|
On June 20 2015 08:46 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 08:26 Hider wrote: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
In regards to Tempest, I think they could use some even more micro-crippling mechanics to emphasize their role as a siege unit. Lowering their acceleration to be one third of their speed will mean that you have to deliberately position them as you would a Siege Tank to get the best use out of them. Slightly over 3 seconds to stop and fire, it would take, assuming you let them get up to maximum velocity.
I'd prefer Liberators be moved in the direction of greater microability. Lower the size, the cost, and the splash damage, and then maybe add a single target damage within their AtA attack, and I think you'll make it more similar to the maneuverable and exciting Corsair and less like the somewhat limited and sluggish Valkyrie.
While I disagree with you in regards to Roaches' damage point, I agree that it's important they maintain their tanky, slightly sluggish feel. Increasing the backswing in conjunction with lowering the damage point allows them to be more deftly microed, but it doesn't allow them to pick things off and retreat any more easily. Merely to reach the desired position and initiate the engagement. Especially with burrow tactics, I think this would increase their ability to pop up and get a shot in before getting smashed down by opposing units.
|
I keep saying this but I don't think it can be said enough, please add ladder. 
|
On June 20 2015 11:02 GGzerG wrote:I keep saying this but I don't think it can be said enough, please add ladder.
Did you read the post?
Due to the feedback we’ve seen on this topic, we’ve currently scheduled to enable ranked play in the beta with the next client patch.
|
On June 20 2015 11:02 GGzerG wrote:I keep saying this but I don't think it can be said enough, please add ladder.
You might want to try actually reading the post.
Ranked play in the beta
- We hear your feedback and agree that it’ll be good to enable ranked play.
- We may not be able to do this right away as we’ll need to introduce this with a client patch and can’t use the same method we use for the balance update which is done through publishing.
- Due to the feedback we’ve seen on this topic, we’ve currently scheduled to enable ranked play in the beta with the next client patch.
|
All I need is the rank ladder and a smoother server. Then I can start grinding games out.
I hope they keep disruptor as it is though, real fun and difficult to use
|
A few good notes in here, but I am still in the camp that overall Blizzard is approaching this whole thing horrendously.
The fact that they cannot see, or even bother to reply to, the inherent issues that currently exist with the economy model and the current state of Protoss gameplay is disheartening on so many levels.
They hype behind LotV is way lower than the hype around HotS. HotS was the game that was supposed to completely change the meta of BL Infest after months of stale, gross gameplay and it really riled up the community behind the changes in SC2.
This time around, LotV is taking forever to make reasonable changes, no one is taking the time to stream it because everything is so broken, no pro players are even bothering to practice, tournaments are, overall, pretty bad - people just log in for their matches and log back out - it's just bad.
A few people have been stating how negative many of us are being, but we simply expect so much more from a company that is attempting to state they support competitive gaming and even introduced a pro series for players which basically stream lined everything. The support for this, and the game itself, has been pretty awful the past year though. It's on the decline and from a player perspective I, and everyone from my time, have pretty much moved on from the competitive side of this game because of how either impossible it is to be a pro player now or the simple fact that even streaming is insanely hard to jump start in this community.
Blizzard really needs to look at what they're doing if they want to gain the respect and trust of their audience. Right now they're going in the way, way wrong direction :/
|
I don't really know what the community would want more. They're already the most open "big developer" I've seen.
Really liked that bit:
With a damage point of zero, a unit that is facing its target can immediately move away after being issued the attack order. With the default damage point, the player must instead time their movement to happen after the attack is performed. An example of where this is pushed even further is the Hellion, which has a higher than normal damage point. The unique timing required for this unit requires additional mastery, which makes it more impressive when pros are able to be so effective with them. Since the suggested goal of the change is to have more interesting micro, in this specific case, we wonder if what we currently have is more interesting micro than the proposed changes.
I really agree with this. I always felt in SC2 that cooldown timings had to be mastered, not that the game wasn't responsive enough.
Edit: I'm not sure about the possible disruptor change though. I'd really like the disruptor to remain a potential game changer, not a moving widow mine.
|
United States4883 Posts
Wow. Like really wow.
If these continue rolling in every week, my confidence in Dayvie, at least as an actual human being, might be restored.
Though he prolly hired a "ghost" writer HOHOHOHO
|
United States4883 Posts
On the actual topic though, I'll state a few thoughts:
1) "Just as an example, internally in design meetings we try our best to detach ourselves from every idea." This quote is beautiful when taken out of context  .
2) An example of where this is pushed even further is the Hellion, which has a higher than normal damage point. The unique timing required for this unit requires additional mastery, which makes it more impressive when pros are able to be so effective with them.
I'm confounded by the community which thinks that having extreme damage points and turning speeds of units makes the game "more complex" for micro interactions. This is a thought process that also comes through in the Dota 2 community, but I'm not sure why making things more awkward to control makes them somehow better. For instance, lings have a damage point of practically zero; they can attack, and then immediately change direction wherever they need to go; as a result, you have a lot of room for different micro techniques, including surrounds, semi-surround kiting, quick disengages, and micro tricks like running lings around mineral lines. Having a slight damage point creates some interesting interactions with kiting, but otherwise makes the unit clunky. Air units, and in particular vikings, mutas, and corruptors, all suffer from a clunkiness that is due to their damage points, and none of them really have very fascinating micro; in conclusion, the problem with their micro ability appears to have very little to do with their damage points.
3) Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm.
As far as the Double Harvest model goes, it is designed to be as close to HotS balance as possible to prevent having a complete balance overhaul. The models are not mutually exclusive, but I understand why the development team has steered clear of testing the DH model when they already have a working model that is meeting their goals nicely.
4) We’ve been trying various things in this area for a while now, but this is where we’re at right now:
Much lower radius (this is the biggest change + Disruptors look too underpowered right now in our testing)
Lower cost
Faster speed when activated
Less delay before firing
This is yet another moment where I question the competency of the developers. As we've seen in the past with other units that are difficult to balance (warhounds, shredders, swarm hosts, ravagers), it's not about changing numbers to make the unit work. If it is a well-designed unit, number adjustment should find a fairly huge middle ground; badly designed units become dominant or never used, "overpowered" or "underpowered".
All in all, I'm really glad to have more communication coming out from DK, and it's really nice to see that he's specifically targeting certain threads and addressing some of the ideas in them. However, there still feels like this weird disconnect between what the community actually wants and what Blizzard thinks the community wants at times...it's very puzzling.
|
Good posts by blizzard showing their attention to community, and I personally am happy with the changes made and the things that remain unchanged (battle time, resource model)
|
Canada13407 Posts
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach
|
On June 20 2015 13:02 ZeromuS wrote:
Now I just need to convince them to apply no worker pairing alongside a LotV approach
Yes!
|
I hope this response from DK will finally quiet down the outcry of "We want DH economy!"
Blizz said really nicely without offending anyone that so-called DH economy is a trash and they have internal testings to back it up. I wish TL were a bit more careful in causing a mindless uproar.
|
On June 20 2015 14:54 usethis2 wrote:
I hope this response from DK will finally quiet down the outcry of "We want DH economy!"
Blizz said really nicely without offending anyone that so-called DH economy is a trash and they have internal testings to back it up. I wish TL were a bit more careful in causing a mindless uproar.
Internal testing to back it up? Lol. I guess Daedalus 1.0, the queen patch or the mine nerf had internal testing to back them up too. They have a whole crowd of beta testers available, including pro players. If they really wanted to test DH, they have all the tool available. They just don't want to.
|
On June 20 2015 14:54 usethis2 wrote:
I hope this response from DK will finally quiet down the outcry of "We want DH economy!"
Blizz said really nicely without offending anyone that so-called DH economy is a trash and they have internal testings to back it up. I wish TL were a bit more careful in causing a mindless uproar.
But it's not trash! It's actually quite brilliantly designed and aesthetically pleasing. Have you played with it?
Try this. Spread 8x6 workers (8 workers on each base). Compare your mineral income to 16x3 (16 workers on each base). DH 3x3 WORKS! It accomplishes its major goal - allowing players to have more mineral income by spreading the same amount of drones around on more bases.
Now as to whether or not the difference is drastic enough - I think the income gains could be a bit higher. But having 55 drones on 6 bases give me more mineral income than 66 on 3 is pretty fucking awesome, and adds a dynamic that doesn't exist in HOTS, or LOTV.
|
On June 20 2015 15:34 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 14:54 usethis2 wrote:
I hope this response from DK will finally quiet down the outcry of "We want DH economy!"
Blizz said really nicely without offending anyone that so-called DH economy is a trash and they have internal testings to back it up. I wish TL were a bit more careful in causing a mindless uproar. Internal testing to back it up? Lol. I guess Daedalus 1.0, the queen patch or the mine nerf had internal testing to back them up too. They have a whole crowd of beta testers available, including pro players. If they really wanted to test DH, they have all the tool available. They just don't want to.
The queen patch was the single most important boon to the game, what are you talking about?
+ Show Spoiler +I'd never thought I'd say that, even as a joke.
|
I really agree with this. I always felt in SC2 that cooldown timings had to be mastered, not that the game wasn't responsive enough.
What are you thinking of? It's not hard at all to master attack cooldowns. The only effect of a damage point (when kiting) is that instead of moving back every X second you move back every X + "value of DP"-seconds. This is just something you need to get used to.
Having a slight damage point creates some interesting interactions with kiting, but otherwise makes the unit clunky. Air units, and in particular vikings, mutas, and corruptors, all suffer from a clunkiness that is due to their damage points, and none of them really have very fascinating micro; in conclusion, the problem with their micro ability appears to have very little to do with their damage points.
The reason the Hellion needs a damage point is so that it will take damage in the proces from speedlings, which it otherwis wouldn't as it kills Speedlings so fast with the splash damage. With the (0.25) damage point, you will instead have to position the injured Hellions in the back while kiting with the rest of your Hellions. This adds an extra element to the game.
But for all other units, the same effect can be accomplished by adjusting the range and movement speed of units while maintaining 0 damage point. Arguing that the Hydralisks, Immortal, Banshee or Oracle should have 0.167 DP becaue it makes them harder to master and using the Hellion as an example is very flawed logic.
|
On June 20 2015 15:43 Qwyn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2015 14:54 usethis2 wrote:
I hope this response from DK will finally quiet down the outcry of "We want DH economy!"
Blizz said really nicely without offending anyone that so-called DH economy is a trash and they have internal testings to back it up. I wish TL were a bit more careful in causing a mindless uproar. But it's not trash! It's actually quite brilliantly designed and aesthetically pleasing. Have you played with it? Try this. Spread 8x6 workers (8 workers on each base). Compare your mineral income to 16x3 (16 workers on each base). DH 3x3 WORKS! It accomplishes its major goal - allowing players to have more mineral income by spreading the same amount of drones around on more bases. Now as to whether or not the difference is drastic enough - I think the income gains could be a bit higher. But having 55 drones on 6 bases give me more mineral income than 66 on 3 is pretty fucking awesome, and adds a dynamic that doesn't exist in HOTS, or LOTV.
I think for some the concept is maybe hard to understand, I really can't think of another reason why someone would shit on the idea.
Maybe players that don't like DH are typically turtle style players that are really happy with a 3 base cap? Idk. The funny thing is that DH would work just fine for them as well. I can't see a style of play that DH cripples... It just seems to open more options in the game.
I still have yet to hear one person properly explain the "pitfalls" of a DH economy. So please, anyone enlighten me... ?
On June 20 2015 12:45 SC2John wrote:3) Show nested quote +Just to reiterate once more, we’re not looking to make minor tweaks in this area. We’re looking for a big change that will make sure that players will spread out their expansions at a much faster rate than they do in Heart of the Swarm. As far as the Double Harvest model goes, it is designed to be as close to HotS balance as possible to prevent having a complete balance overhaul. The models are not mutually exclusive, but I understand why the development team has steered clear of testing the DH model when they already have a working model that is meeting their goals nicely.
I'm confused why you didn't advocate for a joining of the two models?
|
But for all other units, the same effect can be accomplished by adjusting the range and movement speed of units while maintaining 0 damage point. Arguing that the Hydralisks, Immortal, Banshee or Oracle should have 0.167 DP becaue it makes them harder to master and using the Hellion as an example is very flawed logic.
Lets say u add 0 damage point to all units. And now you adjust the range and movementspeed.
This could backfire(?)
The movementspeed increase and range increase could maybe work in relation to lets say hellion vs ling but the ling might go out of hand vs other units.
Feels like it would be hard to find a general good solution here, adding damage point and backswings makes this alot easier.
|
On June 20 2015 17:31 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +I really agree with this. I always felt in SC2 that cooldown timings had to be mastered, not that the game wasn't responsive enough. What are you thinking of? It's not hard at all to master attack cooldowns. The only effect of a damage point (when kiting) is that instead of moving back every X second you move back every X + "value of DP"-seconds. This is just something you need to get used to. Show nested quote +
Having a slight damage point creates some interesting interactions with kiting, but otherwise makes the unit clunky. Air units, and in particular vikings, mutas, and corruptors, all suffer from a clunkiness that is due to their damage points, and none of them really have very fascinating micro; in conclusion, the problem with their micro ability appears to have very little to do with their damage points.
His example of the Hellion shows that David Kim doesn't actually understand the consequences of a damage point very well. The reason the Hellion needs a damage point is so that it will take damage in the proces from speedlings which adds an extra element into the game. To be more specific, you will try to move the injured Hellion to the backline in order for it to avoid taking damage. But for all other units, the same effect can be accomplished by adjusting the range and movement speed of units while maintaining 0 damage point. Arguing that the Hydralisks, Immortal, Banshee or Oracle should have 0.167 DP becaue it makes them harder to master and using the Hellion as an example is very flawed logic.
I also think that the examples and arguments brought by DK are very poor. Sad to hear that arguments from the lead game designer.
However I don't think it is bad to have some damage points, as it helps to balance the speed - range - exposition time trinomium. It works well for some units but it makes other units feel kinda stupid. I think that on air units, damage point is really bad since air units are acceleration-based, meaning that after attacking with a DP they get slow and need to reaccelerate since the default attack method of air units is gliding (slowing). But ground units don't accelerate, they always move at full speed. So it's different cases.
I think the most ignored aspect of damage point is how it helps bringing exposition times for the unit to be damaged while maintaining some qualities of the unit (speed and range) intact, and prevents infinite damage-free kiting. Speed factor is specially important because it also dictates the defensive strength on retreat, since damage points give you time to scape. For example, you can nerf Stalker speed a bit and remove damage point, but then you will make stalkers even worse at retreating against roaches. And then there is a ton of problems asociated to the strength of meele units vs kitings. As most damage points are standard, you will need to apply an standard factor to speed/range of the units. would it change much? It would change a lot of dynamics, since for example damage point helps balancing the strength of stalker kiting early game vs marines .
For example, Hellions are very good at scaping because of the high speed, but they get very exposed to Zerglings when attacking because of the damage point. If you remove the damage point of Hellions, they will become easy to chase and even easier to kill, and if you reduce the range, the attack method of Hellions would need a ton of rebalance. Same applies to Stalkers, since with their high speed and range they could kite and move-shot
It is also important on drop techniques, since 0 damage point Immortal would just fire instantly, so with optimal micro you can't even damage immortals. If the Siege tank had 0.5 damage point with animation (charging the cannon) the SiegeTank-medivac thing would feel weaker.
Damage points/Backswings/animation delays are part of a ton of games and creates some dynamics. Reducing all of them to 0 except the Hellion's is not going to solve much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
