too much feedback, even internally in the company.
|
On June 13 2015 20:55 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 20:47 [F_]aths wrote:On June 13 2015 20:11 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 20:01 [F_]aths wrote:On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions. Most of them, sure, but something like this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/433944-depth-of-micro ? That's just not justifiable. The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period. Also, there's more to it than just "they dont listen to our suggestions". It is actually impossible to have anything remotely resembling a dialogue with them. "The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period." Do you know that (in a provable sense) or do you just feel so? If I read Lalush's article, I would agree with you; but I am no game developer nor have I years of experience in developing SC2. On June 13 2015 20:14 Hider wrote:On June 13 2015 20:01 [F_]aths wrote:On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions. There is a huge difference here in the relevancy of community suggestions since consumers spend hours and hours on the product and has access to the same level of information and should have the same goals (better gameplay/design) as the developers. That's not to say that 99% of suggestions aren't bad, but what about the 1%? Our users also spend endless hours on your application. We also get valuable feedback, pointing out the weaknesses of our user interface, allowing us to fix things in future releases. We also implement features based on demand. But we almost never take a suggestion and implement it 1:1. Instead we very carefully consider how to serve our >100.000 users best. Every line code written for one feature is missing on another one. But back to the topic. Blizzard did change things after community feedback, take the unit scan range and the real-time clock. "Better design" is empty without providing a concrete design. That is also what Nathanias' rant was missing. "Just" better design? How to do that without recreating the entire game from the ground-up? The only comparison we have (to my knowledge) is BW, which just so happens to be the best game of all time in no small part because of that kind of unit control. It's a really small sample size but yes, i'd say confidently that if basic units were more microable without adding a ton of extra buttons to click for the sake of micro, the game would feel and play better.
... for you.
If you would be tasked with the job of creating SC2, and if you know that your future as well as of your colleagues depend on the game being a commercial success, would you actually try to copy BW which had wide-spread success in one country only?
|
I wonder if it would be possible to implement the armor reduction drone as a stationary ward with an aura rather than as a single-target unit.
|
Italy12246 Posts
On June 13 2015 21:49 [F_]aths wrote:
BW had wide-spread success in one country only
wat
|
I think the fundamental problem with their approach to LotV is as TheDwf has pointed out ( I don't agree with everything he says but imo he is 100% spot on in this specific case) that their priority is to please the spectators instead of the players.
All of their changes look like they just want to have more ACTION ACTION ACTION and more HARASS HARASS HARASS but they are forgetting that a game with so much aggression isn't very fun to the players because it will lead to very coinflippy games that instantly end because of one succesful attack.
A game which isn't played by players won't be watched either.
|
I guess that there are answers for most of those questions, which we are either not aware of, or would not like (and therefore find it hard to accept as valid answer.)
This is exactly why they should communicate more.
As this is an expansion though, the developers probably want to stick with most of the existing artwork and gameplay. LotV tries to be an improvement upon HotS, it is not Starcraft re-invented.
Artwork? Noone is talking about that. Redesigns of units can also easily be done without any programmers.
But redesigning units and gameplay is exactly what you should do in an expansion. Especially since the gameplay had to be reworked anyway due to new econ changes. The same thing with the Sentry which already is getting less relevant in LOTV. If they just at least could say that they within the next 1-2 months will begin a rework of the Sentry to make it fit into LOTV (or something like that) it would do wonders. But saying nothing is just frustrating.
In my daily work experience I see what it means to have limited resources. Our team leaders always make decision what we do next. That means, other things have to wait, many of them indefinitely. There is too much feedback, even internally in the company.
Honestly its not as timeconsuming as you may think to redesign units if you have a strong theoretical understanding of what creates fun micro interactions and gameplay. Alot of the abilities can be created and "decently" balanced in less than an hour if you have good editor-knowledge.
Giving well-reasoned responses to highquality community feedback shouldn't take more than 10-20 minutes a day either since you as a developer already should know all of the answers in advance.
The question (which noone knows the answer) to is why it seems to take forever for Blizzard to do anything and once they finally add new stuff into the beta its frequently poorly balanced and doesn't have a fun impact on the game.
The unit scan range fix takes out a random element, making the gameplay mechanic more accountable.
The clock change is a big plus for new or inexperienced players. Blizzard has to cater to all players.
Both these changes should be considered as bugfixes, and you will have a difficult time finding a casual player buying LOTV mainly because of these changes. In my opinion there are much better ways improve the casual experience. Mainly by reducing the importance of buildorderwins, improving the defenders advantage and giving protoss a solid core army. Exactly the opposite of what Blizzard actuallly has done!
|
i dont think i should be following development of lotv, just getting disappointed. I will just wait for the finished product.
|
On June 13 2015 22:38 Charoisaur wrote:
I think the fundamental problem with their approach to LotV is as TheDwf has pointed out ( I don't agree with everything he says but imo he is 100% spot on in this specific case) that their priority is to please the spectators instead of the players.
All of their changes look like they just want to have more ACTION ACTION ACTION and more HARASS HARASS HARASS but they are forgetting that a game with so much aggression isn't very fun to the players because it will lead to very coinflippy games that instantly end because of one succesful attack.
A game which isn't played by players won't be watched either.
not really, there were not that many who actually played BW 1v1 but followed the esport scene.
that being said, BW enjoyed a good period of no competition and had a lot of time to grow.
even then AFAIK a lot of chinese followed WC3 after it is released and BW is quickly "abandoned" in net cafe, especially when dota gets big.
|
On June 13 2015 22:38 Charoisaur wrote:
I think the fundamental problem with their approach to LotV is as TheDwf has pointed out ( I don't agree with everything he says but imo he is 100% spot on in this specific case) that their priority is to please the spectators instead of the players.
All of their changes look like they just want to have more ACTION ACTION ACTION and more HARASS HARASS HARASS but they are forgetting that a game with so much aggression isn't very fun to the players because it will lead to very coinflippy games that instantly end because of one succesful attack.
A game which isn't played by players won't be watched either.
There are signiciantly flaws with that logic; mainly that the game doesn't become more coinflippy with more aggression and harass. In fact, its frequently the opposite as it gives room for more micro interactions and mutittasking which increases the skillcap. Instead the game becomes more coinflippy when you have no reliable way of dealing with all the types of strategies the enemy can throw at you, and instead have to "guess" which specific strategy the enemy chooses.
Harass on the other hand is some of the least coinflippy type of aggression you can have since a "single harass" cannot win you the game, but you need to do it over a longer period/frequently to win the game. When something needs to be done multiple times it reduces the variance and therefore the efficiency of harass becomes more related to raw mechanics than luck. All-ins on the other hand are the opposite.
Strong timing attacks can also function well into Sc2, but only if it is combined with a defenders advantage that allows you to "fall-back" and live to fight another day, Unfortunately it seems that Blizzard either isn't aware that this option exists or isn't capable of implementing such a design into Sc2.
|
On June 13 2015 23:29 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 22:38 Charoisaur wrote:
I think the fundamental problem with their approach to LotV is as TheDwf has pointed out ( I don't agree with everything he says but imo he is 100% spot on in this specific case) that their priority is to please the spectators instead of the players.
All of their changes look like they just want to have more ACTION ACTION ACTION and more HARASS HARASS HARASS but they are forgetting that a game with so much aggression isn't very fun to the players because it will lead to very coinflippy games that instantly end because of one succesful attack.
A game which isn't played by players won't be watched either. There are signiciantly flaws with that logic; mainly that the game doesn't become more coinflippy with more aggression and harass. In fact, its frequently the opposite as it gives room for more micro interactions and mutittasking which increases the skillcap. Instead the game becomes more coinflippy when you have no reliable way of dealing with all the types of strategies the enemy can throw at you, and instead have to "guess" which specific strategy the enemy chooses. Harass on the other hand is some of the least coinflippy type of aggression you can have since a "single harass" cannot win you the game, but you need to do it over a longer period/frequently to win the game. When something needs to be done multiple times it reduces the variance and therefore the efficiency of harass becomes more related to raw mechanics than luck. All-ins on the other hand are the opposite. Strong timing attacks can also function well into Sc2, but only if it is combined with a defenders advantage that allows you to "fall-back" and live to fight another day, Unfortunately it seems that Blizzard either isn't aware that this option exists or isn't capable of implementing such a design into Sc2.
#1. 200/200 limitations
#2. Deathbally gameplay
#3. Terrain/Map negating units (medivac, warp prism, warp pylons, stalker, sentry, nydus, and now overlords)
#4. Superfast battles
#5. Superfast economy and time compression
The above are all huge problems. The above are what the user you quoted and I mean when we point out why ACTION ACTION ACTION HARASS HARASS HARASS is stupid.
+ You end up with games where you can't split up your units or you die because the ACTION ACTION ACTION of #2 and #4.
+ Your units can't be out on the map because HARASS HARASS HARASS by #3
+ Your units aren't out on the map executing I don't know... STRATEGY in an RTS game. Instead you're holed up in your base with the majority of your units trying to hold against #3 while sending out small forces to execute #3 yourself.
+ So you endup with yet another basetrade situation we've seen 1million times b4 if your units are out on the map, which is coinflippy
+ Or wait for #1 and #5 to kick in. Doesn't matter how many expansions you have, once it's #1 and #5, it's coinflippy
This is the worst designed RTS i've ever seen, and I've seen many.
|
On June 13 2015 23:53 jotmang-nojem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 23:29 Hider wrote:On June 13 2015 22:38 Charoisaur wrote:
I think the fundamental problem with their approach to LotV is as TheDwf has pointed out ( I don't agree with everything he says but imo he is 100% spot on in this specific case) that their priority is to please the spectators instead of the players.
All of their changes look like they just want to have more ACTION ACTION ACTION and more HARASS HARASS HARASS but they are forgetting that a game with so much aggression isn't very fun to the players because it will lead to very coinflippy games that instantly end because of one succesful attack.
A game which isn't played by players won't be watched either. There are signiciantly flaws with that logic; mainly that the game doesn't become more coinflippy with more aggression and harass. In fact, its frequently the opposite as it gives room for more micro interactions and mutittasking which increases the skillcap. Instead the game becomes more coinflippy when you have no reliable way of dealing with all the types of strategies the enemy can throw at you, and instead have to "guess" which specific strategy the enemy chooses. Harass on the other hand is some of the least coinflippy type of aggression you can have since a "single harass" cannot win you the game, but you need to do it over a longer period/frequently to win the game. When something needs to be done multiple times it reduces the variance and therefore the efficiency of harass becomes more related to raw mechanics than luck. All-ins on the other hand are the opposite. Strong timing attacks can also function well into Sc2, but only if it is combined with a defenders advantage that allows you to "fall-back" and live to fight another day, Unfortunately it seems that Blizzard either isn't aware that this option exists or isn't capable of implementing such a design into Sc2. #1. 200/200 limitations #2. Deathbally gameplay #3. Terrain/Map negating units (medivac, warp prism, warp pylons, nydus, and now overlords) #4. Superfast battles #5. Superfast economy and time compression The above are all huge problems. The above are what the user you quoted and I mean when we point out why ACTION ACTION ACTION HARASS HARASS HARASS is stupid. + You end up with games where you can't split up your units or you die because the ACTION ACTION ACTION of #2 and #4. + Your units can't be out on the map because HARASS HARASS HARASS by #3 + Your units aren't out on the map executing I don't know... STRATEGY in an RTS game. Instead you're holed up in your base with the majority of your units trying to hold against #3 while sending out small forces to execute #3 yourself. + So you endup with yet another basetrade situation we've seen 1million times b4 if your units are out on the map, which is coinflippy + Or wait for #1 and #5 to kick in. Doesn't matter how many expansions you have, once it's #1 and #5, it's coinflippy This is the worst designed RTS i've ever seen, and I've seen many.
If it's the worst game ever. Don't play it and ignore all forums and streams with it.
|
200/200 limitations
This doesn't add more or less action in itself and is also uncorrelated to coinflippiness.
Deathbally gameplay
Reduces action, and has nothing to with coinlippiness.
Terrain/Map negating units (medivac, warp prism, warp pylons, nydus, and now overlords)
Increases action, but with the exception of when they are used as early game allins, their efficiency is related to the mechanical skill of the user and his opponent, and thus doens't increase coinflippiness.
Superfast battles
Battles are superfast because movement/retreating typically isn't properly rewarded as it is in BW, so you can't live to fight "another day". Damage values in Sc2 are generally lower than in BW. But superfast battles also doesn't make the game more coinflippy. Rather it can make the game less forgiving as one small mistakes gets punished harder.
Superfast economy and time compression
Only a problem if it makes early game cheese/timing attacks stronger without an reliable scouting counters.
You end up with games where you can't split up your units or you die because the ACTION ACTION ACTION of #2 and #4.
No you can't split up your army as the defenders advantage isn't high enough for units in low numbers. But this also has nothing to with action and coinflippines.
Your units can't be out on the map because HARASS HARASS HARASS by #3
The main reasons why units can't be out on the map is either due to them not being able of escaping/too slow or because the game is too reliant on critical mass so you need your whole army to defend a location. (also related to defenders advantage). As a counterexample, tvz is very harassheavy in hots, but both players can easily have their armies out on the map.
So you endup with yet another basetrade situation we've seen 1million times b4 if your units are out on the map, which is coinflippy
Basetrade scenarios aren't related to harass but rather counterattacks with your whole army. This is typically a consequence of a lack of defenders advantage (once again) and too low mobility. Harass on the other hand is more related to small armies being "annoying".
|
On June 13 2015 23:53 jotmang-nojem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 23:29 Hider wrote:On June 13 2015 22:38 Charoisaur wrote:
I think the fundamental problem with their approach to LotV is as TheDwf has pointed out ( I don't agree with everything he says but imo he is 100% spot on in this specific case) that their priority is to please the spectators instead of the players.
All of their changes look like they just want to have more ACTION ACTION ACTION and more HARASS HARASS HARASS but they are forgetting that a game with so much aggression isn't very fun to the players because it will lead to very coinflippy games that instantly end because of one succesful attack.
A game which isn't played by players won't be watched either. There are signiciantly flaws with that logic; mainly that the game doesn't become more coinflippy with more aggression and harass. In fact, its frequently the opposite as it gives room for more micro interactions and mutittasking which increases the skillcap. Instead the game becomes more coinflippy when you have no reliable way of dealing with all the types of strategies the enemy can throw at you, and instead have to "guess" which specific strategy the enemy chooses. Harass on the other hand is some of the least coinflippy type of aggression you can have since a "single harass" cannot win you the game, but you need to do it over a longer period/frequently to win the game. When something needs to be done multiple times it reduces the variance and therefore the efficiency of harass becomes more related to raw mechanics than luck. All-ins on the other hand are the opposite. Strong timing attacks can also function well into Sc2, but only if it is combined with a defenders advantage that allows you to "fall-back" and live to fight another day, Unfortunately it seems that Blizzard either isn't aware that this option exists or isn't capable of implementing such a design into Sc2. #1. 200/200 limitations #2. Deathbally gameplay #3. Terrain/Map negating units (medivac, warp prism, warp pylons, nydus, and now overlords) #4. Superfast battles #5. Superfast economy and time compression The above are all huge problems. The above are what the user you quoted and I mean when we point out why ACTION ACTION ACTION HARASS HARASS HARASS is stupid. + You end up with games where you can't split up your units or you die because the ACTION ACTION ACTION of #2 and #4. + Your units can't be out on the map because HARASS HARASS HARASS by #3 + Your units aren't out on the map executing I don't know... STRATEGY in an RTS game. Instead you're holed up in your base with the majority of your units trying to hold against #3 while sending out small forces to execute #3 yourself. + So you endup with yet another basetrade situation we've seen 1million times b4 if your units are out on the map, which is coinflippy + Or wait for #1 and #5 to kick in. Doesn't matter how many expansions you have, once it's #1 and #5, it's coinflippy This is the worst designed RTS i've ever seen, and I've seen many.
I don't think you have seen enough.
afterall you somehow think blizzard is "living off past glory nowadays"
some of the points are even contradicting.
Harass = not a deathball
Harass = out on the map
|
As for Death Ball, 99% of the players in Platinum league will either go for a cheese or death ball. It's part of the game and neccessary evil to casual gaming. Only pro gamers have enough APM to handle most the new stuff introduced in LoTV.
|
I hate Blizzard. They are actually the worst company of all time. How could they do this to ME? How can they not fulfill MY every request along with every other individual's wishes!? Just give ME what I want! ME ME ME!!! I just don't understand why the game can't be tailored exactly to ME. It just doesn't make sense...boycott Blizzard, the worst company on the planet.
|
If you don't like my post how bout not reading it. Was nice to see you.
|
So let me get this straight. You people don't see anything wrong with how terrans play? I emphasize terran because the way it's played typifies what's wrong, but other races have problems too.
So all you do all game is put things in your medivac and drop things left and right. No strategic holding of map areas, no interesting unit comps, just MMM all the time. Your opponent is forced to his base so he can't hold strategic map areas either. The only map areas of interest is your base and the opponent's base.
DK thinks it's so good he wants to increase the medivac unload speed and increase nydus and overlord effectiveness. In effect, he's doubling down on the harassment aspect. WTF!!!
|
On June 14 2015 00:13 jotmang-nojem wrote:
So let me get this straight. You people don't see anything wrong with how terrans play? I emphasize terran because the way it's played typifies what's wrong, but other races have problems too.
So all you do all game is put things in your medivac and drop things left and right. No strategic holding of map areas, no interesting unit comps, just MMM all the time. Your opponent is forced to his base so he can't hold strategic map areas either. The only map areas of interest is your base and the opponent's base.
DK thinks it's so good he wants to increase the medivac unload speed and increase nydus and overlord effectiveness. In effect, he's doubling down on the harassment aspect. WTF!!!
Perhaps if you used the terminology correct instead of confusing harass and action with coinflippyness you would set your self up for a better debate. I would also argue that a positional defensive playstyle isn't more strategic or doesn't require more brainpower than an aggressive playstyle.
Anyway, my opinion is that terran lacks diversity in playstyles (as does zerg and toss). There should definitely be a more positional element to the race. But I definitely don't want bio play w/ Medivacs to be removed either. It's an incredibly fun and highly microbased playstyle, but it should be an option instead of a must.
|
The question (which no one knows the answer) to is why it seems to take forever for Blizzard to do anything and once they finally add new stuff into the beta its frequently poorly balanced and doesn't have a fun impact on the game.
I think a company like Blizzard will grow to a size where it's very clumsy and unable to deal with legacy products very well. First of all, probably most SCII developers are also working on the campaign, play testing Overwatch and developing Heroes of the Storm. The SCII team is most likely overworked, understaffed and not fully focused on the multiplayer. Second of all, all changes are logged and if you make any sort of significant change as a developer you have to be able to defend this to the higher-ups, who will ask you questions such as: is this an unequivocal improvement with no chance to backfire with only low implementation (coding, testing) costs and could this have been conceived of in a less expensive way?
This slows down any sort of natural development process for a team which is likely already overworked and understaffed. When they finally do implement something they haven't had the time to fully iterate on it and test it, and they figure that they might as well throw it to the community who can give better feedback than their internal play testers anyway. And it encourages small changes that can fly under the radar of the higher-ups, like the consecutive speed increases to units.
And the reason that they don't mess with stuff like the damage point is that David Kim wants to keep his job and he realizes that if he reworks the game to have mostly lower damage points, someone is going to point out that he messed up all the attack-animation timings for unclear gameplay purposes. That he has "gone rogue", and so on. And besides, DK is not a person with fresh ideas, he's still carrying out his now years-old agenda of "more harassment, more action".
These sorts of reasons are why changes to SC2 had to have been made anywhere around 2009-2011, when the developers still had some sort of mandate to more independently try to improve the game. It's natural for the executives to withdraw this mandate some point down the line. I mostly blame Dustin Browder and David Kim who should have fought harder to allow this to happen, instead of letting it wither until 2012-2013 arrived and it was too late.
|
On June 14 2015 00:22 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 00:13 jotmang-nojem wrote:
So let me get this straight. You people don't see anything wrong with how terrans play? I emphasize terran because the way it's played typifies what's wrong, but other races have problems too.
So all you do all game is put things in your medivac and drop things left and right. No strategic holding of map areas, no interesting unit comps, just MMM all the time. Your opponent is forced to his base so he can't hold strategic map areas either. The only map areas of interest is your base and the opponent's base.
DK thinks it's so good he wants to increase the medivac unload speed and increase nydus and overlord effectiveness. In effect, he's doubling down on the harassment aspect. WTF!!! Perhaps if you used the terminology correct instead of confusing harass and action with coinflippyness you would set your self up for a better debate. I would also like to argue that a positional defensive playstyle isn't more strategic or doesn't require more brainpower than an aggressive playstyle. Anyway, my opinion is that terran lacks diversity in playstyles (as does zerg and toss). There should definitely be a more positional element to the race. But I definitely don't want bio play w/ Medivacs to be removed either. It's an incredibly fun and highly microbased playstyle, but it should be an option instead of a must.
If there is to much harass and action on the map it can lead to coinflippy situations where you weren't in position once and then lose the game. It already happens sometimes in tvt; one player moves out of his base and then suddenly his main gets doom dropped and he loses the game. Does that mean the better player won the game? no. If there is to much action in the game it increases the randomness.
|
Let's interchange "coinflippiness" with the word volatility, with the meaning of high variance outcomes independent of player skill. This is typically undesirable.
Deathballs promote volatility because each single fight is more likely to be decisive. Time compression (macro and micro) does the same because you lose the ability to respond to your opponent's actions, therefore the outcome becomes more based on luck, not skill. Basetrades are volatile because they depend too much on random factors and they often decide the outcome of the game (even if imo most players are just bad at understanding basetrades)*.
The supply cap and map-negating abilities have only an indirect effect on volatility though and it's not worth arguing about it.
* for instance, I thought it would be worthwhile to try out the following change: geysers, turrets, supply depots, pylons and buildings which are under construction will no longer not count for the "destroy all buildings" win condition.
|
On June 14 2015 00:31 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 00:22 Hider wrote:On June 14 2015 00:13 jotmang-nojem wrote:
So let me get this straight. You people don't see anything wrong with how terrans play? I emphasize terran because the way it's played typifies what's wrong, but other races have problems too.
So all you do all game is put things in your medivac and drop things left and right. No strategic holding of map areas, no interesting unit comps, just MMM all the time. Your opponent is forced to his base so he can't hold strategic map areas either. The only map areas of interest is your base and the opponent's base.
DK thinks it's so good he wants to increase the medivac unload speed and increase nydus and overlord effectiveness. In effect, he's doubling down on the harassment aspect. WTF!!! Perhaps if you used the terminology correct instead of confusing harass and action with coinflippyness you would set your self up for a better debate. I would also like to argue that a positional defensive playstyle isn't more strategic or doesn't require more brainpower than an aggressive playstyle. Anyway, my opinion is that terran lacks diversity in playstyles (as does zerg and toss). There should definitely be a more positional element to the race. But I definitely don't want bio play w/ Medivacs to be removed either. It's an incredibly fun and highly microbased playstyle, but it should be an option instead of a must. If there is to much harass and action on the map it can lead to coinflippy situations where you weren't in position once and then lose the game. It already happens sometimes in tvt; one player moves out of his base and then suddenly his main gets doom dropped and he loses the game. Does that mean the better player won the game? no. If there is to much action in the game it increases the randomness.
That's assuming that being at the right place at the right time is luckbased and not skillbased. While defending allins is also skillbased, it doesn't give you multiple chances, harass is more about the better player gaining small advantages over time.
once and then lose the game. It already happens sometimes in tvt
Doomdrops isn't really as much a harass as it is an allin. If something has a high probability of winning (or losing you the game) directly its not harass.
|
On June 14 2015 00:53 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 00:31 Charoisaur wrote:On June 14 2015 00:22 Hider wrote:On June 14 2015 00:13 jotmang-nojem wrote:
So let me get this straight. You people don't see anything wrong with how terrans play? I emphasize terran because the way it's played typifies what's wrong, but other races have problems too.
So all you do all game is put things in your medivac and drop things left and right. No strategic holding of map areas, no interesting unit comps, just MMM all the time. Your opponent is forced to his base so he can't hold strategic map areas either. The only map areas of interest is your base and the opponent's base.
DK thinks it's so good he wants to increase the medivac unload speed and increase nydus and overlord effectiveness. In effect, he's doubling down on the harassment aspect. WTF!!! Perhaps if you used the terminology correct instead of confusing harass and action with coinflippyness you would set your self up for a better debate. I would also like to argue that a positional defensive playstyle isn't more strategic or doesn't require more brainpower than an aggressive playstyle. Anyway, my opinion is that terran lacks diversity in playstyles (as does zerg and toss). There should definitely be a more positional element to the race. But I definitely don't want bio play w/ Medivacs to be removed either. It's an incredibly fun and highly microbased playstyle, but it should be an option instead of a must. If there is to much harass and action on the map it can lead to coinflippy situations where you weren't in position once and then lose the game. It already happens sometimes in tvt; one player moves out of his base and then suddenly his main gets doom dropped and he loses the game. Does that mean the better player won the game? no. If there is to much action in the game it increases the randomness. That's assuming that being at the right place at the right time is luckbased and not skillbased. While defending allins is also skillbased, it doesn't give you multiple chances, harass is more about the better player gaining small advantages over time. Doomdrops isn't really as much a harass as it is an allin. If something has a high probability of winning (or losing you the game) directly its not harass.
I think that the big problem is how relatively fast and easy is to snipe a base because of a drop that is not that costly to Terran and quite comfortable to pull off, and the big impact it has in-game
|
On June 14 2015 01:07 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 00:53 Hider wrote:On June 14 2015 00:31 Charoisaur wrote:On June 14 2015 00:22 Hider wrote:On June 14 2015 00:13 jotmang-nojem wrote:
So let me get this straight. You people don't see anything wrong with how terrans play? I emphasize terran because the way it's played typifies what's wrong, but other races have problems too.
So all you do all game is put things in your medivac and drop things left and right. No strategic holding of map areas, no interesting unit comps, just MMM all the time. Your opponent is forced to his base so he can't hold strategic map areas either. The only map areas of interest is your base and the opponent's base.
DK thinks it's so good he wants to increase the medivac unload speed and increase nydus and overlord effectiveness. In effect, he's doubling down on the harassment aspect. WTF!!! Perhaps if you used the terminology correct instead of confusing harass and action with coinflippyness you would set your self up for a better debate. I would also like to argue that a positional defensive playstyle isn't more strategic or doesn't require more brainpower than an aggressive playstyle. Anyway, my opinion is that terran lacks diversity in playstyles (as does zerg and toss). There should definitely be a more positional element to the race. But I definitely don't want bio play w/ Medivacs to be removed either. It's an incredibly fun and highly microbased playstyle, but it should be an option instead of a must. If there is to much harass and action on the map it can lead to coinflippy situations where you weren't in position once and then lose the game. It already happens sometimes in tvt; one player moves out of his base and then suddenly his main gets doom dropped and he loses the game. Does that mean the better player won the game? no. If there is to much action in the game it increases the randomness. That's assuming that being at the right place at the right time is luckbased and not skillbased. While defending allins is also skillbased, it doesn't give you multiple chances, harass is more about the better player gaining small advantages over time.
once and then lose the game. It already happens sometimes in tvt
Doomdrops isn't really as much a harass as it is an allin. If something has a high probability of winning (or losing you the game) directly its not harass. I think that the big problem is how relatively fast and easy is to snipe a base because of a drop that is not that costly to Terran and quite comfortable to pull off, and the big impact it has in-game
And the exact same thing was the case in BW. But that's why we need a solid defenders advantage, so you can afford to come behind if your temporarily behind in army size and/or economy.
But the whole high damage thing is also mostly a problem for protoss since its "strong units" move so slowly and thus the punishment for being far away is much higher than is the case for zerg.
|
On June 14 2015 01:22 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 01:07 JCoto wrote:On June 14 2015 00:53 Hider wrote:On June 14 2015 00:31 Charoisaur wrote:On June 14 2015 00:22 Hider wrote:On June 14 2015 00:13 jotmang-nojem wrote:
So let me get this straight. You people don't see anything wrong with how terrans play? I emphasize terran because the way it's played typifies what's wrong, but other races have problems too.
So all you do all game is put things in your medivac and drop things left and right. No strategic holding of map areas, no interesting unit comps, just MMM all the time. Your opponent is forced to his base so he can't hold strategic map areas either. The only map areas of interest is your base and the opponent's base.
DK thinks it's so good he wants to increase the medivac unload speed and increase nydus and overlord effectiveness. In effect, he's doubling down on the harassment aspect. WTF!!! Perhaps if you used the terminology correct instead of confusing harass and action with coinflippyness you would set your self up for a better debate. I would also like to argue that a positional defensive playstyle isn't more strategic or doesn't require more brainpower than an aggressive playstyle. Anyway, my opinion is that terran lacks diversity in playstyles (as does zerg and toss). There should definitely be a more positional element to the race. But I definitely don't want bio play w/ Medivacs to be removed either. It's an incredibly fun and highly microbased playstyle, but it should be an option instead of a must. If there is to much harass and action on the map it can lead to coinflippy situations where you weren't in position once and then lose the game. It already happens sometimes in tvt; one player moves out of his base and then suddenly his main gets doom dropped and he loses the game. Does that mean the better player won the game? no. If there is to much action in the game it increases the randomness. That's assuming that being at the right place at the right time is luckbased and not skillbased. While defending allins is also skillbased, it doesn't give you multiple chances, harass is more about the better player gaining small advantages over time.
once and then lose the game. It already happens sometimes in tvt
Doomdrops isn't really as much a harass as it is an allin. If something has a high probability of winning (or losing you the game) directly its not harass. I think that the big problem is how relatively fast and easy is to snipe a base because of a drop that is not that costly to Terran and quite comfortable to pull off, and the big impact it has in-game And the exact same thing was the case in BW. But that's why we need a solid defenders advantage, so you can afford to come behind if your temporarily behind in army size and/or economy. But the whole high damage thing is also mostly a problem for protoss since its "strong units" move so slowly and thus the punishment for being far away is much higher than is the case for zerg.
Mmm... I don't think that dropping was that strong in BW. No marauders, No medivacs, weaker marines. no escape button for Dropship (even if speed was higher).
Having Dropship and Medic split into two units made drops obviously weaker, since it would mean dropping 8 marines (weaker) without healing or dropping less marines.
Marauders are also strong vs buildings.
|
I don't think that dropping was that strong in BW.
Speedlings and stimmed Marines in a dropship could kill stuff a lot faster in BW than in Sc2. Thus, the high DPS values cannot be the "big problem" in it self.
At the end of the day, it's about two things:
(a) is there counterplay?
(b) is the punishment for the "mistake" fair or is the gameplay too unforgiving?
If you can't leave your base for a second due to the threat of a dropplay being too strong, that's obviously flawed design. But this is why I suggest to get rid of the idea that core units should have 2.25 movement speed. That's way way too slow. No core units should have between 2.75 and 3.5 movement speed, and each race should on top of that have positional abilities or units that can control certain areas very effectively. These units/abilities can/should obviously be slower than 2.75.
Having Dropship and Medic split into two units made drops obviously weaker, since it would mean dropping 8 marines (weaker) without healing or dropping less marines.
You are going off on another tanget now that is more related to balance and not to either coinflippiness or high damage.
|
LotV is really small scale and small ideas when you compare what other developeprs are doing.
The DotA 2 reborn thing is gonna bury SC2 custom map system so easily its ridiculous.
|
On June 13 2015 19:53 AxiomBlurr wrote:
Blizz have not put in any changes suggested by the Korean or Foreigner pros into LotV. It is my understanding that they have never put any suggestion by any pro into the game ever. Not even to be tested. (Am I wrong here?)
You're wrong here, the Phase Shield oracle ability from the Heart of the Swarm beta was based on a Grubby suggestion apparently.
|
On June 14 2015 01:46 Noocta wrote:
LotV is really small scale and small ideas when you compare what other developeprs are doing.
The DotA 2 reborn thing is gonna bury SC2 custom map system so easily its ridiculous.
We all know an amazing RTS on Source 2 will soon come out.
At this point, SC2 is nothing more than a way to practice your mechanics for the better RTS that is coming up.
|
They should really make a much better change for the ghost ability. I dont believe it will be of much use but i like the ghost movement speed increase idea, never really thought of it as a big issue but i guess micro'ing the ghost will be slightly easier to snipe certain units a little faster ie HT.
I still feel that the overall abilities of the ghost though really make the unit not as useful as it potentially could be for all matchups. EMP nerf that happened way back in WoL i feel really made late game tvp a huge issue, and then the snipe nerf really made the unit unusable for tvz. Im not sure a speed buff and a new ability that doesnt give much use/damage will make much of a difference at all for the ghost, but i will re-iterate that i atleast like the fact that they are looking at the ghost and are considering changes for it. Its been a very very long time coming.
Medivac change i think is a good idea to allow for faster paced harassment etc for late game. This being said i can only see this making it an even bigger issue for protoss players dealing with drop play which already is very strong as it is. But i like the idea for the later game scenarios as it will make it more entertaining to not only play but watch. You will have to consider a change to allow protoss to defend easier in the mid-late game if this change was to go through though otherwise i can just see terran winning with mass drop usage.
|
On June 14 2015 03:11 Finnz wrote:
They should really make a much better change for the ghost ability. I dont believe it will be of much use but i like the ghost movement speed increase idea, never really thought of it as a big issue but i guess micro'ing the ghost will be slightly easier to snipe certain units a little faster ie HT.
I still feel that the overall abilities of the ghost though really make the unit not as useful as it potentially could be for all matchups. EMP nerf that happened way back in WoL i feel really made late game tvp a huge issue, and then the snipe nerf really made the unit unusable for tvz. Im not sure a speed buff and a new ability that doesnt give much use/damage will make much of a difference at all for the ghost, but i will re-iterate that i atleast like the fact that they are looking at the ghost and are considering changes for it. Its been a very very long time coming.
Medivac change i think is a good idea to allow for faster paced harassment etc for late game. This being said i can only see this making it an even bigger issue for protoss players dealing with drop play which already is very strong as it is. But i like the idea for the later game scenarios as it will make it more entertaining to not only play but watch. You will have to consider a change to allow protoss to defend easier in the mid-late game if this change was to go through though otherwise i can just see terran winning with mass drop usage.
so if you buff medivac drops and also buff protoss abilities to deal with drops, what difference will it make? Why not just keep it as it is when a buff to it will also force buffs to deal with them?
|
On June 14 2015 00:42 Grumbels wrote:
Let's interchange "coinflippiness" with the word volatility, with the meaning of high variance outcomes independent of player skill. This is typically undesirable.
But it isn't undesirable to Blizzard. Think about the Widow Mine replacing the Siege Tank. People target fired with multiple Siege Tanks against a target, but with Mines, just burrow and cross your fingers.
I think that is what people need to realize here: that Blizzard is making the game they want, where strategic positioning and thinking are replaced by ability micro and fast fingers.
You wanted LoL micro in SC2, right?
On June 13 2015 23:59 HallofPain4444 wrote:
As for Death Ball, 99% of the players in Platinum league will either go for a cheese or death ball. It's part of the game and neccessary evil to casual gaming. Only pro gamers have enough APM to handle most the new stuff introduced in LoTV.
And that is a real problem. Taken to an extreme it becomes so obviously clear: If the 6 pool was unstoppable versus everyone but the top pros, casual players would hate the game.
And sadly, we had that for a time in PvP, it was called the 4 Gate.
Games can be designed better than that, and have been. Blizzard simply hasn't been able to do it. The 4 Gate dominated PvP for way too long, and now SC2 has much more complex problems. But Blizzard will do what it does best at this point, make seemingly random changes and hope they work out. Their game development strategy is not unlike the way a Widow Mine works.
Does anyone really think Blizzard can solve these complex problems when they weren't able to solve much more simple problems in the past?
Where does such faith come from?
|
Why add a new ability to ghosts to deal with ultras when that's what Snipe was originally made for?
|
On June 13 2015 19:53 AxiomBlurr wrote:
Blizz have not put in any changes suggested by the Korean or Foreigner pros into LotV. It is my understanding that they have never put any suggestion by any pro into the game ever. Not even to be tested. (Am I wrong here?)
MSC vision reduction.
While the MSC should never really have had that much vision in the first place, it was also heralded (by a lot of pro protoss players, hm) as the solution to detectionless blink. It wasn't even close.
|
Stim on Ghosts and Snipe reduces armor by 1-2. Why make it more complicated than this?
Also I really hope they keep 8 armor ultras, its one of the most exciting changes to lategame Zerg. Finally Ultras are something to be feared.
|
On June 13 2015 21:49 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 20:55 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 20:47 [F_]aths wrote:On June 13 2015 20:11 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 20:01 [F_]aths wrote:On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions. Most of them, sure, but something like this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/433944-depth-of-micro ? That's just not justifiable. The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period. Also, there's more to it than just "they dont listen to our suggestions". It is actually impossible to have anything remotely resembling a dialogue with them. "The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period." Do you know that (in a provable sense) or do you just feel so? If I read Lalush's article, I would agree with you; but I am no game developer nor have I years of experience in developing SC2. On June 13 2015 20:14 Hider wrote:On June 13 2015 20:01 [F_]aths wrote:On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions. There is a huge difference here in the relevancy of community suggestions since consumers spend hours and hours on the product and has access to the same level of information and should have the same goals (better gameplay/design) as the developers. That's not to say that 99% of suggestions aren't bad, but what about the 1%? Our users also spend endless hours on your application. We also get valuable feedback, pointing out the weaknesses of our user interface, allowing us to fix things in future releases. We also implement features based on demand. But we almost never take a suggestion and implement it 1:1. Instead we very carefully consider how to serve our >100.000 users best. Every line code written for one feature is missing on another one. But back to the topic. Blizzard did change things after community feedback, take the unit scan range and the real-time clock. "Better design" is empty without providing a concrete design. That is also what Nathanias' rant was missing. "Just" better design? How to do that without recreating the entire game from the ground-up? The only comparison we have (to my knowledge) is BW, which just so happens to be the best game of all time in no small part because of that kind of unit control. It's a really small sample size but yes, i'd say confidently that if basic units were more microable without adding a ton of extra buttons to click for the sake of micro, the game would feel and play better. ... for you. If you would be tasked with the job of creating SC2, and if you know that your future as well as of your colleagues depend on the game being a commercial success, would you actually try to copy BW which had wide-spread success in one country only?
Do you think it's dishonest to argue a point so fundamentally stupid that you cannot possibly agree with it, simply because there isn't a peer reviewed article on it? The point of view that more responsive, microable units would not make a better rts over one with sluggish, buggy units seems completely retarded.
On a second read through of this quote I just realised you completely missed the point of the article, well done. Here's a hint by the way, more microable and responsive does not equal "copy broodwar". The fact you even think it does means you've either not watched the video, or are living proof of the failure of the sc2 design team.
|
On June 13 2015 20:55 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 20:47 [F_]aths wrote:On June 13 2015 20:11 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 20:01 [F_]aths wrote:On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions. Most of them, sure, but something like this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/433944-depth-of-micro ? That's just not justifiable. The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period. Also, there's more to it than just "they dont listen to our suggestions". It is actually impossible to have anything remotely resembling a dialogue with them. "The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period." Do you know that (in a provable sense) or do you just feel so? If I read Lalush's article, I would agree with you; but I am no game developer nor have I years of experience in developing SC2. On June 13 2015 20:14 Hider wrote:On June 13 2015 20:01 [F_]aths wrote:On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions. There is a huge difference here in the relevancy of community suggestions since consumers spend hours and hours on the product and has access to the same level of information and should have the same goals (better gameplay/design) as the developers. That's not to say that 99% of suggestions aren't bad, but what about the 1%? Our users also spend endless hours on your application. We also get valuable feedback, pointing out the weaknesses of our user interface, allowing us to fix things in future releases. We also implement features based on demand. But we almost never take a suggestion and implement it 1:1. Instead we very carefully consider how to serve our >100.000 users best. Every line code written for one feature is missing on another one. But back to the topic. Blizzard did change things after community feedback, take the unit scan range and the real-time clock. "Better design" is empty without providing a concrete design. That is also what Nathanias' rant was missing. "Just" better design? How to do that without recreating the entire game from the ground-up? The only comparison we have (to my knowledge) is BW, which just so happens to be the best game of all time in no small part because of that kind of unit control. It's a really small sample size but yes, i'd say confidently that if basic units were more microable without adding a ton of extra buttons to click for the sake of micro, the game would feel and play better.
Actually, if you think about it every single fighting game that was successful had characters that are at the very least, responsive, microable etc. As for another comparison between games, look no further then smash brothers brawl and melee.
|
They should hire Starbow developers or just make starbow the beta. Atleast they know what Starcraft is all about.
Giving up on Blizzard QQ w/e
|
On June 14 2015 05:46 ElMeanYo wrote:
Stim on Ghosts and Snipe reduces armor by 1-2. Why make it more complicated than this?
This suggestion is brilliant and simple. +1
|
On June 14 2015 05:46 ElMeanYo wrote:
Stim on Ghosts and Snipe reduces armor by 1-2. Why make it more complicated than this?
Also I really hope they keep 8 armor ultras, its one of the most exciting changes to lategame Zerg. Finally Ultras are something to be feared.
THANK YOU, yes. This for sure. Even if they go through with the drone idea, ghosts need stim of you can't use them in your bio army in any effective way, at least not vs swarming zerg where you are splitting all the time.
EDIT: If ghosts are too strong with stim, than just have it do movement speed ONLY for the ghosts, it's not about the damage, it's about how when you select your group with ghosts, you can't hit T to stim, and they get left behind.
|
On June 14 2015 00:22 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 00:13 jotmang-nojem wrote:
So let me get this straight. You people don't see anything wrong with how terrans play? I emphasize terran because the way it's played typifies what's wrong, but other races have problems too.
So all you do all game is put things in your medivac and drop things left and right. No strategic holding of map areas, no interesting unit comps, just MMM all the time. Your opponent is forced to his base so he can't hold strategic map areas either. The only map areas of interest is your base and the opponent's base.
DK thinks it's so good he wants to increase the medivac unload speed and increase nydus and overlord effectiveness. In effect, he's doubling down on the harassment aspect. WTF!!! It's an incredibly fun and highly microbased playstyle, but it should be an option instead of a must.
"incredibly fun", well that's not an overstatement at all haha. It's one of the least boring comps to control in SC2, I'll give you that.
|
Do you know what im scared of? David kim seems SO focused on making things micro intensive and desiring small skirmishes, which increase the skill cap, that LotV is going to get alienated even further into the niche market. Any time I hear David Kim talk about changes, he always talks about "increasing chances for micro". As a viewer, and even as a player, I do love the idea of increasing the skill cap and then appreciating amazing talent. Its awesome to see it all utilized and is awesome to practice and increase your own skill knowing there's a mountains room for growth above you.
Trying to dumb the game down to appeal to a larger market is obviously out of the question. David Kim would probably join EA Sports before doing that. But there are still some things that can be changed to keep a larger crowd. It's all about interaction, social interaction. The current layout is fine for the lone ranger, but complete shit otherwise. The interface has GOT to change. Wheres the chat rooms, wheres the random ass player interaction. Just starting out in a chatroom like in BW would make such a huge difference. Tell me, in BW how many times did you shoot the shit in a random lobby then end up challenging someone/being challenged? How many times did you form groups and create custom games? What about clan rooms/creating clans n all that? Just thinking about it, it blows my mind how ass backward this is. With all the social media and how far the internets come since then, sc2 is so reclusive comparatively and it has nothing to do with the actual game. How the hell has it gone on this long?! BRING BACK the social aspect of the game! Even until now I havent fully realized how VITAL that was.
|
adding another ability to fix a simple problem, just make snip better and pierce armour or something
|
On June 14 2015 09:21 NyxNax wrote:
Do you know what im scared of? David kim seems SO focused on making things micro intensive and desiring small skirmishes, which increase the skill cap, that LotV is going to get alienated even further into the niche market. Any time I hear David Kim talk about changes, he always talks about "increasing chances for micro". As a viewer, and even as a player, I do love the idea of increasing the skill cap and then appreciating amazing talent. Its awesome to see it all utilized and is awesome to practice and increase your own skill knowing there's a mountains room for growth above you.
Trying to dumb the game down to appeal to a larger market is obviously out of the question. David Kim would probably join EA Sports before doing that. But there are still some things that can be changed to keep a larger crowd. It's all about interaction, social interaction. The current layout is fine for the lone ranger, but complete shit otherwise. The interface has GOT to change. Wheres the chat rooms, wheres the random ass player interaction. Just starting out in a chatroom like in BW would make such a huge difference. Tell me, in BW how many times did you shoot the shit in a random lobby then end up challenging someone/being challenged? How many times did you form groups and create custom games? What about clan rooms/creating clans n all that? Just thinking about it, it blows my mind how ass backward this is. With all the social media and how far the internets come since then, sc2 is so reclusive comparatively and it has nothing to do with the actual game. How the hell has it gone on this long?! BRING BACK the social aspect of the game! Even until now I havent fully realized how VITAL that was.
Oh my god yes. Everybody's been saying this for FIVE YEARS and they still won't implement it. The old BNet's chatrooms were a thing of beauty.
It's not like it's impossible to listen to the community, look at what Valve has been doing with DotA...
|
On June 14 2015 05:46 ElMeanYo wrote:
Stim on Ghosts and Snipe reduces armor by 1-2. Why make it more complicated than this?
Because that would be simple and rather elegant. Gimmicks are the way to go.
|
On June 14 2015 07:41 Iron_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 05:46 ElMeanYo wrote:
Stim on Ghosts and Snipe reduces armor by 1-2. Why make it more complicated than this?
Also I really hope they keep 8 armor ultras, its one of the most exciting changes to lategame Zerg. Finally Ultras are something to be feared. THANK YOU, yes. This for sure. Even if they go through with the drone idea, ghosts need stim of you can't use them in your bio army in any effective way, at least not vs swarming zerg where you are splitting all the time. EDIT: If ghosts are too strong with stim, than just have it do movement speed ONLY for the ghosts, it's not about the damage, it's about how when you select your group with ghosts, you can't hit T to stim, and they get left behind.
Ghosts are like Marauders but with a bonus against light units instead of armored.
|
On June 13 2015 02:58 massivez wrote:
Ghosts would gain a new ability that spawns a flying drone on an enemy target. That drone would channel a beam at the enemy unit, reducing its Armor by 3. The drone would have a fixed duration and can be attacked and killed. The main purpose of this ability is to help Terran bio armies better deal with a current weakness—high armor targets.
Lets call this what it is. 7 armor ultras are so dumb, Blizzard designed a completely new spell for the ghost solely to deal with them.
|
the only ability as lame as this drone bullshit is corruption and maybe the old thor cannon shit
|
I don't think David Kim understands that battles must take longer that 5 seconds for his "micro opportunities" to mean anything. I also don't think any unit ability after unit ability will make the game better. This will only mean fast players will be able to beat smart players. Instead SC2 needs its complexity to come arise from simplicity. Complexity that comes out of simplicity is the best kind of way to separate pros from newbies, the best way to balance a game, best way to make a game seem fair, and the best way to get new players to play. Think chess. Think even LOL. Very simple at a basic level.
|
On June 14 2015 09:21 NyxNax wrote:
Do you know what im scared of? David kim seems SO focused on making things micro intensive and desiring small skirmishes, which increase the skill cap, that LotV is going to get alienated even further into the niche market. Any time I hear David Kim talk about changes, he always talks about "increasing chances for micro". As a viewer, and even as a player, I do love the idea of increasing the skill cap and then appreciating amazing talent. Its awesome to see it all utilized and is awesome to practice and increase your own skill knowing there's a mountains room for growth above you.
Trying to dumb the game down to appeal to a larger market is obviously out of the question. David Kim would probably join EA Sports before doing that. But there are still some things that can be changed to keep a larger crowd. It's all about interaction, social interaction. The current layout is fine for the lone ranger, but complete shit otherwise. The interface has GOT to change. Wheres the chat rooms, wheres the random ass player interaction. Just starting out in a chatroom like in BW would make such a huge difference. Tell me, in BW how many times did you shoot the shit in a random lobby then end up challenging someone/being challenged? How many times did you form groups and create custom games? What about clan rooms/creating clans n all that? Just thinking about it, it blows my mind how ass backward this is. With all the social media and how far the internets come since then, sc2 is so reclusive comparatively and it has nothing to do with the actual game. How the hell has it gone on this long?! BRING BACK the social aspect of the game! Even until now I havent fully realized how VITAL that was.
This is so true. Sometimes I'll go play an AOE3 game just for the lobby chat before the game. In SC2 you need a clan and a bunch of friends to get your lonely-nerd ass some conversation. If they were really smart they would allow you to access the chatrooms and forums on your phone, and observe games on your phone! And this would all be linked to both Facebook and Twitter.
A lot of the fun of MMO games is the fact that you are collaborating with real people and beating down real people. If you never have a chance to chat with them, they remain anonymous.
|
Just my 2cents on this patch:
What are they doing? Protoss has literally not been changed at all in the past 2 months of testing and it is still by far the most UP race. I'm very confused about what is going on over at the Blizzard development center, but I imagine the 3 people that are working on this project probably have very little to worry about with their job and thus we are getting these horrendous patches/slow development. It's honestly pretty awful. I'd be streaming/playing LotV a lot ... if there was any reason to do so.. but as Protoss it seems like we are getting snubbed now more than ever which is pretty sad...
|
Russian Federation421 Posts
On June 14 2015 01:46 Noocta wrote:
LotV is really small scale and small ideas when you compare what other developeprs are doing.
The DotA 2 reborn thing is gonna bury SC2 custom map system so easily its ridiculous.
I understand Blizzard bashing is fun but can we at least see what Source 2 editor is capable of before making such statements? Of course having 10m unique users a month gives you advantage over 250k unique users but you still need proper tools.
|
On June 14 2015 00:00 ohmylanta1003 wrote:
I hate Blizzard. They are actually the worst company of all time. How could they do this to ME? How can they not fulfill MY every request along with every other individual's wishes!? Just give ME what I want! ME ME ME!!! I just don't understand why the game can't be tailored exactly to ME. It just doesn't make sense...boycott Blizzard, the worst company on the planet.
Yeah pretty much this. Every person wants the game to look totally different and everyone thinks their version of the game will be perfect and everyone will love it and SC2 will get 10 million more players. Blizzard can't possibly listen to every community suggestion because half of them are contradictory.
That said blizzard does have a communication problem. They don't really do a very good job of selling their ideas.
|
On June 14 2015 15:08 StalkerFang wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 00:00 ohmylanta1003 wrote:
I hate Blizzard. They are actually the worst company of all time. How could they do this to ME? How can they not fulfill MY every request along with every other individual's wishes!? Just give ME what I want! ME ME ME!!! I just don't understand why the game can't be tailored exactly to ME. It just doesn't make sense...boycott Blizzard, the worst company on the planet. Yeah pretty much this. Every person wants the game to look totally different and everyone thinks their version of the game will be perfect and everyone will love it and SC2 will get 10 million more players. Blizzard can't possibly listen to every community suggestion because half of them are contradictory. That said blizzard does have a communication problem. They don't really do a very good job of selling their ideas.
No. The issue is a lot deeper than that. You're severely underestimating the intellectual level of TL's community.
|
i'm troubled by the fact that the ghost drone ability is the best thing they could think of to deal with 7 armor ultras
|
HOLY FUCK GHOST BUFFS YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
|
On June 13 2015 03:33 Boucot wrote:
The ghost ability will only be useful against ultras, right ?
Well, it'll work against all targets once armor upgrades come into effect.
Marauder Shells/Marine Shots are reduced by 4 on most units, given Marauder shoot twice and Marines shoot rapid, this gives huge increases in DPS.
You can see it as engaging 3/3 vs 3/0, essentially. Being up 3 attack upgrades is pretty good.
|
On June 14 2015 19:02 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 03:33 Boucot wrote:
The ghost ability will only be useful against ultras, right ? Well, it'll work against all targets once armor upgrades come into effect. Marauder Shells/Marine Shots are reduced by 4 on most units, given Marauder shoot twice and Marines shoot rapid, this gives huge increases in DPS. You can see it as engaging 3/3 vs 3/0, essentially. Being up 3 attack upgrades is pretty good.
I hope it gets relatively costly, MMM has always melt almost everything that didn't have enough splash damage, for once in a while the Ghost could be someting that could do something on their own instead of weaking the enemy army for MMM to just shredd through them.
I think we shouldn't consider armor upgrades in a 0/3 case vs 0/0 bio. Armor upgrades now counter attack upgrades from Marines and Marauders as it does in many units. So it's not like in the latemage damage is going to be reduced by 4 on most units because that's false, only in the case that MM is 0/0 and the enemy is 0/3, which is a very very abnormal case. In most of the cases, units are going to be in a similar upgrade count. 0/0 bio deals the same damage vs 0/0 armies than 3/3 bio vs 3/3 armies. There is no 4 damage reduction except in the case of the Ultralisk which has a 4 armor upgrade.
|
On June 13 2015 21:34 plotspot wrote:
An entire new ability to counter Ultras. Why not do as others have suggested and integrate it into an upgrade of snipe. Vital Points Auto-Tracking: Snipe reduces Armor by 3 for 5s or something.
You could just bring the old snipe? It was a pretty good counter to ultras already!
|
On June 14 2015 20:24 BlackLilium wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 21:34 plotspot wrote:
An entire new ability to counter Ultras. Why not do as others have suggested and integrate it into an upgrade of snipe. Vital Points Auto-Tracking: Snipe reduces Armor by 3 for 5s or something. You could just bring the old snipe? It was a pretty good counter to ultras already!
Old Snipe was counter to everything, not just Ultras. You are not supposed to just mass one and have answers to everything, like old Infestors were...
And Snipe reducing armor by 2-3 sounds like great idea to be honest.
|
On June 14 2015 20:54 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 20:24 BlackLilium wrote:On June 13 2015 21:34 plotspot wrote:
An entire new ability to counter Ultras. Why not do as others have suggested and integrate it into an upgrade of snipe. Vital Points Auto-Tracking: Snipe reduces Armor by 3 for 5s or something. You could just bring the old snipe? It was a pretty good counter to ultras already! Old Snipe was counter to everything, not just Ultras. You are not supposed to just mass one and have answers to everything, like old Infestors were... And Snipe reducing armor by 2-3 sounds like great idea to be honest.
Here is earlier discussion about this topic:
(source)
+ Show Spoiler +On April 27 2015 20:31 Grumbels wrote:
Talking about 8 armor is somewhat confusing by the way. Why would you take attack and armor upgrades into account when discussing this kind of change, knowing that often they cancel each other out anyway? It's better to say that ultralisks now have 5 base armor as opposed to 3 base armor before, taking chitinous plating into account.
In comparison with Heart of the Swarm (and including the marauder change), this reduces marine damage from 2 to 0.5 which is a 75% nerf, and it reduces marauder damage from 17 to 10 which is a 41% nerf. Of course the marauder nerf is more significant since they constitute a higher portion of damage output. Using a sample unit composition of 3:1 for marines:marauders, the damage output goes down by 47%, so nearly 50%.
It's funny that I incorrectly remembered the ultralisk change, thinking it was only improved by a single armor point, but I already considered that to be worrisome in conjunction with the marauder attack rearrangement. I really doubt this change will survive to the release version. These values seem too extreme and it will force Blizzard to create other counters to the ultralisk, perhaps ones that have more binary interactions like the current cyclone or the old snipe. The thor is another candidate for a unit that could be given anti-ultralisk capability.
Maybe if snipe not only ignored armor but also reduced armor for about two seconds? That way you could use ghosts with your bio composition, but it would require some timing sense and would add complication to the (boring?) kiting micro. I don't know if that's fun though. There is precedent for armor reduction in the devourer's acid spores ability from Brood War and faerie fire from Warcraft 3. And the idea of highlighting focus firing and pullback micro, which is more common in smaller scale fights but loses its purpose in larger scale fights, is also noticeable in the design of the immortal shield. On April 27 2015 22:41 hZCube wrote:
And then all units get rebalanced around minus armor from a ghost snipe, and any terran player playing without ghosts is just going to practically default lose to overbalanced units?
Unless, the minus armor only affects ultras - but that would be wierd and counterintuitive, and make the ghost a specific unit counter.
Just doesn't seem intuitive is all. On April 27 2015 22:47 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:
eh, I hate the Ghost idea in terms of countering ultras. It's building on a boring idea with another boring idea.
Both units need some love but not in that way imo. Revert ultra armor to 6 and buff elsewhere. On April 27 2015 20:40 Isualin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2015 20:31 Grumbels wrote:
Maybe if snipe not only ignored armor but also reduced armor for about two seconds? That way you could use ghosts with your bio composition, but it would require some timing sense and would add complication to the (boring?) kiting micro. I don't know if that's fun though. This is a good idea imo. Kinda like holo targeting from xcom. That way terran players can get few ghosts and snipe each big enemy once for max efficiency On April 27 2015 22:56 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2015 22:41 hZCube wrote:
And then all units get rebalanced around minus armor from a ghost snipe, and any terran player playing without ghosts is just going to practically default lose to overbalanced units?
Unless, the minus armor only affects ultras - but that would be wierd and counterintuitive, and make the ghost a specific unit counter.
Just doesn't seem intuitive is all. Two things: first of all the armor debuff would be attached to snipe and would mainly be meaningful when used on high health biological units, meaning ultralisks, brood lords, swarm hosts and lurkers; second of all, because of the way that armor is calculated, any armor debuff is especially helpful vs units with high armor to begin with and furthermore it's best used in conjunction with marines. Both serve to limit the number of strongly affected interactions and giving a two armor debuff to ghost snipe mainly affects the marine vs ultralisk interaction. This change to snipe probably won't force Blizzard to add higher armor to every zerg unit in the game. I'm not saying it's a good idea and that Blizzard should implement it, but your concerns seem a bit over the top. Show nested quote +On April 27 2015 22:47 FrostedMiniWheats wrote:
eh, I hate the Ghost idea in terms of countering ultras. It's building on a boring idea with another boring idea.
Both units need some love but not in that way imo. Revert ultra armor to 6 and buff elsewhere. Yeah, I mainly devised it as a way to keep bio playable vs ultralisks with the new 5+3 armor, so it serves as a bandaid to fix the 8 armor ultralisk, but obviously it would be a pointless idea with 3+3 armor ultralisks. On April 27 2015 23:05 Isualin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2015 22:41 hZCube wrote:
And then all units get rebalanced around minus armor from a ghost snipe, and any terran player playing without ghosts is just going to practically default lose to overbalanced units?
Unless, the minus armor only affects ultras - but that would be wierd and counterintuitive, and make the ghost a specific unit counter.
Just doesn't seem intuitive is all. I don't think sniping roaches, ling/blings or hydras would be time efficient for the terran player in later stages of the game. But maybe we might see timing attacks with ghosts. This would be a reason to use ghosts against a zerg all the time(They have emp to use them against P already) On April 27 2015 23:48 Maniak_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2015 20:31 Grumbels wrote:
Talking about 8 armor is somewhat confusing by the way. Why would you take attack and armor upgrades into account when discussing this kind of change, knowing that often they cancel each other out anyway? It's better to say that ultralisks now have 5 base armor as opposed to 3 base armor before, taking chitinous plating into account. Yes and no. By the time ultras are out, you should already be at 3/3 on your side. And the zerg should have upgraded melee if he intended to build ultras (though the buffed armor upgrade gives a bit more time to catch up). If you're 0/0 against ultras, something else went wrong But no matter if you take the upgrade into account or not, it's still irrelevant to look at marine/marauder against ultras. Zealots and stalkers don't counter ultras. Lings and roaches don't counter ultras. Why should marines & marauders be able to? Why should the same terran bio composition be able to kill each and every unit zerg can throw at them all game long, no matter the upgrades, no matter the tech tier? If the issue is terran transitioning from bio into something else (which is arguable), then fix *that*, instead of letting the same two tier-1 units be able to kill everything. Besides, there's not even any proven issue with any of this at the moment. Maybe there is, but with the cyclone, the economy, the disappearance of protoss and to a lesser extent the ravager, the waters are already pretty muddled.
To summarize, the main drawback is that reducing armor is especially useful vs high armor targets, meaning that this snipe change becomes very specialized to work well vs ultralisks. It's kind of like introducing a problem to the game and then adding a targeted counter; it reduces the flexibility and forces you to streamline your play, while adding complexity to the game. It raises the question of what is the added value of the eight armor ultralisk to begin with. Another concern is that it might still be good vs units like brood lords.
Blizzard's proposal legitimizes the idea that there is a problem with the new ultralisk that ought to be solved by counter mechanics, which is why I think people respond well to the ghost snipe suggestion in this thread. But that doesn't mean that you should necessarily buy into Blizzard's framing, there are other solutions such as rolling back the ultralisk armor change.
|
hmmm seems unlikely I'll be playing LotV for anything more than the singleplayer at this rate.
Not saying I think these changes are bad but as someone who was consistently high diamond (9 seasons in a row) I just can't keep up with things now, the game is crazy fast and my micro was never my strong point. Playing the beta just makes me feel crap and I just don't have the time or desire to play the game enough, there's such a gulf between what I want to do and what I'm physically able to do.
This never really was a casual game though so I suppose I can't really be surprised, maybe archon mode will be fun a while and help deal with that problem
|
On June 14 2015 21:31 adwodon wrote:hmmm seems unlikely I'll be playing LotV for anything more than the singleplayer at this rate. Not saying I think these changes are bad but as someone who was consistently high diamond (9 seasons in a row) I just can't keep up with things now, the game is crazy fast and my micro was never my strong point. Playing the beta just makes me feel crap and I just don't have the time or desire to play the game enough, there's such a gulf between what I want to do and what I'm physically able to do. This never really was a casual game though so I suppose I can't really be surprised, maybe archon mode will be fun a while and help deal with that problem
How was sc2 not a casual game?
|
On June 13 2015 22:38 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
I guess that there are answers for most of those questions, which we are either not aware of, or would not like (and therefore find it hard to accept as valid answer.)
This is exactly why they should communicate more. The more they communicate, the less resources they have for other tasks. To fully explain decisions would require the reader to have a comparable level of game design experience.
Blizzard is much more talkative than in earlier days, but I also see more complaints that they don't communicate enough.
Show nested quote +As this is an expansion though, the developers probably want to stick with most of the existing artwork and gameplay. LotV tries to be an improvement upon HotS, it is not Starcraft re-invented. Artwork? Noone is talking about that. Redesigns of units can also easily be done without any programmers.
The high-quality community feedback you mention later in your postings still reflects only a small part of the playerbase's needs. As a developer, you try to have the entire userbase in mind. Since the resources are limited, you have to weight providing features for the hardcore userbase versus an appeal to casual users. In the end, neither needs will be completely met.
The aforementioned feedback, while some of it is really thought-out, does not show any experience of how development works and what is possible in how much time.
|
The more they communicate, the less resources they have for other tasks.
Es I explained in my comment. If you already know the answers in answer, it really doesn't take very long time to respond to the highest quality feedback. 15-20 minute a day at most! If they have 3-4 designers working fulltime on Starcraft, this should easily be doable. Also noone is demanding that the developers read through all of the feedback, but rather the job of the community managers could be to find the best 5-20 posts a week and link them to the developers.
To fully explain decisions would require the reader to have a comparable level of game design experience.
This doesn't make sense. Even assuming Blizzard has this special knowledge (which is unlikely given the responses to depth of micro and DH), that doesn't imply that they can't explain their thought proces. It happens all the time in the world that someone who knows more about a subject explains certain things to someone who knows less about the subject.
Secondly, if they really had this super special knowledge, why on earth wouldn't you take advantage of it in order to (a) improve the brand-value of the company and (b) service the hardcore customers?
Think about how the perception of Blizzard would change if they - just once in a while (not every day or week) wrote very detailed analysis of various design decisions. Where they went through all of the variables that impact how units should be designed. If they really had this knowledge, why wouldn't you make it apparent to the gaming world that the design employees of Blizzard/Starcraft are super brilliant? That's free advertising right there for Blizzard!
On the other hand, every time we have seem David Kim make comments in the public he has either shown a lack of understanding or has made inconsistent/overly simplified arguments. That wouldn't be an issue if he and his team actually had a track-record of consistently delievering results. But that's not the case. The Blizzard development team in fact has a track-record of frequent design (and balance) errors.
At the end of the day, you need to ask your self what is more likely. When someone walks like a duck and talks like a duck, why would you continue to assume he is some type of brilliant mastermind who has all these fantastic reasons for not doing something that the community just is incapable of understanding.
You seem to assume that because Blizzard is an AAA company, all of its design developers are also super smart and analytical. But that's not neccesarily the case if hiring-methodology isn't focussed on acquiring and rewarding the most analytical candidates, but instead values other "qualities".
|
Abilities.... everywhere.. T_T I am starting to give up on this game.. I might just accept that starcraft will no longer be part of my life..
|
Canada13389 Posts
On June 14 2015 18:23 stargunner wrote:
i'm troubled by the fact that the ghost drone ability is the best thing they could think of to deal with 7 armor ultras
Instead of just lowering the armor of ultras, we are going to introduce a lot of wonky relationships once +3 attack is done on the Terran army. It effectively removes the armor ups of the opponent if they have +3 armor vs +3 attack.
Its of course only gonna be useful vs high value targets but its still going to be a very strong spell and primarily because ultras are too good :/
|
On June 15 2015 01:29 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 18:23 stargunner wrote:
i'm troubled by the fact that the ghost drone ability is the best thing they could think of to deal with 7 armor ultras Instead of just lowering the armor of ultras, we are going to introduce a lot of wonky relationships once +3 attack is done on the Terran army. It effectively removes the armor ups of the opponent if they have +3 armor vs +3 attack. Its of course only gonna be useful vs high value targets but its still going to be a very strong spell and primarily because ultras are too good :/
Yes, this is the exact opposite of my design philosphy. I believe that we should minimize the abilities that doesn't reward players for moving their units.
In this case, Blizzard are not actually creating any new microinteractions into the game, they are just adding more spambased abilities for the pure sake of having more spambased abilities. I would have prefered if they just had made the Ultralisk faster off-creep along with a lower model size. Instead they increased the armor of the Ultralisk and make it counterable through a spambased ability.
For each patch, I am getting less and less interested in the game.
|
On June 15 2015 03:44 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 01:29 ZeromuS wrote:On June 14 2015 18:23 stargunner wrote:
i'm troubled by the fact that the ghost drone ability is the best thing they could think of to deal with 7 armor ultras Instead of just lowering the armor of ultras, we are going to introduce a lot of wonky relationships once +3 attack is done on the Terran army. It effectively removes the armor ups of the opponent if they have +3 armor vs +3 attack. Its of course only gonna be useful vs high value targets but its still going to be a very strong spell and primarily because ultras are too good :/ Yes, this is the exact opposite of my design philosphy. I believe that we should minimize the abilities that doesn't reward players for moving their units. So basically spam-based abilities should be removed! In this case, Blizzard are not actually creating any new microinteractions into the game, they are just adding more spambased abilities for the pure sake of having more spambased abilities. I would have prefered if they just had made the Ultralisk faster off-creep along with a lower model size instead of increasing its armor and making the armor counterable through a spambased ability. For each patch, I am getting less and less interested in the game.
I'm getting more and more interested as each patch comes out, because all the big whiners that say they're getting less and less interested are getting that much closer to just not playing the game or visiting these forums at all!
|
On June 15 2015 01:29 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 18:23 stargunner wrote:
i'm troubled by the fact that the ghost drone ability is the best thing they could think of to deal with 7 armor ultras Instead of just lowering the armor of ultras, we are going to introduce a lot of wonky relationships once +3 attack is done on the Terran army. It effectively removes the armor ups of the opponent if they have +3 armor vs +3 attack. Its of course only gonna be useful vs high value targets but its still going to be a very strong spell and primarily because ultras are too good :/
I thimnk the problem will be that capital units will be easily sniped by Bio units because they are burst. That will work ok vs Ultralisks because it will counter the buff Ultras have recieved in LotV, but will put key units in PvT that are relatively fragile (Archons, Colossi, Disrutpros) in a very bad position.
I think it's very obvious.... Ultralisks have recieved several buffs over the years since WoL beta to justify their cost and empower their usage (life increase, damage increase, splash increase, now armor increase). LOTV Armor increase was very oriented towards making ultras more viable vs Bio, since it's the only burst-damage compo that Ultralisks will face most of the time. Ultras work fairly well vs Protoss in HotS, and now even more since Immortals have been nerfed (3/3 ultras deal 44 per attack to immortals instead of 10, and barrier only lasts for 2-3 attacks).
Since Marauder has been nerfed, Bio is already weaker vs ultralisks than in HotS.
HotS Ultralisks maxed (6 armor) would block 6/26 points of damage from a HotS marauder. (23%)
HotS Ultralisks maxed (6 armor) would block 12/26 points of damage from a LotV marauder. (46%)
Could we study if with the Marauder nerf only Ultras are decently viable before buffing them?
Why not simply waiting before Ultralisk buffs and taking a close eye on other potential units that could be used against them?
Blizz's philosophy of "mamma knows best" is very irritating. There is no good reasoning behind some changes. Last Adept changes also showed it.
The first Adept concept was balanced around the idea of having a strong weapon that could apply lategame splash vs minor units. However, the cost of the upgrade was prohibitive and the unit was very clunky due to damage point. What did they do? They buffed Adept HP and removed the upgrade; they didn't even tried to promote their adept design to see how it could work. They exchanged it with an idiotic ultratanky design because it's the only thing that they could think of to make Adepts good vs bio.At least community suggestion made it and they changed damage point too.
However, the first thing that they should have changed when removing splash damage upgrade IMAO is to change weapon speed and damage, since the original concept was balanced around it. But not, DK logic was very, very stupid. They though, "hey, we removed an upgrade that made Adept's attack really strong vs light, swarmy units, so they attack different now, what should we do now that their attack is shit? let's just give them 50% HP at low cost"
|
We’d like to have the option to go Mutalisks in some ZvZ games, so we’re reducing the +bio damage of Spore Crawlers. We’re looking for Spore Crawlers to still counter Mutalisks well, but at the same time, we don’t want Mutalisks to almost never be used in the matchup. --> Not gonna happen with the Viper's Para Bomb. Nobody enjoys working to a decent mutacount and seeing it evaporate in miliseconds.
|
On June 15 2015 04:13 ohmylanta1003 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 03:44 Hider wrote:On June 15 2015 01:29 ZeromuS wrote:On June 14 2015 18:23 stargunner wrote:
i'm troubled by the fact that the ghost drone ability is the best thing they could think of to deal with 7 armor ultras Instead of just lowering the armor of ultras, we are going to introduce a lot of wonky relationships once +3 attack is done on the Terran army. It effectively removes the armor ups of the opponent if they have +3 armor vs +3 attack. Its of course only gonna be useful vs high value targets but its still going to be a very strong spell and primarily because ultras are too good :/ Yes, this is the exact opposite of my design philosphy. I believe that we should minimize the abilities that doesn't reward players for moving their units. So basically spam-based abilities should be removed! In this case, Blizzard are not actually creating any new microinteractions into the game, they are just adding more spambased abilities for the pure sake of having more spambased abilities. I would have prefered if they just had made the Ultralisk faster off-creep along with a lower model size instead of increasing its armor and making the armor counterable through a spambased ability. For each patch, I am getting less and less interested in the game. I'm getting more and more interested as each patch comes out, because all the big whiners that say they're getting less and less interested are getting that much closer to just not playing the game or visiting these forums at all!
Could not agree with this more. There are way too many people in this thread who think they know what's best for the game but don't.
|
On June 15 2015 04:13 ohmylanta1003 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 03:44 Hider wrote:On June 15 2015 01:29 ZeromuS wrote:On June 14 2015 18:23 stargunner wrote:
i'm troubled by the fact that the ghost drone ability is the best thing they could think of to deal with 7 armor ultras Instead of just lowering the armor of ultras, we are going to introduce a lot of wonky relationships once +3 attack is done on the Terran army. It effectively removes the armor ups of the opponent if they have +3 armor vs +3 attack. Its of course only gonna be useful vs high value targets but its still going to be a very strong spell and primarily because ultras are too good :/ Yes, this is the exact opposite of my design philosphy. I believe that we should minimize the abilities that doesn't reward players for moving their units. So basically spam-based abilities should be removed! In this case, Blizzard are not actually creating any new microinteractions into the game, they are just adding more spambased abilities for the pure sake of having more spambased abilities. I would have prefered if they just had made the Ultralisk faster off-creep along with a lower model size instead of increasing its armor and making the armor counterable through a spambased ability. For each patch, I am getting less and less interested in the game. I'm getting more and more interested as each patch comes out, because all the big whiners that say they're getting less and less interested are getting that much closer to just not playing the game or visiting these forums at all!
I still play the game (HotS and LotV) and genuinely care for it. I'm appalled at the direction taken so far and at the lack of communication ; I have to say I find HotS a hundred times more solid than LotV. So yeah, it's probably good to wipe the players that genuinely care for the game out of the equation, since it's quite obvious since Blizzcon we're going to be horribly disappointed.
|
On June 15 2015 05:18 SnareSpectre wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 04:13 ohmylanta1003 wrote:On June 15 2015 03:44 Hider wrote:On June 15 2015 01:29 ZeromuS wrote:On June 14 2015 18:23 stargunner wrote:
i'm troubled by the fact that the ghost drone ability is the best thing they could think of to deal with 7 armor ultras Instead of just lowering the armor of ultras, we are going to introduce a lot of wonky relationships once +3 attack is done on the Terran army. It effectively removes the armor ups of the opponent if they have +3 armor vs +3 attack. Its of course only gonna be useful vs high value targets but its still going to be a very strong spell and primarily because ultras are too good :/ Yes, this is the exact opposite of my design philosphy. I believe that we should minimize the abilities that doesn't reward players for moving their units. So basically spam-based abilities should be removed! In this case, Blizzard are not actually creating any new microinteractions into the game, they are just adding more spambased abilities for the pure sake of having more spambased abilities. I would have prefered if they just had made the Ultralisk faster off-creep along with a lower model size instead of increasing its armor and making the armor counterable through a spambased ability. For each patch, I am getting less and less interested in the game. I'm getting more and more interested as each patch comes out, because all the big whiners that say they're getting less and less interested are getting that much closer to just not playing the game or visiting these forums at all! Could not agree with this more. There are way too many people in this thread who think they know what's best for the game but don't.
Yeh, I agree, I for one think that blizzard has proven themselves above criticism with the way the game has been designed and played. I think introducing an 8 armor ultralisk was brilliant, and completely necessary, and following on from that I believe that creating another ability to counter that is just what is needed.
In all seriousness though I'm about 99% certain that the people who say things like that are the first people to change games while the people who genuinely play the game are left with a game that's mediocre in comparison to what it could be.
|
On June 15 2015 04:13 ohmylanta1003 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 03:44 Hider wrote:On June 15 2015 01:29 ZeromuS wrote:On June 14 2015 18:23 stargunner wrote:
i'm troubled by the fact that the ghost drone ability is the best thing they could think of to deal with 7 armor ultras Instead of just lowering the armor of ultras, we are going to introduce a lot of wonky relationships once +3 attack is done on the Terran army. It effectively removes the armor ups of the opponent if they have +3 armor vs +3 attack. Its of course only gonna be useful vs high value targets but its still going to be a very strong spell and primarily because ultras are too good :/ Yes, this is the exact opposite of my design philosphy. I believe that we should minimize the abilities that doesn't reward players for moving their units. So basically spam-based abilities should be removed! In this case, Blizzard are not actually creating any new microinteractions into the game, they are just adding more spambased abilities for the pure sake of having more spambased abilities. I would have prefered if they just had made the Ultralisk faster off-creep along with a lower model size instead of increasing its armor and making the armor counterable through a spambased ability. For each patch, I am getting less and less interested in the game. I'm getting more and more interested as each patch comes out, because all the big whiners that say they're getting less and less interested are getting that much closer to just not playing the game or visiting these forums at all!
I'm getting more and more interested as the utopian world grows closer where all negative thoughts are eradicated by thought police and everyone wets their pants in excitement as they lap up every word that comes out of the leaders (in this case DK) mouth. Oh I can't wait!!!
|
On June 15 2015 04:31 Turbo.Tactics wrote:Show nested quote +We’d like to have the option to go Mutalisks in some ZvZ games, so we’re reducing the +bio damage of Spore Crawlers. We’re looking for Spore Crawlers to still counter Mutalisks well, but at the same time, we don’t want Mutalisks to almost never be used in the matchup. --> Not gonna happen with the Viper's Para Bomb. Nobody enjoys working to a decent mutacount and seeing it evaporate in miliseconds.
I never understood the rationale for the extreme +bio damage to spore crawlers to begin with. 15+15 was always a more obvious value to pick first and it wouldn't have privileged roach-based plays over mutalisks so much. I think this is an example where Blizzard needed to have communicated to explain why they made this decision instead of being silent and then eventually reverting to the in-between value two years later.
|
On June 15 2015 06:18 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 04:31 Turbo.Tactics wrote:We’d like to have the option to go Mutalisks in some ZvZ games, so we’re reducing the +bio damage of Spore Crawlers. We’re looking for Spore Crawlers to still counter Mutalisks well, but at the same time, we don’t want Mutalisks to almost never be used in the matchup. --> Not gonna happen with the Viper's Para Bomb. Nobody enjoys working to a decent mutacount and seeing it evaporate in miliseconds. I never understood the rationale for the extreme +bio damage to spore crawlers to begin with. 15+15 was always a more obvious value to pick first and it wouldn't have privileged roach-based plays over mutalisks so much. I think this is an example where Blizzard needed to have communicated to explain why they made this decision instead of being silent and then eventually reverting to the in-between value two years later.
They did try 15+15 initially in the HOTS beta, but it turned out it wasn't enough. (Muta vs Muta still dominated ZvZ). Personally I think they should have opted for 15+15 combined with 12+4 vs bio for Hydralisks anti-air attack.
|
On June 15 2015 06:57 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 06:18 Grumbels wrote:On June 15 2015 04:31 Turbo.Tactics wrote:We’d like to have the option to go Mutalisks in some ZvZ games, so we’re reducing the +bio damage of Spore Crawlers. We’re looking for Spore Crawlers to still counter Mutalisks well, but at the same time, we don’t want Mutalisks to almost never be used in the matchup. --> Not gonna happen with the Viper's Para Bomb. Nobody enjoys working to a decent mutacount and seeing it evaporate in miliseconds. I never understood the rationale for the extreme +bio damage to spore crawlers to begin with. 15+15 was always a more obvious value to pick first and it wouldn't have privileged roach-based plays over mutalisks so much. I think this is an example where Blizzard needed to have communicated to explain why they made this decision instead of being silent and then eventually reverting to the in-between value two years later. They did try 15+15 initially in the HOTS beta, but it turned out it wasn't enough. (Muta vs Muta still dominated ZvZ). Personally I think they should have opted for 15+15 combined with 12+4 vs bio for Hydralisks anti-air attack.
Oh, I remembered that differently then. Irecall thinking +30 was an extreme value..
|
On June 15 2015 07:17 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 06:57 Hider wrote:On June 15 2015 06:18 Grumbels wrote:On June 15 2015 04:31 Turbo.Tactics wrote:We’d like to have the option to go Mutalisks in some ZvZ games, so we’re reducing the +bio damage of Spore Crawlers. We’re looking for Spore Crawlers to still counter Mutalisks well, but at the same time, we don’t want Mutalisks to almost never be used in the matchup. --> Not gonna happen with the Viper's Para Bomb. Nobody enjoys working to a decent mutacount and seeing it evaporate in miliseconds. I never understood the rationale for the extreme +bio damage to spore crawlers to begin with. 15+15 was always a more obvious value to pick first and it wouldn't have privileged roach-based plays over mutalisks so much. I think this is an example where Blizzard needed to have communicated to explain why they made this decision instead of being silent and then eventually reverting to the in-between value two years later. They did try 15+15 initially in the HOTS beta, but it turned out it wasn't enough. (Muta vs Muta still dominated ZvZ). Personally I think they should have opted for 15+15 combined with 12+4 vs bio for Hydralisks anti-air attack. Oh, I remembered that differently then. Irecall thinking +30 was an extreme value..
IMAO spore crawlers should do splash damage vs biological (only biological!). It would heavily discourage big muta flocks, but drops could become a strat again and BL could be again abducted (Imao ULtralisks should be able to be abducted too).
|
I'm not super excited about the new Ghost ability, though I never was a big fan of Snipe (especially since it became anti-caster.) It's probably just gonna be a slight improvement to the unit. As for the move speed increase, I don't like it that much, I also hope they revisit the 75 starting energy and balance the unit around standard 50 energy. Perhaps changing it's cost back to that of more traditional spell casters, high gas/low mineral ratio.
I don't want Individual Overlord Transport at all, I think this is something that makes Zerg very special. How it's an evolvement for the entire species.
However if they go through with this they could make a theme out of it, since the Overseer is already there, so here's an idea of mine:
+ Show Spoiler +Overlord Ventral Sacs upgrade removed.
Overlord Hive Mind upgrade added.
Overseer costs changed from (150)50/50 to (100)0/50.
Overseer no longer provide supply (They don't cost supply either, so can be made while Supply blocked.)
Contaminate energy cost changed from 125 to 75.
New unit added: Overbearer added (Morphed from Overlord.)
Overbearer costs (100)0/50.
Overbearer does not provide supply (They don't cost supply either, so can be made while Supply blocked.)
Overbearer has 8 cargo capacity and speed similar to the Overseer.
Hive Mind costs 150/150.
Provides a 100 energy ability to the Overseer which temporarily, globally gives all your Overlords detection.
Also provides +1 vision.
Provides a long cooldown ability to the Overbearer which temporarily gives all Overlords +1 armor and Ventral Sacs.
(When the ability ends Overlords can no longer load up units, but they can still drop the current cargo.)
Medivac unload delay is just a big no no. Terran buffs should really be allocated at something that is not the Medivac, it already plays a too integral part of Terran. I understand they want an upgrade which is researched instead of a forgotten upgrade, but then here's an idea. Make Medivac Speed Boost an upgrade.
Disruptor Damage Increased from 145 to 145 +55 Shields Show nested quote +Disruptors aren’t very effective in the PvP mirror matchup, so we wanted a targeted change that only affects that matchup.
I don't know where they get this from, I've been playing Disruptors and it removes Death Balls in all matchups, even PvP.
You realize how much 200 AoE dmg is? 2x of these and they kill even Colossus/Archon/Immortals and you force some kind of weird only air metagame+Disruptors.
I'm pretty sure 145 dmg is enough, it's funny how on some areas they really want us to test it out and think, maybe you guys just haven't figured out how to play the matchup yet? Well.. I think this is one of them.
Rest is good, though I think Ravager AoE needs to be a tad bigger. Viper Parasitic Bomb needs to not stack, but this is a commonly requested change.
Spore Crawler Damage Decreased from 15 +30 Bio to 15 +15 Bio
I just wish they would go all the way, remove +Bio tag and try to balance the game around few Mutas being viable, but eventually getting faded out by: Spore/Queen/Hydra/Parasitic Bomb/Fungal Growth.
|
For the Ghost spell, it is pretty disappointed when you think about it. This is a really bandaid fix on the Ultra vs Bio. Have to see how it plays out but right now it seems like a bandaid for sure... Like many things else...
1) Mothership core for PvP.
2) Ravager and Forcefield.
3) Colossus nerf? and adding in disrupter. (This is the weirdest thing. The concept of colossus sucks, instead of fixing it, they add in disrupter and nerf the colossus?)
Why not fix the core problems in this long Beta?
|
The thing is, there is actually a good design kernel hidden beneath the mass of bad shit that is the new Ghost spell: Blizzard wants to add new dimensions to bio play, and force bio Terrans to tech into new units. At the risk of giving DK's team too much credit, there's even a warped kind of elegance to what they did, because they didn't introduce any brand new units (read: clutter) to either the Zerg or the Terran side to do it, they just repurposed two of the units they already have. Depending on the drone's attack priority, there may even be some counterplay involved.
Unfortunately, the sort of micro that is encouraged on the Terran side is mindless hotkey spam, the power of Zerg A-move remains stronger than ever before, and if - dare I say it - the Ghost ability turns out to be OP in some way in some meta we haven't considered (e.g. vs BLs), Blizzard will nerf it into the ground and, if the past is any indication, best case scenario - invent some shitty band aid for Terrans to fight Ultras that will screw the game up even more, or, worst case scenario - just throw their hands in the air and hope that Terrans find some cool new mech strats.
That's what happens when you invent units that literally hardcounter entire playstyles. After five years of asking, we finally got the Immortal to stop being that to mech... just to switch it out for the Ultralisk being that to bio, because there's no way this could possibly backfire?
Just when you think that Blizzard is learning from their mistakes, albeit too slow and too late... they're... not?
|
On June 15 2015 12:55 pure.Wasted wrote:
That's what happens when you invent units that literally hardcounter entire playstyles. After five years of asking, we finally got the Immortal to stop being that to mech... just to switch it out for the Ultralisk being that to bio, because there's no way this could possibly backfire?
Just when you think that Blizzard is learning from their mistakes, albeit too slow and too late... they're... not?
Don't worry, we still have the Vikings to everything Protoss except Gateway units and the Immortal. Literally everything, it counters more units that it doesn't counter.
That is what we call doing terrible damage to the design of the game.
|
On June 15 2015 12:55 pure.Wasted wrote:
The thing is, there is actually a good design kernel hidden beneath the mass of bad shit that is the new Ghost spell: Blizzard wants to add new dimensions to bio play, and force bio Terrans to tech into new units. At the risk of giving DK's team too much credit, there's even a warped kind of elegance to what they did, because they didn't introduce any brand new units (read: clutter) to either the Zerg or the Terran side to do it, they just repurposed two of the units they already have. Depending on the drone's attack priority, there may even be some counterplay involved.
Unfortunately, the sort of micro that is encouraged on the Terran side is mindless hotkey spam, the power of Zerg A-move remains stronger than ever before, and if - dare I say it - the Ghost ability turns out to be OP in some way in some meta we haven't considered (e.g. vs BLs), Blizzard will nerf it into the ground and, if the past is any indication, best case scenario - invent some shitty band aid for Terrans to fight Ultras that will screw the game up even more, or, worst case scenario - just throw their hands in the air and hope that Terrans find some cool new mech strats.
That's what happens when you invent units that literally hardcounter entire playstyles. After five years of asking, we finally got the Immortal to stop being that to mech... just to switch it out for the Ultralisk being that to bio, because there's no way this could possibly backfire?
Just when you think that Blizzard is learning from their mistakes, albeit too slow and too late... they're... not?
I'm okay with forcing terran to tech and going forward but with this change terran will require even more micro (while zerg a-move as you said).
Now I'm a regular Diamond player and only play a couple of games a week, but I already have a pretty hard time to micro against zergs (splitting, mines, kiting, etc). And now they want me to add another unit that requires a seperare keybindgroup and requires me to single target the ultras with spells at the same time? While zerg didnt need to change a single thing?
I know we mostly balance for pros but this seems like it will break lower leagues even more. Like if zerg get Ultras you better just quit the game because you already lost.
|
On June 15 2015 14:24 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 12:55 pure.Wasted wrote:
That's what happens when you invent units that literally hardcounter entire playstyles. After five years of asking, we finally got the Immortal to stop being that to mech... just to switch it out for the Ultralisk being that to bio, because there's no way this could possibly backfire?
Just when you think that Blizzard is learning from their mistakes, albeit too slow and too late... they're... not? Don't worry, we still have the Vikings to everything Protoss except Gateway units and the Immortal. Literally everything, it counters more units that it doesn't counter. That is what we call doing terrible damage to the design of the game.
And if we wanted Skytoss to be a valid playstyle, this would be a very serious problem. But I'm pretty sure most people agree that air playstyles are not worth encouraging in SC. Air units are slower and less responsive than ground units as a general rule (read: less microable), and they completely negate all depth that terrain adds to the game without really adding anything to make up for it.
So the Viking is a badly designed anti-air unit (not quite as bad as the Corruptor, but that's not saying much), but the problem is more of a theoretical one.
|
On June 15 2015 15:22 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 14:24 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 15 2015 12:55 pure.Wasted wrote:
That's what happens when you invent units that literally hardcounter entire playstyles. After five years of asking, we finally got the Immortal to stop being that to mech... just to switch it out for the Ultralisk being that to bio, because there's no way this could possibly backfire?
Just when you think that Blizzard is learning from their mistakes, albeit too slow and too late... they're... not? Don't worry, we still have the Vikings to everything Protoss except Gateway units and the Immortal. Literally everything, it counters more units that it doesn't counter. That is what we call doing terrible damage to the design of the game. And if we wanted Skytoss to be a valid playstyle, this would be a very serious problem. But I'm pretty sure most people agree that air playstyles are not worth encouraging in SC. Air units are slower and less responsive than ground units as a general rule (read: less microable), and they completely negate all depth that terrain adds to the game without really adding anything to make up for it. So the Viking is a badly designed anti-air unit (not quite as bad as the Corruptor, but that's not saying much), but the problem is more of a theoretical one.
Right. If we didn't want more than half of the Protoss units in HOTS to not be hard countered by a single unit, it would be a real problem.
And if we had air units that negated terrain in TvP, it would be a real problem. A unit like the Terran Dropship could really ruin positional play with it's ability to drop anywhere, and force Protoss to turtle or all-in. Right? I mean with the ability to load and just do a doom drop, it would destroy the great game of positioning out on the map we have between Protoss and Terran.
It'd be especially bad if Blizzard combined the Medic and Dropship. Then bio Terrans would get access to essentially free drops, as Terran would be building Medivacs for healing already, and would be balanced around that. It would really hurt meching Terrans who want to drop too, forcing them to spend gas on Medivacs they need for Tanks and Thors, while they don't need the heal.
Good thing we don't have a viable air unit in TvP.
In all seriousness though, it isn't my fault Blizzard put so many air units into the game, as I agree, they are in general bad for the game. But they did, and rendering so many useless in a matchup is just bad game design. And it isn't theoretical, many units go unused in TvP because of Vikings.
|
On June 15 2015 12:41 bhfberserk wrote:
For the Ghost spell, it is pretty disappointed when you think about it. This is a really bandaid fix on the Ultra vs Bio. Have to see how it plays out but right now it seems like a bandaid for sure... Like many things else...
1) Mothership core for PvP.
2) Ravager and Forcefield.
3) Colossus nerf? and adding in disrupter. (This is the weirdest thing. The concept of colossus sucks, instead of fixing it, they add in disrupter and nerf the colossus?)
Why not fix the core problems in this long Beta?
I think Ravager being some kind of counter to FF is not bad at all, since that would encourage more meele Ling styles (Ling Hydra, Lings with some Banes). I think the problem is that FF is what has been keeping Protoss alive for years, since otherwise, Protoss would eat fatal runbies and pushes for years, and numerical disadvantage because of weaker macro would become really really evident in fights.
Having a few FF is not bad at all, but the problem is when you get 30/40 FF going for 30 seconds in a fight. IMAO Sentries need a rework to feel as a defensive unit that can actually defend something on their own, mobility or mechanics to make it micro intensive, and less dependent on FF. If they review a bit the Sentry, maybe mass FF will be discouraged.
However, I don't see the problem with Ravagers being a soft counter to FF. Ravager's bile is not only a counter ability to FF, but a zoning shot that disrupts the enemy too. Ability CD and Ravager cost limits it a ton, but what's more important, Ravager bile discourages mass Sentry strategies. Because 4 biles, and you'll be flooded with Ling/Bane. And sentries don't like that. Then FF will possibly be used only on retreat maneuvers/deffensive style much more than offensive since Ravagers can also be there.
And Ravager can also be used to a good effect vs Mech, (at least the original Blizzcon concept we saw) since it's bulky and big, meaning that mitigates splash damage nicely, and was meant to have high HP. Now they have removed armored tag to make it more resistant vs Mech and other strats, it might find a place. The bile is strong vs clumps and static targets.
|
Just to give a heads up, i got invited too, no email.
Also I have maybe played 10 games in the past 2 years, sorry for all who really want in <.<
|
On June 15 2015 15:59 BronzeKnee wrote:
In all seriousness though, it isn't my fault Blizzard put so many air units into the game, as I agree, they are in general bad for the game. But they did, and rendering so many useless in a matchup is just bad game design. And it isn't theoretical, many units go unused in TvP because of Vikings.
It's not your fault at all. It's on Blizzard, as if everything else they screwed up in this game. If they want all those air units to be useful in conjunction with one another, they need to find a way to give them dynamic interplay, and some sort of relationship to the terrain they glide past. The Liberator is the unit that comes closest to looking like an air unit you want to design compositions around... aand it's Terran. Lol.
Seriously, Protoss is just fucked. There's nothing concrete or coherent about the race, just a bunch of half baked ideas duct taped together by FFs, RoboBAOE, and the MSC.
Now that the Liberator is a thing, I'd be all for anti-Protoss air duties being split between those two units, so long as those units are made interesting enough to deserve countering.
|
On June 15 2015 00:40 Hider wrote:Es I explained in my comment. If you already know the answers in answer, it really doesn't take very long time to respond to the highest quality feedback. 15-20 minute a day at most! If they have 3-4 designers working fulltime on Starcraft, this should easily be doable. Also noone is demanding that the developers read through all of the feedback, but rather the job of the community managers could be to find the best 5-20 posts a week and link them to the developers.
Having 20 post forwarded to the developers is greater an interruption that you maybe think. You don't need only time to actually write a reply, you have to think about it. In most cases you can only explain why the suggestion will not be implemented. This is frustrating for both the developer and the questioner.
But let's say Blizzard's SC2 team would reply to 20 community suggestions each week. There would still be the complaint that Blizzard is not listening enough, and/or that they have no clue (because they deny such brilliant suggestions.)
On June 15 2015 00:40 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +To fully explain decisions would require the reader to have a comparable level of game design experience.
This doesn't make sense. Even assuming Blizzard has this special knowledge (which is unlikely given the responses to depth of micro and DH), that doesn't imply that they can't explain their thought proces. It happens all the time in the world that someone who knows more about a subject explains certain things to someone who knows less about the subject. Secondly, if they really had this super special knowledge, why on earth wouldn't you take advantage of it in order to (a) improve the brand-value of the company and (b) service the hardcore customers? Think about how the perception of Blizzard would change if they - just once in a while (not every day or week) wrote very detailed analysis of various design decisions. Where they went through all of the variables that impact how units should be designed. If they really had this knowledge, why wouldn't you make it apparent to the gaming world that the design employees of Blizzard/Starcraft are super brilliant? That's free advertising right there for Blizzard! On the other hand, every time we have seem David Kim make comments in the public he has either shown a lack of understanding or has made inconsistent/overly simplified arguments. That wouldn't be an issue if he and his team actually had a track-record of consistently delievering results. But that's not the case. The Blizzard development team in fact has a track-record of frequent design (and balance) errors. At the end of the day, you need to ask your self what is more likely. When someone walks like a duck and talks like a duck, why would you continue to assume he is some type of brilliant mastermind who has all these fantastic reasons for not doing something that the community just is incapable of understanding. You seem to assume that because Blizzard is an AAA company, all of its design developers are also super smart and analytical. But that's not neccesarily the case if hiring-methodology isn't focussed on acquiring and rewarding the most analytical candidates, but instead values other "qualities".
A good player surely has more insight into some details of a particular match-up. What he lacks is the big picture across all leagues, all realms.
Let's compare this (even though the analogy has its flaws) with a chef which has to make a meal for a group of people. He cannot make everyone 100% satisfied. The gourmets, even though they know what they like to eat, don't necessarily know how to cook.
The many errors Blizzard did make show that they are willing to experiment and iterate, and to correct at least some previous mistakes. What seemed right at one point turned out to be wrong. And of course there is always one who told so. But let's be honest again, those are mostly lucky guesses.
I don't see Blizzard employees as masterminds. However I can say this from personal experience: When an amateur suggests how to do something in which I have professional experience, it is in most cases wrong on so many levels. Even though it appears to be reasonable to other amateurs. They just don't know all the implications. That does not mean I consider myself brilliant or a mastermind. There is still a very, very large gap in the level of understanding an issue.
|
They did a skype chat with the pros. All the suggestions that came out of it were soundly ignored. Stop making excuses for these devs.
|
You don't need only time to actually write a reply, you have to think about it. In most cases you can only explain why the suggestion will not be implemented. This is frustrating for both the developer and the questioner.
If you need to time to think about it without immediately knowing the answer on the top of your ahead, it's actually a huge advantage that you are forced to give a reply as you - in the proces of thinking about the proper answer - learn more about game design and how its related to Starcraft.
But a competent developer should know most of the answers and be able to answer within 2-3 minutes. As an example, look at my Nydus suggestion (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/482384-new-nydus-suggestion). Let's say this was forwarded to a developer. A possible answer might here be the following: Its an interesting proposal but currently we are working on making the overlord the "low risk/high reward"-harass play and the Nydus the high risk play (which is the reverse of my suggestion).
This answer is very concise and respectful. The user who made the suggestion (me) feels pleasure in being recognized for the hard work, and thus future users will be motiviated to make similar somewhat detailed and constructive suggestions. At the same time it gives the user base an understanding of where Blizzard wants to take the game. There are no disadvantages with this approach.
A good player surely has more insight into some details of a particular match-up. What he lacks is the big picture across all leagues, all realms.
What makes you think that David Kim is better at making decisions that will make the casual target group satifised than community figures? Who do you think has the most amount of interactions with casual players? David Kim who sits behind closed door at the Blizzard HQ or people like Nathanias whom as a caster and a streamer frequently talks to casual players? Do you see any huge surveys or statistical analysis that David Kim and his colleguages are basing their design decisions off?
In fact, the opposite is a ton more likely as David Kim is being critizied for making the game too frustrating for casuals. I can't think of a single example in modern times where Blizzard has demonstrated a much higher level of understanding of what casuals want than community figures.
When an amateur suggests how to do something in which I have professional experience, it is in most cases wrong on so many levels.
The difference between amateurs and professionals is only relevant when you can point to a specific barrier that makes sure that the professionals are more qualified. In progaming that barrier exists as you simply cannot win a tournament if your not actually good at the game.
In many "IRL" jobs there is a barrier as well since you typically need to have taken an education and received good grades before you can get a job in the first place. And in order to get up in the ranks inside the company you need to have delivered consistent results. The more competition there is within the industry of similar types of companies, the more likely it is that you can only deliever results if you are actually competent.
The issue with Bizzard here is that there is no such "barrier". Sc2 selling numbers aren't strongly related to how good David Kim is at his job. If he makes a design errors and that is correlated with lower viewer numbers/playing activity, he can surely convince Mike Morhaimme that the lower numbers are due to other factors (e.g. no F2P/RTS genre too hard), and Mike Morhaimme has no way of telling whether David Kim is actually a mediocre game designer or the best in the business.
Imagine on the other hand, you had 10 other gaming companies all making Starcraft-clones and player-activivity/streaming numbers were strongly related to how well the game were designed. If that was the case, it would be easy to measure whether David Kim does his job well or not, and the company that ends up with the best Starcraft-clone is therefore likely to have brilliant gamedevelopers too.
If you are job at your job, you would likely be fired (or demoted), and thus there would be an "automatic system" in place to make sure that professionals are more qualified than amateurs. However, there isn't this "system" in place within Blizzard's Starcraft team due to the difficulty of measuring game-designers and the lack of competion.
TLDR: It doesn't make sense to think of David Kim in terms of him being a professional or having special extra knowledge. Instead, his skill level should be evaluated based on his decisions and whether he demonstrates a high level of design understanding whenever he expresses his views.
Note: This doesn't imply that I think Blizzard is likely to hire idiots, but rather that they aren't neccasarily hiring the top 0.01% candidates, but instead end up with top 25%, which is relatively mediocore.
|
@[F_]aths,
Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry and DotA was designed by random modders. Game design is an art, not a science. I think your argument here is very dangerous, telling us that professionals always know better and that any involvement with outside critics is essentially futile. I'm asked to suspend my noticing of all the mistakes by Blizzard and accept they operate on a level beyond me. You've even rationalized that we should recognize their failures as proof of their success.
|
Starcraft Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry, yet it's a better game than SCII.
What's more interesting is that Starcraft1 and BW comined was developed over 2-3 years (?) I wonder how many dedicated members they had working on multiplayer design in this proces.
It simply doesn't make any type of sense that a dedicated multiplayer whom only has to develop 3-4 new units every other year doesn't have time to respond to a couple of community suggestions as well.
Or cannot write more detailed pieces on various design subjects in order to show the community that they know what they are doing and also allow the community to get a better understanding of where Blizzard wants to take Starcraft. The latter will help the community at making proposals that fits Blizzard design philosophy better as well.
|
On June 15 2015 22:03 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Starcraft Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry, yet it's a better game than SCII. What's more interesting is that Starcraft and Starcraft BW was developed over 2-3 years (?) I wonder how many dedicated members they had working on multiplayer design in this proces. It simply doesn't make any type of sense that a dedicated multiplayer whom only has to develop 3-4 new units every other year doesn't have time to respond to a couple of community suggestions as well. Or at least cannot write more detailed pieces on various design subjects in order to show the community that they know what they are doing and also allow the community to get a better understanding of where Blizzard wants to take Starcraft. The latter will help the community at making proposals that fits Blizzard design philosophy better as well.
This is a downside to the modern industry. In my opinion the best way is as follows: you create a smaller game, kept in perpetual beta, where the developers can actually afford to experiment, respond to community concerns and implement functionality without having to sit through a gazillion meetings where they have to explain how it's worth the cost of utilizing the Q&A and Art team and how it will confuse casuals. If the game is successful they can create an AAA remake to market to a mass audience.
CS:GO and DOTA2 are essentially like this.
A company like ATVI could easily fund half a dozen such projects at any time. And arguably World of Warcraft and Hearthstone were already similar to this: only after they were successful did production quality scale up. I've heard quotes from Mike Morhaine saying the future of Blizzard was in smaller projects, but I'm not sure in what context he said that.
|
On June 15 2015 22:18 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 22:03 Hider wrote:Starcraft Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry, yet it's a better game than SCII. What's more interesting is that Starcraft and Starcraft BW was developed over 2-3 years (?) I wonder how many dedicated members they had working on multiplayer design in this proces. It simply doesn't make any type of sense that a dedicated multiplayer whom only has to develop 3-4 new units every other year doesn't have time to respond to a couple of community suggestions as well. Or at least cannot write more detailed pieces on various design subjects in order to show the community that they know what they are doing and also allow the community to get a better understanding of where Blizzard wants to take Starcraft. The latter will help the community at making proposals that fits Blizzard design philosophy better as well. This is a downside to the modern industry. In my opinion the best way is as follows: you create a smaller game, kept in perpetual beta, where the developers can actually afford to experiment, respond to community concerns and implement functionality without having to sit through a gazillion meetings where they have to explain how it's worth the cost of utilizing the Q&A and Art team and how it will confuse casuals. If the game is successful they can create an AAA remake to market to a mass audience. CS:GO and DOTA2 are essentially like this. A company like ATVI could easily fund half a dozen such projects at any time. And arguably World of Warcraft and Hearthstone were already similar to this: only after they were successful did production quality scale up. I've heard quotes from Mike Morhaine saying the future of Blizzard was in smaller projects, but I'm not sure in what context he said that.
Not sure it has to be an issue of modern industry. Seems more like an issue with the organizational structure that can be adressed in various ways.
|
To be honest I'm not even sure why companies aren't doing this already. They have to know that RTS games still have the potential to be successful as long as someone finds a new winning formula and especially Blizzard has so much expertise in developing RTS games that they would be foolish not to invest into a new RTS after Legacy of the Void is done (&and it's kinda done already).
This is slightly wishful thinking, I know, but with Blizzard's brand value surely they should be able to make money off developing RTS games? Even if it's a smaller project without millions invested in art assets, cinematics and online platforms? They could honestly even just use the SC2 engine again and people wouldn't care that much probably.
|
why are they changing so drastically when hardly anyone good is playing the ladder? doesn't seem like they're basing these changes off much. "disruptors aren't good in PvP' can easily see this being wrong if the top players started giving LotV a real go, because the unit really benefits from good control.
need beta ladder really..
|
These are some pretty big changes. The ghost drone ability looks intriguing honestly. I do like the idea of Ultra counters Bio but Casters can swing it back in their favor. That makes sense to me.
But how does the ability work? Does the drone move? Is it attached to the ultra? Like is it just floating above the ultra directly following it around? It might be pretty cool because the zerg players will try to shoot it down, which might make it have synergy with PDD. Or maybe Ultras can just return to their healer-queens to remove the drones. If anything, maybe the effect of -3 armor is too slight. If you're bringin' in the casters I feel like it should be like -5 or -6 armor. I dunno.
I don't really understand the individual overlord transport thing. Does that mean Overlords are getting a new morph? Because I really like morphs and I would totally like another Overlord Morph. That would be my bag baby.
|
On June 15 2015 20:09 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 15:59 BronzeKnee wrote:
In all seriousness though, it isn't my fault Blizzard put so many air units into the game, as I agree, they are in general bad for the game. But they did, and rendering so many useless in a matchup is just bad game design. And it isn't theoretical, many units go unused in TvP because of Vikings. It's not your fault at all. It's on Blizzard, as if everything else they screwed up in this game. If they want all those air units to be useful in conjunction with one another, they need to find a way to give them dynamic interplay, and some sort of relationship to the terrain they glide past. The Liberator is the unit that comes closest to looking like an air unit you want to design compositions around... aand it's Terran. Lol. Seriously, Protoss is just fucked. There's nothing concrete or coherent about the race, just a bunch of half baked ideas duct taped together by FFs, RoboBAOE, and the MSC. Now that the Liberator is a thing, I'd be all for anti-Protoss air duties being split between those two units, so long as those units are made interesting enough to deserve countering.
The original sin is still putting the goliath's anti-air attack on an air unit. It removed the entire dynamic of a more cost efficient unit having to navigate terrain versus a bunch of less cost efficient units being able to fly around. But no, Blizzard just loves hard counters.
This ghost thing seems like a bandaid to the ultralisk oopsie.
|
Having 20 post forwarded to the developers is greater an interruption that you maybe think. You don't need only time to actually write a reply, you have to think about it. In most cases you can only explain why the suggestion will not be implemented. This is frustrating for both the developer and the questioner.
But let's say Blizzard's SC2 team would reply to 20 community suggestions each week. There would still be the complaint that Blizzard is not listening enough, and/or that they have no clue (because they deny such brilliant suggestions.)
So earlier today I also talked to my father who work at software development for a Human Ressource system. His job is comparable to the "design"-job at Blizzard since he tells the programmers what they should do to make the program great.
Anyway, he has daily contact with customers and if 2-3 of them says XX is a problem, then they are very likely to work on it within the nearby future. The customers are clearly aware that their feedback is taking serious and is being worked on.
This seems to be the exact opposite approach of what Blizzard is doing. Again, noone is suggesting that the exact solutions of community members should be implemented, but its ridiclous that we still have Forcefields, Colossus and lack of positional play 5 years into the development of Sc2.
|
On June 15 2015 22:01 Grumbels wrote:
@[F_]aths,
Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry and DotA was designed by random modders. Game design is an art, not a science. I think your argument here is very dangerous, telling us that professionals always know better and that any involvement with outside critics is essentially futile. I'm asked to suspend my noticing of all the mistakes by Blizzard and accept they operate on a level beyond me. You've even rationalized that we should recognize their failures as proof of their success.
You imply that Broodwar is an very well done game. I agree. I also consider Dota a good game, I played some of the Dota Allstars map in WCIII.
Broodwar had the luxury to be based on SC1, an already good game but with some holes in the multiplayer. Blizzard allowed themselves to fail there in order to produce BW.
Dota and its derivatives is one of many, many custom maps. Almost any custom map was a failure, only some are remembered. What I am trying to say is that so far no-one solved the formula to make a successful game. You have to take risks and be willing to iterate. You need to have the time to test.
I would consider Blizzard's of failures quite long. And they always need so much time. Does it really take over 5 years to fix the ingame clock? COME ON GUYS. But I still assume that the SC2 development team does what it can. I think that they read most of the high-level feed-back and are actually influenced by it. Even if they don't implement it 1:1 or at all.
However, according to my experience, it is often wise not not follow the user's suggestion. Any user has his job in mind. The developer has to look at the big picture, how to deliver for the most users while having limited resources. Anyone who wants their professional opinion to be trusted should have the same trust for the opinions of professionals in a different field as well.
|
On June 16 2015 02:53 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 20:09 pure.Wasted wrote:On June 15 2015 15:59 BronzeKnee wrote:
In all seriousness though, it isn't my fault Blizzard put so many air units into the game, as I agree, they are in general bad for the game. But they did, and rendering so many useless in a matchup is just bad game design. And it isn't theoretical, many units go unused in TvP because of Vikings. It's not your fault at all. It's on Blizzard, as if everything else they screwed up in this game. If they want all those air units to be useful in conjunction with one another, they need to find a way to give them dynamic interplay, and some sort of relationship to the terrain they glide past. The Liberator is the unit that comes closest to looking like an air unit you want to design compositions around... aand it's Terran. Lol. Seriously, Protoss is just fucked. There's nothing concrete or coherent about the race, just a bunch of half baked ideas duct taped together by FFs, RoboBAOE, and the MSC. Now that the Liberator is a thing, I'd be all for anti-Protoss air duties being split between those two units, so long as those units are made interesting enough to deserve countering. The original sin is still putting the goliath's anti-air attack on an air unit. It removed the entire dynamic of a more cost efficient unit having to navigate terrain versus a bunch of less cost efficient units being able to fly around. But no, Blizzard just loves hard counters. This ghost thing seems like a bandaid to the ultralisk oopsie.
Goliath? More efficient unit? You serious? What dynamic are you taling about?
The many introductions of core units in SC2 (Marauders, Roaches, Immortals, VoidRays, Muta regeneration) would just trash Goliaths. Don't you notice? Basic ground armies are far more powerful than their BW counterparts, even marines got huge buff. In such a place, the BW goliath would be in a very bad position because countering them on ground would be easy. Goliaths would be in a very bad place. They took Goliath's stats and ported them to a Viking, that is able to transform
There is basically one reason on why Vikings feel so bad as AA, and it's their Anti-Colossus design paired with the bad move-shot micro posibilities of air units in SC2. But on raw stats, a well designed Viking will possibly be stronger than Goliaths for sure, and far easier to mass (Reactors).
Problem is that ground mode is 100% clunky, so it is shit on ground. But air mode is only 50% clunky.
What it really fueled Mech in BW is spider mines, not Goliaths. With a strong core unit like Vultures with their spider mines protecting tanks, any Mech play would feel far more powerful. Replacing Vultures was in fact a fail. They could have just balanced spider mines (damage was pretty broken and in SC2 is very easy to mass basic units for Terran) and go.
|
Goliath? More efficient unit? You serious?
He doesn't mean compared to the Viking, but compared to the air unit it is fighting against. (e.g. Goliaths are cost effective vs Carriers/Mutas, but has mobility disadvantage).
And in my opinion, it makes more sense for the anti-armored AA unit to be on the ground and the anti-light AA to be in the air. Vikings (with proper moving shot) can be quite fun vs Mutas and Phoenix, but is a boring shiftclick focus fire unit vs Carriers/BCs and also prevent too much "interesting" stuff such as Overlord drops and Warp Prism.
|
On June 16 2015 04:58 Hider wrote:He doesn't mean compared to the Viking, but compared to the air unit it is fighting against. (e.g. Goliaths are cost effective vs Carriers/Mutas, but has mobility disadvantage). And in my opinion, it makes more sense for the anti-armored AA unit to be on the ground and the anti-light AA to be in the air. Vikings (with proper moving shot) can be quite fun vs Mutas and Phoenix, but is a boring shiftclick focus fire unit vs Carriers/BCs and also prevent too much "interesting" stuff such as Overlord drops and Warp Prism.
IMAO their range/speed is a very unpolished design. Because they in fact ported Goliath values to SC2, very close in terms of speed and upgraded range (since they moved the unit to Starport). You can't give an air unit the stats of a ground one so easily, because it's a big design gap.
Current Adept suffers from the same problem. They changed a key aspect of the unit (weapon efficiency) by removing the upgrade even without experimenting much with it, and they haven't changed the weapon values at all, even if one of the problems is low-damage efficiency. Instead of doing the obvious modification according to a change that modified the initial design of the unit, they went with another change completely different.
(Adept 1.0) :With relatively low HP (60/80) and big damage efficiency and limited speed (2.5) you make an infantry unit that is strong vs infantry because of damage supperiority but sensitive to splash damage sources (Hellion/Hellbat/Tank/Baneling) which is something relatively uncommon for Protoss units.
Adept 2.0 With almost the highest HP per supply in the game (90/140) and low damage efficiency you make an infantry unit that works against infantry and the units it is designed to counter, but at the same time you make them very resistant to splash damage.
That clearly shows (in my opinion) how lacking is the reasoning behind those changes. For example, instead of generic resistance you give Adepts burst damage resistance (projectile disipation, special shield, shield armor... whatever) you can keep it strong vs Bio/ling/Hydra/ but weak to splash. Is that so hard to think of something like this? (and this is something very simple to induce)
|
On June 16 2015 03:12 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 22:01 Grumbels wrote:
@[F_]aths,
Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry and DotA was designed by random modders. Game design is an art, not a science. I think your argument here is very dangerous, telling us that professionals always know better and that any involvement with outside critics is essentially futile. I'm asked to suspend my noticing of all the mistakes by Blizzard and accept they operate on a level beyond me. You've even rationalized that we should recognize their failures as proof of their success. You imply that Broodwar is an very well done game. I agree. I also consider Dota a good game, I played some of the Dota Allstars map in WCIII. Broodwar had the luxury to be based on SC1, an already good game but with some holes in the multiplayer. Blizzard allowed themselves to fail there in order to produce BW. Dota and its derivatives is one of many, many custom maps. Almost any custom map was a failure, only some are remembered. What I am trying to say is that so far no-one solved the formula to make a successful game. You have to take risks and be willing to iterate. You need to have the time to test. I would consider Blizzard's of failures quite long. And they always need so much time. Does it really take over 5 years to fix the ingame clock? COME ON GUYS. But I still assume that the SC2 development team does what it can. I think that they read most of the high-level feed-back and are actually influenced by it. Even if they don't implement it 1:1 or at all. However, according to my experience, it is often wise not not follow the user's suggestion. Any user has his job in mind. The developer has to look at the big picture, how to deliver for the most users while having limited resources. Anyone who wants their professional opinion to be trusted should have the same trust for the opinions of professionals in a different field as well.
I don't understand you at all.
Actually that's a lie, I don't understand why people like you say the things you say. It doesn't make you smarter, or more impact full in the community, or more helpful, or more of anything really, it just makes you a contrarian for the sake of being one. Which is fine I guess so long as you realise that in this situation you're more the creationist then the scientist.
In any event, arguing that blizzard should keep doing what they're doing (which is what you are doing make no mistake) seems kind of dumb when we are yet again seeing this game get poured down the sink.
|
After playing my first 10-12 games of LOTV, I cannot possibly express how I would love to play with the DH mod instead of the current economy system. The current economy system requires you to maynard your workers at staggered intervals from old bases to new ones in order to MAINTAIN your current level of income. The DH mod rewards you for SPREADING out your workers on even more bases in order to INCREASE your level of income.
As a Zerg player, this is the most appealing thing I have ever seen. So appealing it makes me want to campaign for it! To be able to do true swarm styles...
That's about the one thing I'd like. The only other thing I'm not too satisfied with is that every single Terran unit has an active ability.
|
On June 16 2015 07:50 Qwyn wrote:
After playing my first 10-12 games of LOTV, I cannot possibly express how I would love to play with the DH mod instead of the current economy system. The current economy system requires you to maynard your workers at staggered intervals from old bases to new ones in order to MAINTAIN your current level of income. The DH mod rewards you for SPREADING out your workers on even more bases in order to INCREASE your level of income.
As a Zerg player, this is the most appealing thing I have ever seen. So appealing it makes me want to campaign for it! To be able to do true swarm styles...
That's about the one thing I'd like. The only other thing I'm not too satisfied with is that every single Terran unit has an active ability.
I am pretty positive that you would change your opinion about DH mod after 20 games. It just isn't optimal with the current units and production system of the game.
|
On June 16 2015 08:38 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 07:50 Qwyn wrote:
After playing my first 10-12 games of LOTV, I cannot possibly express how I would love to play with the DH mod instead of the current economy system. The current economy system requires you to maynard your workers at staggered intervals from old bases to new ones in order to MAINTAIN your current level of income. The DH mod rewards you for SPREADING out your workers on even more bases in order to INCREASE your level of income.
As a Zerg player, this is the most appealing thing I have ever seen. So appealing it makes me want to campaign for it! To be able to do true swarm styles...
That's about the one thing I'd like. The only other thing I'm not too satisfied with is that every single Terran unit has an active ability. I am pretty positive that you would change your opinion about DH mod after 20 games. It just isn't optimal with the current units and production system of the game.
Curious. Is this because army production is streamlined sooner? What if Blizz combined DH with half-patch--would that make a better game?
|
On June 16 2015 05:26 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 03:12 [F_]aths wrote:On June 15 2015 22:01 Grumbels wrote:
@[F_]aths,
Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry and DotA was designed by random modders. Game design is an art, not a science. I think your argument here is very dangerous, telling us that professionals always know better and that any involvement with outside critics is essentially futile. I'm asked to suspend my noticing of all the mistakes by Blizzard and accept they operate on a level beyond me. You've even rationalized that we should recognize their failures as proof of their success. You imply that Broodwar is an very well done game. I agree. I also consider Dota a good game, I played some of the Dota Allstars map in WCIII. Broodwar had the luxury to be based on SC1, an already good game but with some holes in the multiplayer. Blizzard allowed themselves to fail there in order to produce BW. Dota and its derivatives is one of many, many custom maps. Almost any custom map was a failure, only some are remembered. What I am trying to say is that so far no-one solved the formula to make a successful game. You have to take risks and be willing to iterate. You need to have the time to test. I would consider Blizzard's of failures quite long. And they always need so much time. Does it really take over 5 years to fix the ingame clock? COME ON GUYS. But I still assume that the SC2 development team does what it can. I think that they read most of the high-level feed-back and are actually influenced by it. Even if they don't implement it 1:1 or at all. However, according to my experience, it is often wise not not follow the user's suggestion. Any user has his job in mind. The developer has to look at the big picture, how to deliver for the most users while having limited resources. Anyone who wants their professional opinion to be trusted should have the same trust for the opinions of professionals in a different field as well. I don't understand you at all. Actually that's a lie, I don't understand why people like you say the things you say. It doesn't make you smarter, or more impact full in the community, or more helpful, or more of anything really, it just makes you a contrarian for the sake of being one. Which is fine I guess so long as you realise that in this situation you're more the creationist then the scientist. In any event, arguing that blizzard should keep doing what they're doing (which is what you are doing make no mistake) seems kind of dumb when we are yet again seeing this game get poured down the sink.
See, this is really what's standing in the way of constructivity in the community. The idea that "we are the scientists"--we are the smart professionals who have figured all this stuff out, while Blizzard/anyone who disagrees with the current community zeitgeist is the "creationists" who desperately try to resist our overwhelming knowledge.
And you know what? It's total bullshit. I've been following this game since its announcement all the way through alpha and now three betas, and the simple fact is that for most of that time the community has not known what the kark is going on. Not only that, but Blizzard has constantly changed the game massively in response to community feedback throughout the life of this game, starting from the very, very early alpha. From the initial "aesthetics complaints" that made the game look the way it does now, to the very existence of macro mechanics, to map sizes, to the fact that mech is actually viable now in lots of matchups, through the current LotV emphasis on micro, Blizzard has been insistently trying to please the community and has generally responded to the predominant ideas floating through the community's collective head. And you know what? A large percentage of the things that this community complains about actually originate in community feedback. The reason why BL/Infestor happened is because everyone in the community was convinced the Infestor was a garbage unit during Beta and so got Fungal Growth buffed significantly and repeatedly--and when Blizzard tried to introduce a projectile on it during WoL beta, the community essentially threw a fit until it was changed back. Passive mech play was a direct result of the constant, overwhelming pushing of mech by the community for years upon years. These are only a few examples of many.
LotV itself is practically a direct response to community feedback. More micro, more multitasking, more expansions...these are all directly out of the community's collective head. LotV at this point is not perfect, and there's certainly a need for constructive criticism--but random declarations of doom are not constructive criticism.
Don't get me wrong; the community has improved the game significantly. And there are a lot of really smart fellows in the community, including the folks on the TL strategy team. But the SC2 community as a whole simply is not, and never has been, some genius-level collection of RTS scientists with the magical key to making the game perfect trying to patiently explain it to a bunch of stupid creationist game designers.
More than this, if the community and Blizzard going to have any kind of positive and constructive interactions that actually lead to real improvements to the game, it has to be based on some amount of mutual respect. You can't have a constructive conversation with people whom consider to be moral and intellectual imbeciles--nor with people who consider you such. For this to happen, the SC2 community needs to collectively get over itself.
|
On June 16 2015 12:17 Captain Peabody wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On June 16 2015 05:26 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 03:12 [F_]aths wrote:On June 15 2015 22:01 Grumbels wrote:
@[F_]aths,
Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry and DotA was designed by random modders. Game design is an art, not a science. I think your argument here is very dangerous, telling us that professionals always know better and that any involvement with outside critics is essentially futile. I'm asked to suspend my noticing of all the mistakes by Blizzard and accept they operate on a level beyond me. You've even rationalized that we should recognize their failures as proof of their success. You imply that Broodwar is an very well done game. I agree. I also consider Dota a good game, I played some of the Dota Allstars map in WCIII. Broodwar had the luxury to be based on SC1, an already good game but with some holes in the multiplayer. Blizzard allowed themselves to fail there in order to produce BW. Dota and its derivatives is one of many, many custom maps. Almost any custom map was a failure, only some are remembered. What I am trying to say is that so far no-one solved the formula to make a successful game. You have to take risks and be willing to iterate. You need to have the time to test. I would consider Blizzard's of failures quite long. And they always need so much time. Does it really take over 5 years to fix the ingame clock? COME ON GUYS. But I still assume that the SC2 development team does what it can. I think that they read most of the high-level feed-back and are actually influenced by it. Even if they don't implement it 1:1 or at all. However, according to my experience, it is often wise not not follow the user's suggestion. Any user has his job in mind. The developer has to look at the big picture, how to deliver for the most users while having limited resources. Anyone who wants their professional opinion to be trusted should have the same trust for the opinions of professionals in a different field as well. I don't understand you at all. Actually that's a lie, I don't understand why people like you say the things you say. It doesn't make you smarter, or more impact full in the community, or more helpful, or more of anything really, it just makes you a contrarian for the sake of being one. Which is fine I guess so long as you realise that in this situation you're more the creationist then the scientist. In any event, arguing that blizzard should keep doing what they're doing (which is what you are doing make no mistake) seems kind of dumb when we are yet again seeing this game get poured down the sink. See, this is really what's standing in the way of constructivity in the community. The idea that "we are the scientists"--we are the smart professionals who have figured all this stuff out, while Blizzard/anyone who disagrees with the current community zeitgeist is the "creationists" who desperately try to resist our overwhelming knowledge. And you know what? It's total bullshit. I've been following this game since its announcement all the way through alpha and now three betas, and the simple fact is that for most of that time the community has not known what the kark is going on. Not only that, but Blizzard has constantly changed the game massively in response to community feedback throughout the life of this game, starting from the very, very early alpha. From the initial "aesthetics complaints" that made the game look the way it does now, to the very existence of macro mechanics, to map sizes, to the fact that mech is actually viable now in lots of matchups, through the current LotV emphasis on micro, Blizzard has been insistently trying to please the community and has generally responded to the predominant ideas floating through the community's collective head. And you know what? A large percentage of the things that this community complains about actually originate in community feedback. The reason why BL/Infestor happened is because everyone in the community was convinced the Infestor was a garbage unit during Beta and so got Fungal Growth buffed significantly and repeatedly--and when Blizzard tried to introduce a projectile on it during WoL beta, the community essentially threw a fit until it was changed back. Passive mech play was a direct result of the constant, overwhelming pushing of mech by the community for years upon years. These are only a few examples of many. LotV itself is practically a direct response to community feedback. More micro, more multitasking, more expansions...these are all directly out of the community's collective head. LotV at this point is not perfect, and there's certainly a need for constructive criticism--but random declarations of doom are not constructive criticism. Don't get me wrong; the community has improved the game significantly. And there are a lot of really smart fellows in the community, including the folks on the TL strategy team. But the SC2 community as a whole simply is not, and never has been, some genius-level collection of RTS scientists with the magical key to making the game perfect trying to patiently explain it to a bunch of stupid creationist game designers. More than this, if the community and Blizzard going to have any kind of positive and constructive interactions that actually lead to real improvements to the game, it has to be based on some amount of mutual respect. You can't have a constructive conversation with people whom consider to be moral and intellectual imbeciles--nor with people who consider you such. For this to happen, the SC2 community needs to collectively get over itself.
Buffing mech and making unpopular units more popular are essentially what blizzard did most of the time (whether it was community feedback or not). Either way they were bandage fixes, and easy ones, you just change stats on units and abilities. However, there were great suggestions for overall game design concerning micro, macro, defender's advantage, highground mechanics and etc. Which weren't really addressed at all. They say they did it internally, I don't buy this shit, even if they did most likely they did it halfheartedly, otherwise they should've put in beta or PTR.
Lets look at LoL. They also do bandage fixes, buffing-nerfing some champions or items based on their popularity/unpopularity. But they also totally revamp whole game, each season. Change jungle, map, objectives. And it is not because the game sucks, but they truly believe that there is no end to perfection and small changes doesn't cut it.
Overall I think SC2 dev team are just out of clue what to do with the game, and they have problem grasping what community really wants.
|
On June 16 2015 12:17 Captain Peabody wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 05:26 bo1b wrote:On June 16 2015 03:12 [F_]aths wrote:On June 15 2015 22:01 Grumbels wrote:
@[F_]aths,
Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry and DotA was designed by random modders. Game design is an art, not a science. I think your argument here is very dangerous, telling us that professionals always know better and that any involvement with outside critics is essentially futile. I'm asked to suspend my noticing of all the mistakes by Blizzard and accept they operate on a level beyond me. You've even rationalized that we should recognize their failures as proof of their success. You imply that Broodwar is an very well done game. I agree. I also consider Dota a good game, I played some of the Dota Allstars map in WCIII. Broodwar had the luxury to be based on SC1, an already good game but with some holes in the multiplayer. Blizzard allowed themselves to fail there in order to produce BW. Dota and its derivatives is one of many, many custom maps. Almost any custom map was a failure, only some are remembered. What I am trying to say is that so far no-one solved the formula to make a successful game. You have to take risks and be willing to iterate. You need to have the time to test. I would consider Blizzard's of failures quite long. And they always need so much time. Does it really take over 5 years to fix the ingame clock? COME ON GUYS. But I still assume that the SC2 development team does what it can. I think that they read most of the high-level feed-back and are actually influenced by it. Even if they don't implement it 1:1 or at all. However, according to my experience, it is often wise not not follow the user's suggestion. Any user has his job in mind. The developer has to look at the big picture, how to deliver for the most users while having limited resources. Anyone who wants their professional opinion to be trusted should have the same trust for the opinions of professionals in a different field as well. I don't understand you at all. Actually that's a lie, I don't understand why people like you say the things you say. It doesn't make you smarter, or more impact full in the community, or more helpful, or more of anything really, it just makes you a contrarian for the sake of being one. Which is fine I guess so long as you realise that in this situation you're more the creationist then the scientist. In any event, arguing that blizzard should keep doing what they're doing (which is what you are doing make no mistake) seems kind of dumb when we are yet again seeing this game get poured down the sink. See, this is really what's standing in the way of constructivity in the community. The idea that "we are the scientists"--we are the smart professionals who have figured all this stuff out, while Blizzard/anyone who disagrees with the current community zeitgeist is the "creationists" who desperately try to resist our overwhelming knowledge. And you know what? It's total bullshit. I've been following this game since its announcement all the way through alpha and now three betas, and the simple fact is that for most of that time the community has not known what the kark is going on. Not only that, but Blizzard has constantly changed the game massively in response to community feedback throughout the life of this game, starting from the very, very early alpha. From the initial "aesthetics complaints" that made the game look the way it does now, to the very existence of macro mechanics, to map sizes, to the fact that mech is actually viable now in lots of matchups, through the current LotV emphasis on micro, Blizzard has been insistently trying to please the community and has generally responded to the predominant ideas floating through the community's collective head. And you know what? A large percentage of the things that this community complains about actually originate in community feedback. The reason why BL/Infestor happened is because everyone in the community was convinced the Infestor was a garbage unit during Beta and so got Fungal Growth buffed significantly and repeatedly--and when Blizzard tried to introduce a projectile on it during WoL beta, the community essentially threw a fit until it was changed back. Passive mech play was a direct result of the constant, overwhelming pushing of mech by the community for years upon years. These are only a few examples of many. LotV itself is practically a direct response to community feedback. More micro, more multitasking, more expansions...these are all directly out of the community's collective head. LotV at this point is not perfect, and there's certainly a need for constructive criticism--but random declarations of doom are not constructive criticism. Don't get me wrong; the community has improved the game significantly. And there are a lot of really smart fellows in the community, including the folks on the TL strategy team. But the SC2 community as a whole simply is not, and never has been, some genius-level collection of RTS scientists with the magical key to making the game perfect trying to patiently explain it to a bunch of stupid creationist game designers. More than this, if the community and Blizzard going to have any kind of positive and constructive interactions that actually lead to real improvements to the game, it has to be based on some amount of mutual respect. You can't have a constructive conversation with people whom consider to be moral and intellectual imbeciles--nor with people who consider you such. For this to happen, the SC2 community needs to collectively get over itself.
I've never understood why groups that play a specific video game have been grouped together since ~ 2009 or so, nor have I understood why since that time there has always been, without fail, a group of pretentious people who put themselves above the "community" and speak out as a voice of reason (Always to denigrate the community that they associate themselves with, while simultaneously siding with the game designer of course).
In any event, pointing out problems that have happened before and the results they lead to as being the "communities" fault when without fail they were the result of a band aid fix, or the result of stupid unit design. Like in what way is fungal growth, or the immortal in general, or warp gates in there current state an example of "good game design"?
What even is good game design? Can anyone answer that? Because it seems like an alarming large percentage of people disagree with that ever so malleable concept.
In any event, I would suggest that speaking to people who are concerned over the direction of the game that they have likely spent years playing, or they're concerned over the careers of the people they have spent years watching, or they're concerned over having a sizable number of people left in this "community" when all is said and done, with such a high handed, self righteous approach is unlikely the way to get people to see things your way. Perhaps it is you that needs to get over yourself.
|
On June 15 2015 20:10 [F_]aths wrote:
When an amateur suggests how to do something in which I have professional experience, it is in most cases wrong on so many levels. Even though it appears to be reasonable to other amateurs. They just don't know all the implications. That does not mean I consider myself brilliant or a mastermind. There is still a very, very large gap in the level of understanding an issue.
On June 16 2015 12:43 bo1b wrote:
and the simple fact is that for most of that time the community has not known what the kark is going on.
And I am the definition of an amateur here, I don't get paid to do this. Let's see how my crazy ideas posted back in the HOTS Beta panned out... if I knew what the kark I was doing... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2-hots/378373-how-to-make-mech-and-stargate-play-viable
October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "Furthermore, when dropped from Medivacs Hellbats easily wipe out a mineral line in a few shots with it's wide arc of fire. Think pre-nerf Blue Flame Hellions!"
July 11, 2013 - Patch 2.0.9: Hellbat attack damage decreased from 18 + 12 vs. light to 18.
October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "The solution is reduce the cooldown of the Siege Tank from 3.00 to 2.25-2.50"
November 11th, 2013 - Patch 2.0.12: Siege Mode attack period decreased from 3.0 to 2.8.
October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "First, remove hardened shields"
March 31 2015 - Patch 2.5.0 - Removed Hardened Shield Ability.
Now I am not anything special, large parts of the community wanted these changes for long before I suggested them. It's just really sad it took Blizzard so long to catch on, and sad they had to try all their terrible ideas first.
Blizzard has shown a clear inability to grasp and predict what will happen when they make changes. The Hellbat is by far my favorite example. They knew what happened with BFH, but they ignorantly repeated that, despite myself and many other amateurs in the community who saw that coming 10 miles away warning them. I specifically warned them 9 months before the patch came out nerfing the Hellbat that it would be BFH all over again.
And before that, they had spent all this time and money and effort on the Warhound, a factory Marauder that was a boring A-move unit. Terribly designed. It never should have escaped the designers head, but it made it to paper and then into the game. Blizzard spent a lot of money developing that trash idea.
That isn't good work. That isn't what we should expect. They are not acting professional. And sadly, there are so many other examples.
EDIT: Actually my favorite was when Blizzard talked about the Swarm Host was going to be a mid-game unit that allowed Zerg to be aggressive and finish people off when they got ahead... and we know how that turned out.
|
I agree, btw you meant to write in Captain Peabody instead of bo1b in the quote
|
On June 16 2015 08:38 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 07:50 Qwyn wrote:
After playing my first 10-12 games of LOTV, I cannot possibly express how I would love to play with the DH mod instead of the current economy system. The current economy system requires you to maynard your workers at staggered intervals from old bases to new ones in order to MAINTAIN your current level of income. The DH mod rewards you for SPREADING out your workers on even more bases in order to INCREASE your level of income.
As a Zerg player, this is the most appealing thing I have ever seen. So appealing it makes me want to campaign for it! To be able to do true swarm styles...
That's about the one thing I'd like. The only other thing I'm not too satisfied with is that every single Terran unit has an active ability. I am pretty positive that you would change your opinion about DH mod after 20 games. It just isn't optimal with the current units and production system of the game.
I've played quite a few games of DH and my only thought about it is that the benefit of splitting workers among more bases isn't drastic enough!
|
And I am the definition of an amateur here, I don't get paid to do this. Let's see how my crazy ideas posted back in the HOTS
Well, let's see about that. Some quotes from the post you linked to:
Unfortunately the Tempest doesn't do it's job, and the Vortex remains the only effective method for stopping a late game Zerg army.
But why use the Carrier to counter Broodlords and not the Tempest? First, the Tempest simply doesn't have the DPS necessary to deal effectively with Broodlords, even with it's +30 damage upgrade
And that is why putting the Medic back into the game (with a cost around 25/50) is the solution. The Terran early game depends heavily on the raw power of Bio units to give power to their attacks, or to help them stay alive. If we added the Medic into the mix, we could slightly reduce the durability of unupgraded Marines in the early game because they could be healed
Thus, we can't simply buff the Siege Tank without risking early Tank/Marine or Tank/Marine/Banshee pushes becoming too powerful. The only option then, is to nerf the Marine.
Thus, a Bio player could easily incorporate Hellbats into their builds and we have the same problem we ran into with Marines being combined with Mech units. And the fact that Hellbats can be healed due to their Biological status just exacerbates the problem, and I've seen a lot of players simply adding Hellbats into Terran Bio, which leaves Protoss with even fewer options to deal with MMMGV + Hellbat because Zealots aren't nearly as effective even when the only upgrade the Hellbats have is Blue Flame.
Tbh, your post doesn't really support your idea that Blizzard should listen more to the community given how you ended up being wrong with alot of your assesments.
But anyway, it's ofc always easy to comment in hindsight, and balance is indeed very hard to make predictions on. While I also made a decent amont of wrong balance-predictions (e.g. I didn't think Vikings could reliably counter Vipers), I don't remember ever being wrong about a gameplay-prediction. For instance, I had no problem predicting that Ravens and Swarm Hosts would lead to mass turtle back in HOTS beta (and yes it was also fairly easy to see that mech still wasn't viable TvP).
|
On June 16 2015 12:17 Captain Peabody wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 05:26 bo1b wrote:On June 16 2015 03:12 [F_]aths wrote:On June 15 2015 22:01 Grumbels wrote:
@[F_]aths,
Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry and DotA was designed by random modders. Game design is an art, not a science. I think your argument here is very dangerous, telling us that professionals always know better and that any involvement with outside critics is essentially futile. I'm asked to suspend my noticing of all the mistakes by Blizzard and accept they operate on a level beyond me. You've even rationalized that we should recognize their failures as proof of their success. You imply that Broodwar is an very well done game. I agree. I also consider Dota a good game, I played some of the Dota Allstars map in WCIII. Broodwar had the luxury to be based on SC1, an already good game but with some holes in the multiplayer. Blizzard allowed themselves to fail there in order to produce BW. Dota and its derivatives is one of many, many custom maps. Almost any custom map was a failure, only some are remembered. What I am trying to say is that so far no-one solved the formula to make a successful game. You have to take risks and be willing to iterate. You need to have the time to test. I would consider Blizzard's of failures quite long. And they always need so much time. Does it really take over 5 years to fix the ingame clock? COME ON GUYS. But I still assume that the SC2 development team does what it can. I think that they read most of the high-level feed-back and are actually influenced by it. Even if they don't implement it 1:1 or at all. However, according to my experience, it is often wise not not follow the user's suggestion. Any user has his job in mind. The developer has to look at the big picture, how to deliver for the most users while having limited resources. Anyone who wants their professional opinion to be trusted should have the same trust for the opinions of professionals in a different field as well. I don't understand you at all. Actually that's a lie, I don't understand why people like you say the things you say. It doesn't make you smarter, or more impact full in the community, or more helpful, or more of anything really, it just makes you a contrarian for the sake of being one. Which is fine I guess so long as you realise that in this situation you're more the creationist then the scientist. In any event, arguing that blizzard should keep doing what they're doing (which is what you are doing make no mistake) seems kind of dumb when we are yet again seeing this game get poured down the sink. See, this is really what's standing in the way of constructivity in the community. The idea that "we are the scientists"--we are the smart professionals who have figured all this stuff out, while Blizzard/anyone who disagrees with the current community zeitgeist is the "creationists" who desperately try to resist our overwhelming knowledge. And you know what? It's total bullshit. I've been following this game since its announcement all the way through alpha and now three betas, and the simple fact is that for most of that time the community has not known what the kark is going on. Not only that, but Blizzard has constantly changed the game massively in response to community feedback throughout the life of this game, starting from the very, very early alpha. From the initial "aesthetics complaints" that made the game look the way it does now, to the very existence of macro mechanics, to map sizes, to the fact that mech is actually viable now in lots of matchups, through the current LotV emphasis on micro, Blizzard has been insistently trying to please the community and has generally responded to the predominant ideas floating through the community's collective head. And you know what? A large percentage of the things that this community complains about actually originate in community feedback. The reason why BL/Infestor happened is because everyone in the community was convinced the Infestor was a garbage unit during Beta and so got Fungal Growth buffed significantly and repeatedly--and when Blizzard tried to introduce a projectile on it during WoL beta, the community essentially threw a fit until it was changed back. Passive mech play was a direct result of the constant, overwhelming pushing of mech by the community for years upon years. These are only a few examples of many. LotV itself is practically a direct response to community feedback. More micro, more multitasking, more expansions...these are all directly out of the community's collective head. LotV at this point is not perfect, and there's certainly a need for constructive criticism--but random declarations of doom are not constructive criticism. Don't get me wrong; the community has improved the game significantly. And there are a lot of really smart fellows in the community, including the folks on the TL strategy team. But the SC2 community as a whole simply is not, and never has been, some genius-level collection of RTS scientists with the magical key to making the game perfect trying to patiently explain it to a bunch of stupid creationist game designers. More than this, if the community and Blizzard going to have any kind of positive and constructive interactions that actually lead to real improvements to the game, it has to be based on some amount of mutual respect. You can't have a constructive conversation with people whom consider to be moral and intellectual imbeciles--nor with people who consider you such. For this to happen, the SC2 community needs to collectively get over itself.
I literally love you...sorry to come on so strongly, but your post is awesome.
|
On June 16 2015 15:46 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 08:38 Ramiz1989 wrote:On June 16 2015 07:50 Qwyn wrote:
After playing my first 10-12 games of LOTV, I cannot possibly express how I would love to play with the DH mod instead of the current economy system. The current economy system requires you to maynard your workers at staggered intervals from old bases to new ones in order to MAINTAIN your current level of income. The DH mod rewards you for SPREADING out your workers on even more bases in order to INCREASE your level of income.
As a Zerg player, this is the most appealing thing I have ever seen. So appealing it makes me want to campaign for it! To be able to do true swarm styles...
That's about the one thing I'd like. The only other thing I'm not too satisfied with is that every single Terran unit has an active ability. I am pretty positive that you would change your opinion about DH mod after 20 games. It just isn't optimal with the current units and production system of the game. I've played quite a few games of DH and my only thought about it is that the benefit of splitting workers among more bases isn't drastic enough!
Really? Because what I've heard mostly is that cheeses and all-ins are just stronger because 8 workers per base is pretty much optimal. That is quite a big nerf to Zerg already that have shitty units and can't get their economy going in the early game fast enough before Terran or Protoss timing arrives.
I've read a lot of "live reports" of these games and they were mostly cheeses and all-ins.
Also, reading comments on this page, people don't seem that happy about it, and feel like that economy is almost the same as in HOTS except in the early game where it grows faster.
|
Italy12246 Posts
On June 16 2015 16:36 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 15:46 Qwyn wrote:On June 16 2015 08:38 Ramiz1989 wrote:On June 16 2015 07:50 Qwyn wrote:
After playing my first 10-12 games of LOTV, I cannot possibly express how I would love to play with the DH mod instead of the current economy system. The current economy system requires you to maynard your workers at staggered intervals from old bases to new ones in order to MAINTAIN your current level of income. The DH mod rewards you for SPREADING out your workers on even more bases in order to INCREASE your level of income.
As a Zerg player, this is the most appealing thing I have ever seen. So appealing it makes me want to campaign for it! To be able to do true swarm styles...
That's about the one thing I'd like. The only other thing I'm not too satisfied with is that every single Terran unit has an active ability. I am pretty positive that you would change your opinion about DH mod after 20 games. It just isn't optimal with the current units and production system of the game. I've played quite a few games of DH and my only thought about it is that the benefit of splitting workers among more bases isn't drastic enough! Really? Because what I've heard mostly is that cheeses and all-ins are just stronger because 8 workers per base is pretty much optimal.
That is incredibly false and misinformed. 8 workers are better than with Blizzard's economy, but it's still awful income compared to 16.
The DH Open games had cheese and allins because that's kind of how most DH Opens tend to go.
|
What is going on with all the "my balance thoughts are SO MUCH BETTER then your balance thoughts" posts?
Is this really what this thread should be used for?
|
On June 16 2015 05:26 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 03:12 [F_]aths wrote:On June 15 2015 22:01 Grumbels wrote:
@[F_]aths,
Brood War was designed by someone with no finished education and only over one year of experience working in the games industry and DotA was designed by random modders. Game design is an art, not a science. I think your argument here is very dangerous, telling us that professionals always know better and that any involvement with outside critics is essentially futile. I'm asked to suspend my noticing of all the mistakes by Blizzard and accept they operate on a level beyond me. You've even rationalized that we should recognize their failures as proof of their success. You imply that Broodwar is an very well done game. I agree. I also consider Dota a good game, I played some of the Dota Allstars map in WCIII. Broodwar had the luxury to be based on SC1, an already good game but with some holes in the multiplayer. Blizzard allowed themselves to fail there in order to produce BW. Dota and its derivatives is one of many, many custom maps. Almost any custom map was a failure, only some are remembered. What I am trying to say is that so far no-one solved the formula to make a successful game. You have to take risks and be willing to iterate. You need to have the time to test. I would consider Blizzard's of failures quite long. And they always need so much time. Does it really take over 5 years to fix the ingame clock? COME ON GUYS. But I still assume that the SC2 development team does what it can. I think that they read most of the high-level feed-back and are actually influenced by it. Even if they don't implement it 1:1 or at all. However, according to my experience, it is often wise not not follow the user's suggestion. Any user has his job in mind. The developer has to look at the big picture, how to deliver for the most users while having limited resources. Anyone who wants their professional opinion to be trusted should have the same trust for the opinions of professionals in a different field as well. I don't understand you at all. Actually that's a lie, I don't understand why people like you say the things you say. It doesn't make you smarter, or more impact full in the community, or more helpful, or more of anything really, it just makes you a contrarian for the sake of being one. Which is fine I guess so long as you realise that in this situation you're more the creationist then the scientist. In any event, arguing that blizzard should keep doing what they're doing (which is what you are doing make no mistake) seems kind of dumb when we are yet again seeing this game get poured down the sink.
I cannot see any actual argument in your posting.
|
On June 16 2015 16:41 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 16:36 Ramiz1989 wrote:On June 16 2015 15:46 Qwyn wrote:On June 16 2015 08:38 Ramiz1989 wrote:On June 16 2015 07:50 Qwyn wrote:
After playing my first 10-12 games of LOTV, I cannot possibly express how I would love to play with the DH mod instead of the current economy system. The current economy system requires you to maynard your workers at staggered intervals from old bases to new ones in order to MAINTAIN your current level of income. The DH mod rewards you for SPREADING out your workers on even more bases in order to INCREASE your level of income.
As a Zerg player, this is the most appealing thing I have ever seen. So appealing it makes me want to campaign for it! To be able to do true swarm styles...
That's about the one thing I'd like. The only other thing I'm not too satisfied with is that every single Terran unit has an active ability. I am pretty positive that you would change your opinion about DH mod after 20 games. It just isn't optimal with the current units and production system of the game. I've played quite a few games of DH and my only thought about it is that the benefit of splitting workers among more bases isn't drastic enough! Really? Because what I've heard mostly is that cheeses and all-ins are just stronger because 8 workers per base is pretty much optimal. That is incredibly false and misinformed. 8 workers are better than with Blizzard's economy, but it's still awful income compared to 16. The DH Open games had cheese and allins because that's kind of how most DH Opens tend to go.
Ok, guess I'm wrong about that. I haven't played DH but I've seen games and showmatches of it, and heard a lot of players talking about it. Didn't really like what they were saying nor I liked the showmatches, they felt like a bit slower HOTS to me.
I don't think that LOTV economy is great, but I don't think that DH is that good either. I have a feeling that a ton of players are bandwagoning DH mod without actually seeing what's happening and that it doesn't make much difference in the end compared to HOTS.
|
On June 16 2015 13:20 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On June 15 2015 20:10 [F_]aths wrote:
When an amateur suggests how to do something in which I have professional experience, it is in most cases wrong on so many levels. Even though it appears to be reasonable to other amateurs. They just don't know all the implications. That does not mean I consider myself brilliant or a mastermind. There is still a very, very large gap in the level of understanding an issue. Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 12:43 bo1b wrote:
and the simple fact is that for most of that time the community has not known what the kark is going on. And I am the definition of an amateur here, I don't get paid to do this. Let's see how my crazy ideas posted back in the HOTS Beta panned out... if I knew what the kark I was doing... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2-hots/378373-how-to-make-mech-and-stargate-play-viableOctober 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "Furthermore, when dropped from Medivacs Hellbats easily wipe out a mineral line in a few shots with it's wide arc of fire. Think pre-nerf Blue Flame Hellions!" July 11, 2013 - Patch 2.0.9: Hellbat attack damage decreased from 18 + 12 vs. light to 18. October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "The solution is reduce the cooldown of the Siege Tank from 3.00 to 2.25-2.50" November 11th, 2013 - Patch 2.0.12: Siege Mode attack period decreased from 3.0 to 2.8. October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "First, remove hardened shields" March 31 2015 - Patch 2.5.0 - Removed Hardened Shield Ability. Now I am not anything special, large parts of the community wanted these changes for long before I suggested them. It's just really sad it took Blizzard so long to catch on, and sad they had to try all their terrible ideas first. Blizzard has shown a clear inability to grasp and predict what will happen when they make changes. The Hellbat is by far my favorite example. They knew what happened with BFH, but they ignorantly repeated that, despite myself and many other amateurs in the community who saw that coming 10 miles away warning them. I specifically warned them 9 months before the patch came out nerfing the Hellbat that it would be BFH all over again.
Yes. And many other guys said other things. In the end, there is always someone who told so before. You proposed a lot which was not implemented, like bringing back the medic.
You overlook that the large bulk of the game actually works. Blizzard's team therefore must have an ability to grasp and predict. There are some things like the Thor, corruptor, or force field, which I think can be considered a failed design. The Thor was a request of the art team. The corruptor had different roles in the alpha and was not cut later when all was left was a rather boring air superiority unit. The force field sounds interesting on paper but creates new problems.
I still consider SC2 a real achievement. There is room to improve on of course. I have no doubt that you know how to improve the game for your needs. The dev team has to consider the entire user base however.
|
On June 16 2015 17:21 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 13:20 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 15 2015 20:10 [F_]aths wrote:
When an amateur suggests how to do something in which I have professional experience, it is in most cases wrong on so many levels. Even though it appears to be reasonable to other amateurs. They just don't know all the implications. That does not mean I consider myself brilliant or a mastermind. There is still a very, very large gap in the level of understanding an issue. On June 16 2015 12:43 bo1b wrote:
and the simple fact is that for most of that time the community has not known what the kark is going on. And I am the definition of an amateur here, I don't get paid to do this. Let's see how my crazy ideas posted back in the HOTS Beta panned out... if I knew what the kark I was doing... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2-hots/378373-how-to-make-mech-and-stargate-play-viableOctober 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "Furthermore, when dropped from Medivacs Hellbats easily wipe out a mineral line in a few shots with it's wide arc of fire. Think pre-nerf Blue Flame Hellions!" July 11, 2013 - Patch 2.0.9: Hellbat attack damage decreased from 18 + 12 vs. light to 18. October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "The solution is reduce the cooldown of the Siege Tank from 3.00 to 2.25-2.50" November 11th, 2013 - Patch 2.0.12: Siege Mode attack period decreased from 3.0 to 2.8. October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "First, remove hardened shields" March 31 2015 - Patch 2.5.0 - Removed Hardened Shield Ability. Now I am not anything special, large parts of the community wanted these changes for long before I suggested them. It's just really sad it took Blizzard so long to catch on, and sad they had to try all their terrible ideas first. Blizzard has shown a clear inability to grasp and predict what will happen when they make changes. The Hellbat is by far my favorite example. They knew what happened with BFH, but they ignorantly repeated that, despite myself and many other amateurs in the community who saw that coming 10 miles away warning them. I specifically warned them 9 months before the patch came out nerfing the Hellbat that it would be BFH all over again. Yes. And many other guys said other things. In the end, there is always someone who told so before. You proposed a lot which was not implemented, like bringing back the medic. You overlook that the large bulk of the game actually works. Blizzard's team therefore must have an ability to grasp and predict. There are some things like the Thor, corruptor, or force field, which I think can be considered a failed design. The Thor was a request of the art team. The corruptor had different roles in the alpha and was not cut later when all was left was a rather boring air superiority unit. The force field sounds interesting on paper but creates new problems. I still consider SC2 a real achievement. There is room to improve on of course. I have no doubt that you know how to improve the game for your needs. The dev team has to consider the entire user base however.
blord/infestor
rax before the depot
inferno pools
daedalus
swarm host mid game unit
4hellbat drops.
mine nerf will promote tank play vZ (my favorite one, show DKim is 100% clueless about his game)
14 range msc vision
All these things were blizzard decisions. All these things were stuff everyone with a decent understanding of the game would identify as bullshit. And it took months to correct it everytime.
Inferno pool will be played in the WCS final. And it's a shame.
|
First, there’s a common misconception that after all the money we made with Starcraft we’re planning to actually listen to the community to improve the game.
When we say the game will change with each patch, we’re referring to the big picture. Like bunker build times, having skills cost 25 mana more or less, stuff like this. When you compare Heart of the Swarm to the current state of Legacy of the Void, the changes are barely noticable. This means we stopped giving a fuck years ago, while concentrating on better cash cows like WoW with more docile communities.
Completely remaking the game with each patch is too much effort. What we’re saying is that we see no competition on the RTS market, and thus will only continue to iterate on changes like bunker build time with future patches, and these changes will have absolutely no impact on the game. We’re definitely saying we won’t be trying new, big things in the beta—we clearly stopped caring and will continue to do so.
But we need to spend a lot more time playing the newer Blizzard games like Heroes of the Storm. That shit is epic, you need some real "Micro" there. Although it may be more fun to only try crazy new things that would make the game good for a chance, that’s not the purpose of this beta. The purpose is to give the fake impression that we still care about the community.
|
ghosts are too expensive for this
|
With all of this arguing about who's the better, the community or the dev team, I wonder if we as the community haven't been sufficiently aggressive with testing out our own hypotheses. After all, we do have the tools for it; we can make DH models reality and turn zerglings into cute little critters, we rebuilt Brood War literally in campaign and spiritually in Starbow. With a bit of time finagling on the editor, one should be able to modify the game to their own specs to test out their own balance changes. Comparative to the prior, changing a few numbers should be cake.
Don't mistake it for meaning that the dev team is better at making good decisions affecting gameplay; I personally believe that they're really hit-or-miss at best, presuming as much on their own theorycrafting as we do on ours, given that we can only trust their enigmatic internal testing at face value, since often what they say becomes very incongruous with what actually happens when the meta--or even individual unit usage--develops. However, it is also true that, of the unpolished mass of posts on forums, most of it is tosh when it comes to being implicated as beneficial balance or design. Perhaps, just as much as the dev team needs to, we have to "show" our hand and not "tell", as we tried with the DH model.
|
On June 16 2015 21:05 Spect8rCraft wrote:
With all of this arguing about who's the better, the community or the dev team, I wonder if we as the community haven't been sufficiently aggressive with testing out our own hypotheses. After all, we do have the tools for it; we can make DH models reality and turn zerglings into cute little critters, we rebuilt Brood War literally in campaign and spiritually in Starbow. With a bit of time finagling on the editor, one should be able to modify the game to their own specs to test out their own balance changes. Comparative to the prior, changing a few numbers should be cake.
I agree. I always say its better to do things yourself instead of whining about why blizzard isnt doing things our way.
But I also had to find out that people really arent interested in playing an SC2 balance mod. People are suprisingly reluctant about trying new things.
|
On June 16 2015 23:45 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 21:05 Spect8rCraft wrote:
With all of this arguing about who's the better, the community or the dev team, I wonder if we as the community haven't been sufficiently aggressive with testing out our own hypotheses. After all, we do have the tools for it; we can make DH models reality and turn zerglings into cute little critters, we rebuilt Brood War literally in campaign and spiritually in Starbow. With a bit of time finagling on the editor, one should be able to modify the game to their own specs to test out their own balance changes. Comparative to the prior, changing a few numbers should be cake. I agree. I always say its better to do things yourself instead of whining about why blizzard isnt doing things our way. But I also had to find out that people really arent interested in playing an SC2 balance mod. People are suprisingly reluctant about trying new things.
Starbow?!
|
On June 17 2015 03:04 saddaromma wrote:
Starbow?!
Starbow what?
|
One change I would really like to see is for Blizzard to increase the supply cap to 250. This would make the game so much better.
|
On June 17 2015 04:44 Loccstana wrote:
One change I would really like to see is for Blizzard to increase the supply cap to 250. This would make the game so much better.
Agreed. Then we would see 250/250 deathballs dancing around instead of 200/200 deathballs.
More units = more explosions = more fun
|
On June 17 2015 06:16 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2015 04:44 Loccstana wrote:
One change I would really like to see is for Blizzard to increase the supply cap to 250. This would make the game so much better. Agreed. Then we would see 250/250 deathballs dancing around instead of 200/200 deathballs. More units = more explosions = more fun
You don't know how to articulate the argument you want to convey. Instead you're contradicting your point and making a weird sarcastic joke. In all serious fairness, 250/250 supply cap would not promote more deathballing but instead promote just spending money on slightly stronger timings. If you pay attention to high level sc2 players you'll notice that players tend to prefer timing attacks in 90% of cases. In each case when a player does not do some kind of timing attack, it's 5- 25 min into the game and it's only because they are being forced into that/ they can't get out of the situation fast enough.
Basically you end up wanting to fight as soon as strategically viable, which is whenever you have a clear enough upper hand / you can guestimate based on your experience, mechanics and scouting, etc.
|
The thing is, though, that there is not, nor has there ever really been, such a thing as a "community stance" on the game. There are lots of different people with lots of different likes and dislikes throwing out lots of different ideas, some of which are well thought out, some of which are stupid, and some of which are just random. Some of those complaints are more or less common, and some ideas and phrases just get picked up on and repeated over and over again by other people for not very good reasons. The SC2 community is not a dev team; it's a bunch of random people who all happen to play the same game, some of whom happen to follow esports, some of whom happen to post on the same forum, some of whom like to think analytically about the game, and some of whom get really mad whenever they lose and rage about balance.
That's not to say that some or even many of those people don't have real insights into the game and even really good suggestions. It's to say that TL is not some kind of giant genius level game design brain just waiting to take over from the bumbling development team and make the game absolutely perfect in every respect. TL is not a dev team, and it never will be. TL cannot design this game. The "community" cannot design this game, nor can it "fix" the game, either. Game design is really complicated and really hard, and it doesn't reduce to a few graphs that someone posted that one time, or to the little catchphrases that people like to toss around ("positional play"! "defender's advantage!"). It's really hard, which is why even professional game designers need, frankly, all the help they can get, including help from smart people in the community.
Look, I love this game, and I want it to be as good as it possibly can be. The best way I can think of for that to happen is for a positive, constructive dialogue to take place between the devs and smart, invested people in the community. And that dialogue simply cannot take place if every individual in the community thinks of himself as a genius who could do everything better himself, and would fix the game in a a heartbeat if the imbecilic, diabolically evil developers would just shut up and do everything he says. I do wish Blizzard would engage more frequently, more openly, and more in-depth with the community; but engagement has to go both ways, and as it stands now, I really think that the attitude of the community is one of the biggest things standing in the way of that. Take it or leave it.
|
On June 17 2015 06:16 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2015 04:44 Loccstana wrote:
One change I would really like to see is for Blizzard to increase the supply cap to 250. This would make the game so much better. Agreed. Then we would see 250/250 deathballs dancing around instead of 200/200 deathballs. More units = more explosions = more fun
With 250 supply, players can actually afford to spread out their army all over the map and take more than three mining bases. In other words, the game will be more like broodwar.
|
On June 17 2015 08:36 Captain Peabody wrote:
The thing is, though, that there is not, nor has there ever really been, such a thing as a "community stance" on the game. There are lots of different people with lots of different likes and dislikes throwing out lots of different ideas, some of which are well thought out, some of which are stupid, and some of which are just random. Some of those complaints are more or less common, and some ideas and phrases just get picked up on and repeated over and over again by other people for not very good reasons. The SC2 community is not a dev team; it's a bunch of random people who all happen to play the same game, some of whom happen to follow esports, some of whom happen to post on the same forum, some of whom like to think analytically about the game, and some of whom get really mad whenever they lose and rage about balance.
That's not to say that some or even many of those people don't have real insights into the game and even really good suggestions. It's to say that TL is not some kind of giant genius level game design brain just waiting to take over from the bumbling development team and make the game absolutely perfect in every respect. TL is not a dev team, and it never will be. TL cannot design this game. The "community" cannot design this game, nor can it "fix" the game, either. Game design is really complicated and really hard, and it doesn't reduce to a few graphs that someone posted that one time, or to the little catchphrases that people like to toss around ("positional play"! "defender's advantage!"). It's really hard, which is why even professional game designers need, frankly, all the help they can get, including help from smart people in the community.
Look, I love this game, and I want it to be as good as it possibly can be. The best way I can think of for that to happen is for a positive, constructive dialogue to take place between the devs and smart, invested people in the community. And that dialogue simply cannot take place if every individual in the community thinks of himself as a genius who could do everything better himself, and would fix the game in a a heartbeat if the imbecilic, diabolically evil developers would just shut up and do everything he says. I do wish Blizzard would engage more frequently, more openly, and more in-depth with the community; but engagement has to go both ways, and as it stands now, I really think that the attitude of the community is one of the biggest things standing in the way of that. Take it or leave it.
To say that the community as a whole is not a good dev team is a roundabout way of avoiding the facts that, one, it's ignoring the gems among the rough, and two, it's not mutually exclusive with the possibility that the dev team is not good at what they're doing. Modding communities have time and again produced works of art that rivaled the vanilla in which they were based, but even they sit amongst a pile of rubbish because most of it is, well, rubbish.
I don't want to say that the community is a bunch of geniuses, because most of us aren't. A lot of us are probably filthy casuals or balance whiners or fantasy leaguers or what have you. That still doesn't excuse what may be obviously bad game design presented by the dev team. It doesn't take a genius to realize the fact that infestors had way too much flexibility during the late WoL era once broodlord-infestor became prominent; it doesn't take a genius to realize that the old swarm hosts produced stalemate games, especially with the infamous Mana vs. Firecake, among others; it doesn't take a genius to realize the fact that Blizzard was really slow in tackling those issues at hand. People can argue whether Halo or Call of Duty is the better game, but all but the most deluded will agree that a broken disc is a bad one.
Blizzard simply has earned a lack of faith and trust through its roundabout ways of balancing, its bandaiding which feels more like a house of cards a lot of the time (I personally find a lot of the patches revolving around the mutalisk and the widow mine to be particularly stressful), and a history of not providing enough feedback to its audience. So of course we're gonna demand better feedback, and of course we're going to be skeptical about any actions they take; that shouldn't be surprising or even insulting for a company like them, it should be par for the course. People don't demand these things because they want to see the game fail, they do so because they want the game to succeed.
And I disagree that the community cannot fix the game or balance it or even design it. They most certainly have the capability to: we have the editor, we have the power, and we've at least tried and tried again with the likes of Starbow and Brood War mimics and DH models and Dota and so on. Players have created entire gametypes, if not games, on a whim. To say that the community can't do this is about as bad as a generalization as we (admittedly) accuse the dev team. Is game design complicated? Sure. But if a small dev team can make it work in a Blizzard office, why can't that enthusiasm hold true for a group of Starcraft aficionados?
|
You don't have to be an expert designer to tell that something feels wrong about the gameplay. And seemingly enough people share this opinion that it's unsettling the designers never addressed this.
That's the basic idea, it's not about the false dichotomy of whether the community or the developers should design the game, it has more to do with the fact so many people think something is off with the game yet Blizzard ignores them. They have a responsibility to make a good game, this should include listening to community concerns.
Another flawed idea is that either Blizzard should take in all feedback and suggestions and treat them all equally, so that they become overwhelmed with rubbish, or that they should continue insulating themselves. It is actually possible to filter through mud to find the gems, for instance they could start a dialogue with people that have a track record of providing good feedback. They don't just have to implement the top reddit posts directly into the game.
|
Does Blizz know and intend that Parasitic Bomb stacks? They are already nerfing the ability so it is cast less, but if they just made it not stack maybe they wouldn't need to nerf the cost to single cast status.
|
So they will keep the Adept as the 'solution' to Protoss gateway units being so weak in the early to mid game. This is one way to do it, not neccessarily bad per se, could actually be quite interesting. At least the bottom line is, Protoss will have an answer to 'weak gateway units early on'. It does open some possibilites for new units for Terran And Zerg to be added with the Adept inclusion. It may bring a more diverse early game composition to Protoss, but we have to see if that is actually true, or it goes the opposite way and no-one builds anything but Adepts early on - time will tell.
I dont like teh Disruptor at all. Too much luck is tied to it (whether the opponent is reacting correctly), the Colossus at least gives the Protoss player more control in deciding the damage delt. Colossus > Disruptor. Maybe the Colossus can get a Disruptor upgrade and be able to use a weaker version of the Disruptor to use, would create interesting battle dynamics. ie. Almost like a defense option when a Colossus is isolated by the enemy, instead of being instantly picked off, the Protoss player can dispatch mini-disruptors to aid the Colossus from being 100% sniped. As it is now, an isolated Colossus always gets picked off so easily.
|
On June 17 2015 12:38 Loccstana wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2015 06:16 Charoisaur wrote:On June 17 2015 04:44 Loccstana wrote:
One change I would really like to see is for Blizzard to increase the supply cap to 250. This would make the game so much better. Agreed. Then we would see 250/250 deathballs dancing around instead of 200/200 deathballs. More units = more explosions = more fun With 250 supply, players can actually afford to spread out their army all over the map and take more than three mining bases. In other words, the game will be more like broodwar.
I'm really not sure about that. The main reason we see so many deathballs is because it's the optimal way to play considering SC2 unit design and pathing ; and the main reason we don't see player taking more than 3 mining bases is because it is useless.
Assuming a 250 supply cap, why would you spread your army all over the map, while your opponent would then move his 250 supply deathball around, wrecking your small army parts spread on the map?
On June 17 2015 15:48 Grumbels wrote:
You don't have to be an expert designer to tell that something feels wrong about the gameplay. And seemingly enough people share this opinion that it's unsettling the designers never addressed this.
That's the basic idea, it's not about the false dichotomy of whether the community or the developers should design the game, it has more to do with the fact so many people think something is off with the game yet Blizzard ignores them. They have a responsibility to make a good game, this should include listening to community concerns.
Another flawed idea is that either Blizzard should take in all feedback and suggestions and treat them all equally, so that they become overwhelmed with rubbish, or that they should continue insulating themselves. It is actually possible to filter through mud to find the gems, for instance they could start a dialogue with people that have a track record of providing good feedback. They don't just have to implement the top reddit posts directly into the game.
I don't think they have the responsability to make a good game tbh. They just have the responsability to do is to make a game that sells.
|
interesting changes, but sadly no real change for protoss. I honestly hope they just want to fine tune zerg and terran before they sit down to rework protoss.
At the state theyre in now, they are not very interesting.
|
On June 17 2015 17:24 Parcelleus wrote:
I dont like teh Disruptor at all. Too much luck is tied to it (whether the opponent is reacting correctly), the Colossus at least gives the Protoss player more control in deciding the damage delt.
How is that luck?
That is the skill of your opponent and not luck. There is no luck involved in splitting your army. It is skill vs skill.
But the question is, does the protoss player need as much skill to use the Disruptor effectively as the enemy player needs to avoid its damage?
|
On June 17 2015 20:19 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2015 17:24 Parcelleus wrote:
I dont like teh Disruptor at all. Too much luck is tied to it (whether the opponent is reacting correctly), the Colossus at least gives the Protoss player more control in deciding the damage delt. How is that luck? That is the skill of your opponent and not luck. There is no luck involved in splitting your army. It is skill vs skill. But the question is, does the protoss player need as much skill to use the Disruptor effectively as the enemy player needs to avoid its damage?
Obviously landing a hit is quite easier than avoiding it. However, I think its relatively balanced, don't forget that even with the speed boost the Disruptor moves only at Stim speed (3.39) so you need constant attention, and the very high gas cost of the Disruptor + Friendly Fire makes it relatively difficult to land a GOOD hit to justify the potential loss of the Disruptor. It obviously depends of which units do you use it against. Because Disruptors suck bit vs bio, Stalkers just blink, Zerglings just move out, etc.. But obviously Roach/Hydras have a harder time when off-creep (so Disruptor acts there as a defensive unit).
Many units are easier to use and get damage out than to counter them, so it's not like it is gonna be the end of the world if it's a bit easier to use than to counter... I only see the problem of the movement system being too clump-friendly by default. They should test something about it, sligthtly increasing the Mixed Formation Value.
|
On June 17 2015 19:35 weikor wrote:
I honestly hope they just want to fine tune zerg and terran before they sit down to rework protoss.
Which would make no sense at all. How could you finetune Zerg and Terran when there are drastic changes to the ZvP and TvP matchups on the horizon due to a an upcoming protoss rework?
There won't be a rework, just fiddling with stats.
|
On June 17 2015 23:21 dust7 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2015 19:35 weikor wrote:
I honestly hope they just want to fine tune zerg and terran before they sit down to rework protoss. Which would make no sense at all. How could you finetune Zerg and Terran when there are drastic changes to the ZvP and TvP matchups on the horizon due to a an upcoming protoss rework? There won't be a rework, just fiddling with stats.
It's quite a shame that they don't get brave enough to rework a bit Protoss Macro, standarizing it, and just give Gateways the same build times as Warpgates for early game aggression instead of turtling.
Protoss has had the exclusive design of early game free macrobooster at a huge cost for the race. Weakest macrobooster (even if more versatile) and weakest production early game while having Warpgate placed at a tech level and costs that makes it very all-in friendly and considering its functionality.
They should look back at Pre-beta adjustements of Protoss Macro, since the last hour changes didn't go very well.
|
Obviously landing a hit is quite easier than avoiding it. However, I think its relatively balanced, don't forget that even with the speed boost the Disruptor moves only at Stim speed (3.39)
The Disruptor moves at 2.25 * 1.67 = 3.7575 (using old Blizzard-time units rather than real time) when activated, which is noticeably faster than stim bio.
|
On June 18 2015 00:34 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +Obviously landing a hit is quite easier than avoiding it. However, I think its relatively balanced, don't forget that even with the speed boost the Disruptor moves only at Stim speed (3.39) The Disruptor moves at 2.25 * 1.67 = 3.7575 (using old Blizzard-time units rather than real time) when activated, which is noticeably faster than stim bio.
Didn't they change it to 50% before release? If not, then I'm fooled, my bad.
I've been messing around with the Fan Mod to test some ideas and I saw 1.5, so maybe it's outdated or my mind just came up with it while I try to avoid studying (something that is very possible too XD)
Can anyone confirm it on game client plz?
|
Liquipedia still lists it as a 67% speed boost. Then again, it says it's light, so it may not be up to date in that respect. But that datamined client data when the beta was released said 67%, and I don't think any of the balance updates have changed that (or if they did, they haven't mentioned it).
|
On June 16 2015 18:31 sAsImre wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 17:21 [F_]aths wrote:On June 16 2015 13:20 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 15 2015 20:10 [F_]aths wrote:
When an amateur suggests how to do something in which I have professional experience, it is in most cases wrong on so many levels. Even though it appears to be reasonable to other amateurs. They just don't know all the implications. That does not mean I consider myself brilliant or a mastermind. There is still a very, very large gap in the level of understanding an issue. On June 16 2015 12:43 bo1b wrote:
and the simple fact is that for most of that time the community has not known what the kark is going on. And I am the definition of an amateur here, I don't get paid to do this. Let's see how my crazy ideas posted back in the HOTS Beta panned out... if I knew what the kark I was doing... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2-hots/378373-how-to-make-mech-and-stargate-play-viableOctober 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "Furthermore, when dropped from Medivacs Hellbats easily wipe out a mineral line in a few shots with it's wide arc of fire. Think pre-nerf Blue Flame Hellions!" July 11, 2013 - Patch 2.0.9: Hellbat attack damage decreased from 18 + 12 vs. light to 18. October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "The solution is reduce the cooldown of the Siege Tank from 3.00 to 2.25-2.50" November 11th, 2013 - Patch 2.0.12: Siege Mode attack period decreased from 3.0 to 2.8. October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "First, remove hardened shields" March 31 2015 - Patch 2.5.0 - Removed Hardened Shield Ability. Now I am not anything special, large parts of the community wanted these changes for long before I suggested them. It's just really sad it took Blizzard so long to catch on, and sad they had to try all their terrible ideas first. Blizzard has shown a clear inability to grasp and predict what will happen when they make changes. The Hellbat is by far my favorite example. They knew what happened with BFH, but they ignorantly repeated that, despite myself and many other amateurs in the community who saw that coming 10 miles away warning them. I specifically warned them 9 months before the patch came out nerfing the Hellbat that it would be BFH all over again. Yes. And many other guys said other things. In the end, there is always someone who told so before. You proposed a lot which was not implemented, like bringing back the medic. You overlook that the large bulk of the game actually works. Blizzard's team therefore must have an ability to grasp and predict. There are some things like the Thor, corruptor, or force field, which I think can be considered a failed design. The Thor was a request of the art team. The corruptor had different roles in the alpha and was not cut later when all was left was a rather boring air superiority unit. The force field sounds interesting on paper but creates new problems. I still consider SC2 a real achievement. There is room to improve on of course. I have no doubt that you know how to improve the game for your needs. The dev team has to consider the entire user base however. blord/infestor rax before the depot inferno pools daedalus swarm host mid game unit 4hellbat drops. mine nerf will promote tank play vZ (my favorite one, show DKim is 100% clueless about his game) 14 range msc vision All these things were blizzard decisions. All these things were stuff everyone with a decent understanding of the game would identify as bullshit. And it took months to correct it everytime. Inferno pool will be played in the WCS final. And it's a shame.
Please weigh those temporary miss steps versus the things the SC2 team did right.
|
On June 17 2015 17:56 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2015 15:48 Grumbels wrote:
You don't have to be an expert designer to tell that something feels wrong about the gameplay. And seemingly enough people share this opinion that it's unsettling the designers never addressed this.
That's the basic idea, it's not about the false dichotomy of whether the community or the developers should design the game, it has more to do with the fact so many people think something is off with the game yet Blizzard ignores them. They have a responsibility to make a good game, this should include listening to community concerns.
Another flawed idea is that either Blizzard should take in all feedback and suggestions and treat them all equally, so that they become overwhelmed with rubbish, or that they should continue insulating themselves. It is actually possible to filter through mud to find the gems, for instance they could start a dialogue with people that have a track record of providing good feedback. They don't just have to implement the top reddit posts directly into the game. I don't think they have the responsability to make a good game tbh. They just have the responsability to do is to make a game that sells.
Personally I don't really agree. On a purely formal level a corporation might be only accountable to its shareholders, but any organisation is still staffed by people that make promises to the customers and that need internal motivation and passion for work and so on. You could slog through the morass of utilitarian rationalizations to justify all such aspects as ways to increase productivity or to improve the company's reputation and so on, but this will get you lost as it's mostly an endless and quite futile endeavor. To me it seems simpler to just replace this with the rule that you have a responsibility to deliver a good product to the best of your abilities barring any serious obstructions. Game designers are not monsters, they can be expected to have ethics.
That is to say, I would understand if Blizzard can't commit to investing more resources into SC2 development because of obscure business reasons, that's their prerogative, but I at least expect them to still try.
|
On June 18 2015 06:24 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 18:31 sAsImre wrote:On June 16 2015 17:21 [F_]aths wrote:On June 16 2015 13:20 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 15 2015 20:10 [F_]aths wrote:
When an amateur suggests how to do something in which I have professional experience, it is in most cases wrong on so many levels. Even though it appears to be reasonable to other amateurs. They just don't know all the implications. That does not mean I consider myself brilliant or a mastermind. There is still a very, very large gap in the level of understanding an issue. On June 16 2015 12:43 bo1b wrote:
and the simple fact is that for most of that time the community has not known what the kark is going on. And I am the definition of an amateur here, I don't get paid to do this. Let's see how my crazy ideas posted back in the HOTS Beta panned out... if I knew what the kark I was doing... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2-hots/378373-how-to-make-mech-and-stargate-play-viableOctober 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "Furthermore, when dropped from Medivacs Hellbats easily wipe out a mineral line in a few shots with it's wide arc of fire. Think pre-nerf Blue Flame Hellions!" July 11, 2013 - Patch 2.0.9: Hellbat attack damage decreased from 18 + 12 vs. light to 18. October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "The solution is reduce the cooldown of the Siege Tank from 3.00 to 2.25-2.50" November 11th, 2013 - Patch 2.0.12: Siege Mode attack period decreased from 3.0 to 2.8. October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "First, remove hardened shields" March 31 2015 - Patch 2.5.0 - Removed Hardened Shield Ability. Now I am not anything special, large parts of the community wanted these changes for long before I suggested them. It's just really sad it took Blizzard so long to catch on, and sad they had to try all their terrible ideas first. Blizzard has shown a clear inability to grasp and predict what will happen when they make changes. The Hellbat is by far my favorite example. They knew what happened with BFH, but they ignorantly repeated that, despite myself and many other amateurs in the community who saw that coming 10 miles away warning them. I specifically warned them 9 months before the patch came out nerfing the Hellbat that it would be BFH all over again. Yes. And many other guys said other things. In the end, there is always someone who told so before. You proposed a lot which was not implemented, like bringing back the medic. You overlook that the large bulk of the game actually works. Blizzard's team therefore must have an ability to grasp and predict. There are some things like the Thor, corruptor, or force field, which I think can be considered a failed design. The Thor was a request of the art team. The corruptor had different roles in the alpha and was not cut later when all was left was a rather boring air superiority unit. The force field sounds interesting on paper but creates new problems. I still consider SC2 a real achievement. There is room to improve on of course. I have no doubt that you know how to improve the game for your needs. The dev team has to consider the entire user base however. blord/infestor rax before the depot inferno pools daedalus swarm host mid game unit 4hellbat drops. mine nerf will promote tank play vZ (my favorite one, show DKim is 100% clueless about his game) 14 range msc vision All these things were blizzard decisions. All these things were stuff everyone with a decent understanding of the game would identify as bullshit. And it took months to correct it everytime. Inferno pool will be played in the WCS final. And it's a shame. Please weigh those temporary miss steps versus the things the SC2 team did right.
The weights of wrongs typically outweigh the weights of the "not wrongs". It's not hard to see why that is, it's not hard to understand the negative implications of errors compared to the non-negative implications of non-errors, considering progamers, corporate interests, etc. Alleviating problems post-fact doesn't magically bring back that which was lost. Even if I were to use the term "positive" instead of "non-negative", the effect is still evident. In arbitrary math terms, a decrease of X% can easily undermine a number of increases of X%.
|
On June 16 2015 16:05 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +And I am the definition of an amateur here, I don't get paid to do this. Let's see how my crazy ideas posted back in the HOTS Well, let's see about that. Some quotes from the post you linked to: Show nested quote +Unfortunately the Tempest doesn't do it's job, and the Vortex remains the only effective method for stopping a late game Zerg army. Show nested quote +But why use the Carrier to counter Broodlords and not the Tempest? First, the Tempest simply doesn't have the DPS necessary to deal effectively with Broodlords, even with it's +30 damage upgrade
Let me first say, that you choose the quotes in an effort to highlight that I was wrong with my predictions. Let's explore them, because I was right. Remember I posted that in October, 2012.
Tempest didn't do their job of stopping the lategame Brood army because Zerg could mass Corrupters and overrun them, just like I said in post. And I said that Protoss needed something to deal with mass Corrupters as Vortex has been used for that in WOL. As I said in the article from October 2012:
Removing Vortex requires two things. First, you need a unit that can effectively battle Broodlords at long range, and second, you need a unit to deal with mass Corrupters.
I argued the Tempest did neither, and I was right.
And then Blizzard buffed the Void Ray to counter Corrupters.
Balance Update #8 - December 6th, 2012
Void Ray
Prismatic Beam:
No longer charges up.
Weapon period decreased from 0.6 to 0.5.
No longer does passive +massive damage.
Prismatic Alignment (new ability) increases damage to armored units by 6 for 20 seconds, with a 1 minute cooldown. This does not scale with upgrades.
Volia!
And then they buffed the Tempest, because as I said 2 months earlier, the because the DPS versus Broods wasn't close to being enough.
Balance Update #9 - December 13th, 2012
Tempest
Kinetic Overload weapon damage vs. Massive increased from 30 to 50.
The +massive damage bonus no longer requires an upgrade at the Fleet Beacon. (Done balance update #7)
Volia!
All you gotta do is check the patch notes. This isn't rocket science, it is basic game design. You can predict with a high degree of accuracy the effects of the change prior to said change being made. You can also see, with some thinking, what needs to be done in order to balance the game. If you've ever designed a game, you're able to see these things quickly.
But Blizzard isn't good at it. That's why I can sit here and predict what needs to happen and months later Blizzard comes flying in and makes the change that needed to happen from the start. Or they don't and we're left with the same problems for months on end...
...as we are today. Blizzard never committed to making Mech viable in PvT, so that is that. And because they never tried to seriously make Mech viable, I can't be blamed for my ideas being wrong. My ideas would have worked (probably). I know that, because I understand game design.
|
Medivacs are already pretty strong so it is likely not helpful to buff Bio through Medivac. They already polarize player behavior with their uber mobility.
Cyclone and Adept early game strength need to be toned down. Adept drops off in power as the game goes on, though. If gateway is to have any legitimacy, Protoss basics need to carry into the late game. I suggest focusing on making the Adept more DPS, less tank. Zealots can be the tank and Adepts can be the DPS. What went wrong with bounce upgrade again?
|
On June 18 2015 07:16 Spect8rCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 06:24 [F_]aths wrote:On June 16 2015 18:31 sAsImre wrote:On June 16 2015 17:21 [F_]aths wrote:On June 16 2015 13:20 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 15 2015 20:10 [F_]aths wrote:
When an amateur suggests how to do something in which I have professional experience, it is in most cases wrong on so many levels. Even though it appears to be reasonable to other amateurs. They just don't know all the implications. That does not mean I consider myself brilliant or a mastermind. There is still a very, very large gap in the level of understanding an issue. On June 16 2015 12:43 bo1b wrote:
and the simple fact is that for most of that time the community has not known what the kark is going on. And I am the definition of an amateur here, I don't get paid to do this. Let's see how my crazy ideas posted back in the HOTS Beta panned out... if I knew what the kark I was doing... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2-hots/378373-how-to-make-mech-and-stargate-play-viableOctober 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "Furthermore, when dropped from Medivacs Hellbats easily wipe out a mineral line in a few shots with it's wide arc of fire. Think pre-nerf Blue Flame Hellions!" July 11, 2013 - Patch 2.0.9: Hellbat attack damage decreased from 18 + 12 vs. light to 18. October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "The solution is reduce the cooldown of the Siege Tank from 3.00 to 2.25-2.50" November 11th, 2013 - Patch 2.0.12: Siege Mode attack period decreased from 3.0 to 2.8. October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "First, remove hardened shields" March 31 2015 - Patch 2.5.0 - Removed Hardened Shield Ability. Now I am not anything special, large parts of the community wanted these changes for long before I suggested them. It's just really sad it took Blizzard so long to catch on, and sad they had to try all their terrible ideas first. Blizzard has shown a clear inability to grasp and predict what will happen when they make changes. The Hellbat is by far my favorite example. They knew what happened with BFH, but they ignorantly repeated that, despite myself and many other amateurs in the community who saw that coming 10 miles away warning them. I specifically warned them 9 months before the patch came out nerfing the Hellbat that it would be BFH all over again. Yes. And many other guys said other things. In the end, there is always someone who told so before. You proposed a lot which was not implemented, like bringing back the medic. You overlook that the large bulk of the game actually works. Blizzard's team therefore must have an ability to grasp and predict. There are some things like the Thor, corruptor, or force field, which I think can be considered a failed design. The Thor was a request of the art team. The corruptor had different roles in the alpha and was not cut later when all was left was a rather boring air superiority unit. The force field sounds interesting on paper but creates new problems. I still consider SC2 a real achievement. There is room to improve on of course. I have no doubt that you know how to improve the game for your needs. The dev team has to consider the entire user base however. blord/infestor rax before the depot inferno pools daedalus swarm host mid game unit 4hellbat drops. mine nerf will promote tank play vZ (my favorite one, show DKim is 100% clueless about his game) 14 range msc vision All these things were blizzard decisions. All these things were stuff everyone with a decent understanding of the game would identify as bullshit. And it took months to correct it everytime. Inferno pool will be played in the WCS final. And it's a shame. Please weigh those temporary miss steps versus the things the SC2 team did right. The weights of wrongs typically outweigh the weights of the "not wrongs". It's not hard to see why that is, it's not hard to understand the negative implications of errors compared to the non-negative implications of non-errors, considering progamers, corporate interests, etc. Alleviating problems post-fact doesn't magically bring back that which was lost. Even if I were to use the term "positive" instead of "non-negative", the effect is still evident. In arbitrary math terms, a decrease of X% can easily undermine a number of increases of X%.
The SC2 dev team did not anything right, but I think they did enough right to earn some trust that when they try things which look wrong, that they have good reasons. It is too easy to point on some miss steps and act as if that proves something significant.
How to be innovative if your goal is to avoid any decision which could upset your userbase?
|
I am very glad that Zerg gets a possible way to drop. I also like the spore clawer change to bring Muta's back in ZvZ.
What i dont like is that they still try to balance the Ravager and from my tests it results that its impossible to do it, i will post my data on a new thread soon.
Medivac change would be great if its remplaces the boost, but if this is just another buff then i feel its OP, mainly cuz protoss would never be able to defend WM drops that unload that fast.
|
your Country52797 Posts
On June 18 2015 20:16 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote:
I am very glad that Zerg gets a possible way to drop. I also like the spre clawer change to bring Muta's back in ZvZ.
What i dont like is that they still try to balance the Ravager and from my tests it results that its impossible to do it, i will post my data on a new thread soon.
Medivac change would be great if its remplaces the boost but if this is just another buff then i feel its OP, mainly cuz protoss would never be able to defend WM drops that unload that fast.
Looking forward to that data. I'm sort of in agreement that we really don't need another reason for Terrans to go mine drops. They are already pretty common from what I've seen.
|
On June 18 2015 18:27 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 07:16 Spect8rCraft wrote:On June 18 2015 06:24 [F_]aths wrote:On June 16 2015 18:31 sAsImre wrote:On June 16 2015 17:21 [F_]aths wrote:On June 16 2015 13:20 BronzeKnee wrote:On June 15 2015 20:10 [F_]aths wrote:
When an amateur suggests how to do something in which I have professional experience, it is in most cases wrong on so many levels. Even though it appears to be reasonable to other amateurs. They just don't know all the implications. That does not mean I consider myself brilliant or a mastermind. There is still a very, very large gap in the level of understanding an issue. On June 16 2015 12:43 bo1b wrote:
and the simple fact is that for most of that time the community has not known what the kark is going on. And I am the definition of an amateur here, I don't get paid to do this. Let's see how my crazy ideas posted back in the HOTS Beta panned out... if I knew what the kark I was doing... http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2-hots/378373-how-to-make-mech-and-stargate-play-viableOctober 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "Furthermore, when dropped from Medivacs Hellbats easily wipe out a mineral line in a few shots with it's wide arc of fire. Think pre-nerf Blue Flame Hellions!" July 11, 2013 - Patch 2.0.9: Hellbat attack damage decreased from 18 + 12 vs. light to 18. October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "The solution is reduce the cooldown of the Siege Tank from 3.00 to 2.25-2.50" November 11th, 2013 - Patch 2.0.12: Siege Mode attack period decreased from 3.0 to 2.8. October 27 2012 - BronzeKnee: "First, remove hardened shields" March 31 2015 - Patch 2.5.0 - Removed Hardened Shield Ability. Now I am not anything special, large parts of the community wanted these changes for long before I suggested them. It's just really sad it took Blizzard so long to catch on, and sad they had to try all their terrible ideas first. Blizzard has shown a clear inability to grasp and predict what will happen when they make changes. The Hellbat is by far my favorite example. They knew what happened with BFH, but they ignorantly repeated that, despite myself and many other amateurs in the community who saw that coming 10 miles away warning them. I specifically warned them 9 months before the patch came out nerfing the Hellbat that it would be BFH all over again. Yes. And many other guys said other things. In the end, there is always someone who told so before. You proposed a lot which was not implemented, like bringing back the medic. You overlook that the large bulk of the game actually works. Blizzard's team therefore must have an ability to grasp and predict. There are some things like the Thor, corruptor, or force field, which I think can be considered a failed design. The Thor was a request of the art team. The corruptor had different roles in the alpha and was not cut later when all was left was a rather boring air superiority unit. The force field sounds interesting on paper but creates new problems. I still consider SC2 a real achievement. There is room to improve on of course. I have no doubt that you know how to improve the game for your needs. The dev team has to consider the entire user base however. blord/infestor rax before the depot inferno pools daedalus swarm host mid game unit 4hellbat drops. mine nerf will promote tank play vZ (my favorite one, show DKim is 100% clueless about his game) 14 range msc vision All these things were blizzard decisions. All these things were stuff everyone with a decent understanding of the game would identify as bullshit. And it took months to correct it everytime. Inferno pool will be played in the WCS final. And it's a shame. Please weigh those temporary miss steps versus the things the SC2 team did right. The weights of wrongs typically outweigh the weights of the "not wrongs". It's not hard to see why that is, it's not hard to understand the negative implications of errors compared to the non-negative implications of non-errors, considering progamers, corporate interests, etc. Alleviating problems post-fact doesn't magically bring back that which was lost. Even if I were to use the term "positive" instead of "non-negative", the effect is still evident. In arbitrary math terms, a decrease of X% can easily undermine a number of increases of X%. The SC2 dev team did not anything right, but I think they did enough right to earn some trust that when they try things which look wrong, that they have good reasons. It is too easy to point on some miss steps and act as if that proves something significant. How to be innovative if your goal is to avoid any decision which could upset your userbase?
The risks they take become our (well, mostly the progamer's) burden. Innovation does not provide one with impunity from criticism when the results don't fly. You don't even need to look at the actual terminology to see that; just look at the progamer dubbed Innovation. Say what you want about his mechanical micro and his infamous hellbat drops, but if at the end of the day he drops 3-4, he's lost, simple as that. Good efforts go to waste if the results are subpar.
There's also the glaring difference between trying new things and then actually implementing them to the beneficence or chagrin of players, whether they earn a living off of it or are just messing around.
|
On June 19 2015 00:15 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 20:16 ZergLingShepherd1 wrote:
I am very glad that Zerg gets a possible way to drop. I also like the spre clawer change to bring Muta's back in ZvZ.
What i dont like is that they still try to balance the Ravager and from my tests it results that its impossible to do it, i will post my data on a new thread soon.
Medivac change would be great if its remplaces the boost but if this is just another buff then i feel its OP, mainly cuz protoss would never be able to defend WM drops that unload that fast.
Looking forward to that data. I'm sort of in agreement that we really don't need another reason for Terrans to go mine drops. They are already pretty common from what I've seen.
Yes, pretty much Terran has all the tools right now, they just need some tweaks and a double ceck to see if anything is not broken in meta.
I got the Data for the Ravager, i just need to wait 3 days before i can make a topic.
Basically because Ravager is a morph of the Roach its a huge problem.
- the current cost of the Ravager is so high that is better of to get 2-3 roaches or simple 1 muta, its cost efficient and composition wise its just better to have more roach then just 1 ravager
( if the cost is lowered then mass ravager will happen and the ability will be spammed to much, if the ability also gets nerfed, the unit becomes pointless in dealing with FF or being a skill shot that has alot of possible ways to use )
- If they revert the nerf for the Ravager it becomes OP again, making all ins impossible to hold for Protoss at least.
- If the Ravager gets just 6 range its still not better then 2-3 roaches or 1 muta
( its hard to make a unit cost efficient, balanced and also keep it not massable )
Its a never ending cycle of either the unit being to powerful or just not worth getting it.
In my point of view i think Ravager should be removed, the ability transfered to the roach but only as upgrade that costs, takes time to research and if its to much, it could require Lair or it could make you choose between Roaches that can shoot Corrosive Bile or Roaches that can Burrow Move.
PS. I would be more focused on Zerg AA since it lacks alot until we get Parasitic Bomb, Scourge would be a good way to fix this AA problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
