|
On June 20 2015 03:43 digmouse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 03:35 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I'm very critical about the game but i have to say once more that the way Blizzard acts in regards to SC2 since LOTV is 100x better then ever before. If we had this kind of communication and vision since the beginning we would have had a much better game and most likely a different landscape.
I guess that no matter how good the current team is it's impossible to fix all the inherited problems. They act fast because of recent backlashes. Also are they really thinking the current resource system is doing a good job?
I did not forget the times when we gave feedback about terrible hard counters and the response we got was "go play BW";
Or when the game was genuinely dying due to terrible gameplay after a certain change and the response was "queen change best change we ever made".
Or when after we rejected the stupid mech of bio 2.0 Warhaound, they did not move a muscle afterwards in a move that said "you don't like it? You get nothing then"
I could go on and on how some people in charge of SC2 were not just not listening, but were showing contempt to the community backlash. He was a likeable guy though so who cares a?
|
On June 20 2015 06:09 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 03:43 digmouse wrote:On June 20 2015 03:35 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I'm very critical about the game but i have to say once more that the way Blizzard acts in regards to SC2 since LOTV is 100x better then ever before. If we had this kind of communication and vision since the beginning we would have had a much better game and most likely a different landscape.
I guess that no matter how good the current team is it's impossible to fix all the inherited problems. They act fast because of recent backlashes. Also are they really thinking the current resource system is doing a good job? I did not forget the times when we gave feedback about terrible hard counters and the response we got was " go play BW"; Or when the game was genuinely dying due to terrible gameplay after a certain change and the response was " queen change best change we ever made". Or when after we rejected the stupid mech of bio 2.0 Warhaound, they did not move a muscle afterwards in a move that said " you don't like it? You get nothing then" I could go on and on how some people in charge of SC2 were not just not listening, but were showing contempt to the community backlash. He was a likeable guy though so who cares a?
Yeah he has really improved.
Community: bio is not viable in tvz -> DK nerfs mech into the ground
Community: we don't like hardcounters -> DK buffs ultras so hard they make bio completely useless
Community: we don't want more and more MOBA like abilities -> DK gives ghosts a new spell with the sole purpose of countering ultras
Community: We don't like the new economy -> DK: but I do and that's what matters.
|
On June 20 2015 06:25 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 06:09 Sapphire.lux wrote:On June 20 2015 03:43 digmouse wrote:On June 20 2015 03:35 Sapphire.lux wrote:
I'm very critical about the game but i have to say once more that the way Blizzard acts in regards to SC2 since LOTV is 100x better then ever before. If we had this kind of communication and vision since the beginning we would have had a much better game and most likely a different landscape.
I guess that no matter how good the current team is it's impossible to fix all the inherited problems. They act fast because of recent backlashes. Also are they really thinking the current resource system is doing a good job? I did not forget the times when we gave feedback about terrible hard counters and the response we got was " go play BW"; Or when the game was genuinely dying due to terrible gameplay after a certain change and the response was " queen change best change we ever made". Or when after we rejected the stupid mech of bio 2.0 Warhaound, they did not move a muscle afterwards in a move that said " you don't like it? You get nothing then" I could go on and on how some people in charge of SC2 were not just not listening, but were showing contempt to the community backlash. He was a likeable guy though so who cares a? Yeah he has really improved. Community: bio is not viable in tvz -> DK nerfs mech into the ground Community: we don't like hardcounters -> DK buffs ultras so hard they make bio completely useless Community: we don't want more and more MOBA like abilities -> DK gives ghosts a new spell with the sole purpose of countering ultras Community: We don't like the new economy -> DK: but I do and that's what matters.
I agree on the point that they seem to be to much influenced by MOBAS and have developed a fascination with active abilities. This is a bit ironic considering that whenever they talk about good SC2 micro they give the example of Marine--Baneling: something based on control and not special ability.
Mech has not been nerfed in to the ground IMO. It's still an unknown quantity at this point; the Immortal, SH, Colossus nerf is a very good move. I think that Tanks are underpowered and it's silly to balance mech around OP Hellbats and probably Liberators...but Blizz does not want strong Tanks, it is what it is, sadly.
My problem with the eco change is that they don't openly test the community suggestion but hide behind the "internal testing". Maybe Blizzards way is the better way, but it be nice to actually compare.
|
I don't agree with some of the specific changes that they've outlined for Disruptors. I'd much rather see a damage reduction than a splash radius reduction, and I'd much rather see a slight increase of time in nova form, rather than decrease. I like the buffed speed and lowered cost though.
|
So the new econ is doing a fine job.
Really.
I guess if they tell it at every feedback update I'll start to believe it eventually.
|
I think the LOTV model is certainly better than the HOTS resource model, but I am still of the opinion that both of them lack depth, compared to alternatives. I would like resource/economy to be a variable again. In the game as it currently is, economic decisions are pretty static.
Glad to see that the team addressed almost all the concerns I had ahahaha. Good stuff!
|
On June 20 2015 06:55 OtherWorld wrote:
So the new econ is doing a fine job.
Really.
I guess if they tell it at every feedback update I'll start to believe it eventually.
They really are trying to squash the DH idea as best they can. The only problem is the new economy is a nerf to slow armies, which is all protoss is. It also doesn't improve the economy in any fashion. It just makes expanding faster. There is still a 3 base cap and you can still turtle to some degree and there are still cheese builds. I don't know why they don't combine them to some degree if they really want more change. Say, DH model with 8 workers at start (for max efficiency on 1 base) and 100%/70 % minerals (70% instead of the current 60% to compensate for the slightly faster mining out that occurs naturally with DH).
|
On June 20 2015 07:06 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 06:55 OtherWorld wrote:
So the new econ is doing a fine job.
Really.
I guess if they tell it at every feedback update I'll start to believe it eventually. They really are trying to squash the DH idea as best they can. The only problem is the new economy is a nerf to slow armies, which is all protoss is. It also doesn't improve the economy in any fashion. It just makes expanding faster. There is still a 3 base cap and you can still turtle to some degree and there are still cheese builds. I don't know why they don't combine them to some degree if they really want more change. Say, DH model with 8 workers at start (for max efficiency on 1 base) and 100%/70 % minerals (70% instead of the current 60% to compensate for the slightly faster mining out that occurs naturally with DH).
Yeah, for some reason they are hating DH with passion while it can very well be combined with what they try to achieve. Hell, DH even gives us a faster early game, which was one of their main objectives with LotV /:
|
Has there been any testing of using the DH model in tandem with the 12 workers start or the 100/60 patch?
|
On June 20 2015 07:13 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 07:06 StasisField wrote:On June 20 2015 06:55 OtherWorld wrote:
So the new econ is doing a fine job.
Really.
I guess if they tell it at every feedback update I'll start to believe it eventually. They really are trying to squash the DH idea as best they can. The only problem is the new economy is a nerf to slow armies, which is all protoss is. It also doesn't improve the economy in any fashion. It just makes expanding faster. There is still a 3 base cap and you can still turtle to some degree and there are still cheese builds. I don't know why they don't combine them to some degree if they really want more change. Say, DH model with 8 workers at start (for max efficiency on 1 base) and 100%/70 % minerals (70% instead of the current 60% to compensate for the slightly faster mining out that occurs naturally with DH). Yeah, for some reason they are hating DH with passion while it can very well be combined with what they try to achieve. Hell, DH even gives us a faster early game, which was one of their main objectives with LotV /:
Yeah :\ it seems like combining the two, with what they both have to offer and with what Blizzard has in mind, would be the best approach, but with how much Blizzard keeps dismissing it, I doubt we'll ever see it unless someone develops a mod for it. Then, Blizzard might consider the idea.
|
On June 20 2015 07:21 Spect8rCraft wrote:
Has there been any testing of using the DH model in tandem with the 12 workers start or the 100/60 patch?
I would love to see that.
|
This update, just the simple fact for engaging with the community and making rational arguments, is the best thing that has happened since the beta began.
There might well be some small ray of sunshine, of hope, for LotV after all.
|
Now THAT'S a lot better
See David, wasn't that hard was it?
|
On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
[list][*]One of the reasons we don’t have a default damage point of zero is so that the timing of micro has to be mastered by players. Just making it zero will mean microing is just much easier, which is probably not the direction we want to go.
Not specifically in relation to air units, but most units have a damage point of I think .167, whereas Marines have a damage point of .112, if I recall. A simple change that could improve the responsiveness of units in general would be to lower the damage point of all units that are currently at .167 to .112, and to lower Marines' damage point by the same amount, bringing them to .057 seconds of HotS gametime. If units prove to be too maneuverable, some specific units (Roaches and Immortals both come to mind) could be give +.057 to their backswing time. This would give those slightly bulkier, less maneuverable units the same total time spent attacking, but they'd still fire their shot at an earlier point in time, and therefore be less likely to have their damage entirely canceled by slightly earlier pulling back.
|
On June 20 2015 08:19 Pontius Pirate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
[list][*]One of the reasons we don’t have a default damage point of zero is so that the timing of micro has to be mastered by players. Just making it zero will mean microing is just much easier, which is probably not the direction we want to go. Not specifically in relation to air units, but most units have a damage point of I think .167, whereas Marines have a damage point of .112, if I recall. A simple change that could improve the responsiveness of units in general would be to lower the damage point of all units that are currently at .167 to .112, and to lower Marines' damage point by the same amount, bringing them to .057 seconds of HotS gametime. If units prove to be too maneuverable, some specific units (Roaches and Immortals both come to mind) could be give +.057 to their backswing time. This would give those slightly bulkier, less maneuverable units the same total time spent attacking, but they'd still fire their shot at an earlier point in time, and therefore be less likely to have their damage entirely canceled by slightly earlier pulling back.
The only noticeable balance consequence of 0 damage point is that units with a range advantage receive a buff. As a consequence melee units must be faster. You can easily give all ranged units 0 damage point (except hellion) with these changes. This is a huge quality of life change and its also nonsense that different damage point makes the game harder to master. It takes like 2 mins to get used to a damage point. That's a learning thing, not something that needs to be mastered.
|
On June 20 2015 07:31 ShambhalaWar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 07:21 Spect8rCraft wrote:
Has there been any testing of using the DH model in tandem with the 12 workers start or the 100/60 patch? I would love to see that.
There hasn't been, unfortunately. I remember a poster involved with the DH model stating that if DH and LotV were to co-exist, the main bases would likely have to all have 1500 mineral patches, so that DH could achieve its stated goals of reducing the super early game pressure to expand, while still providing an economic benefit for players who can take and hold larger numbers of bases with fewer workers than their opponent.
|
On June 20 2015 08:26 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 08:19 Pontius Pirate wrote:On June 20 2015 03:08 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
[list][*]One of the reasons we don’t have a default damage point of zero is so that the timing of micro has to be mastered by players. Just making it zero will mean microing is just much easier, which is probably not the direction we want to go. Not specifically in relation to air units, but most units have a damage point of I think .167, whereas Marines have a damage point of .112, if I recall. A simple change that could improve the responsiveness of units in general would be to lower the damage point of all units that are currently at .167 to .112, and to lower Marines' damage point by the same amount, bringing them to .057 seconds of HotS gametime. If units prove to be too maneuverable, some specific units (Roaches and Immortals both come to mind) could be give +.057 to their backswing time. This would give those slightly bulkier, less maneuverable units the same total time spent attacking, but they'd still fire their shot at an earlier point in time, and therefore be less likely to have their damage entirely canceled by slightly earlier pulling back. The only noticeable balance consequence of 0 damage point is that units with a range advantage receive a buff. As a consequence melee units must be faster. You can easily give all ranged units 0 damage point (except hellion) with these changes. This is a huge quality of life change and its also nonsense that different damage point makes the game harder to master. It takes like 2 mins to get used to a damage point. That's a learning thing, not something that needs to be mastered.
Not only hellions, some units that I think would need to keep their damage point besides hellions would be:
Banshee (I think micro is in a good spot)
Hellbat
Tank (as long as turret tracking gets implemented)
Stalker (because of range)
Immortal
Colossus
Queens
Roaches
Broodlords
Plus unit I'm unsure of:
Thor (this unit is a design mess anyway)
Ghost (they have a high damage attack so I'm not sure how this will affect them)
Liberator (to soon to see but could be cool with other changes, albeit I'm not a fan of the unit
Void ray (what can I say about this one, a unit as worst as the thor in the design department)
Tempest (another ugh unit but whatever)
Ultra (I think that they could use a damage point reduction and speed increase instead of the armor buff, but I remember reading somewhere why this wasn't the case, so its up to discussion)
All my personal opinion, also I may skipped some units where this is the case, I don't know what other people think
|
Not only hellions, some units that I think would need to keep their damage point besides hellions would be:
You "think", but I tested every single interaction at 0 damage point. The only interaction that cannot easily be balanced through faster melee units is the Hellion (since it will be able to kill infinitive Speedlings).
Honestly all of the units you mention make no sense. Some of them would barely be affected, e.g. Hellbats, Immortals and Colosus since they are so slow anyway, but they are going to feel a ton better would 0 damage point. Being able to attack and move back rewards "movement micro" and is a ton more fun than "attack and stand still".
|
Go David, its yo Birthday! This rocks, great feedback, awesome changes. Better movement control is what made me happy.
|
Blizzard: "We do listen to users.
Their impotent wails of despair gives us sustenance."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
